Iain Murray, Ph.D. College of Management & Economics School of Hospitality and Tourism Management University of Guelph
Culinary Tourism: Segment or Figment?
Abstract
The excitement of “culinary tourism”, as a new and potentially lucrative tourism product, has generated a myriad of definitions for both “culinary tourism” and “culinary tourist”. In addition, it has spawned a confusing array of related terms such as cuisine tourism, food and beverage tourism, gastronomy tourism, culinary enthusiast, and culinary traveller. Researchers have, as expected, identified culinary tourists and segmented the market by typical demographic, psychographic, and other characteristics. The
researchers then compare these so-called culinary tourists to all other tourists. The premise of this paper is that the current lack of agreement on how to define a culinary tourist, and the rather weak definitions that are used, results in misleading information. This may in turn lead to potentially poor decisions being made by tourism planners and operators.
Iain Murray, Ph.D. College of Management & Economics School of Hospitality and Tourism Management University of Guelph
Culinary Tourism: Segment or Figment?
“…every tourist is a voyeuring gourmand…”
(Lacy and Douglass 2008:2 as cited in Cohen and Avieli 2004)
Introduction
In researching and writing this paper, the expression “a statistician is someone who can draw a straight line between an unwarranted assumption and a forgone conclusion” (source unknown) came to mind. This paper will argue that the terms “culinary tourism” and “culinary tourist” are being used in ways that are misleading and, as a result, could result in inappropriate decisions being made by tourism planners and operators. Supporting this argument is the plethora of related terms such as “culinary enthusiast” (Canadian Tourism Commission), cuisine travellers, culinary travellers, food travellers, (Ignatov, 2003), winos, and foodies, (Stewart, Bramble, and Ziraldo, 2008) to note a few. Additionally, this paper will raise questions about how culinary tourists have been segmented and whether or not the segmentation approaches to date have been helpful.
Research into tourism has exploded in recent years as the travel of individuals has been widely recognized as the world’s largest industry. Jurisdictions the world over see tourism as a means of rejuvenating stagnating economies and assisting with international balance of payments issues. Among the many ‘segments’ of tourism that have emerged (spa tourism, cruise tourism, movie/film-induced tourism, sport tourism, to name just a few), culinary tourism is perhaps one of the terms most misused. Given the relatively recent emergence of this segment however, it is appropriate at this juncture to examine culinary tourism more closely, and to give careful consideration to what is being done to understand culinary tourism, culinary tourists, and the myriad terms associated with this ‘segment’.
In recent years, much has been written suggesting that culinary tourism is an important and growing “niche” (Wolfe, 2006 pp. iii and ix) or “product” (Denault, 2002). Some have even referred to it as an “industry” (“the wine/culinary tourism industry” (Stewart et al, 2008)). There is a lot of excitement surrounding culinary tourism. Jurisdictions from country-size to small regions are looking at ways to boost tourism revenues through developing culinary tourism. Canada, and the Canadian province of Ontario, are but two examples of such, and they are far from alone. Typically, once culinary tourism has been identified as a potential avenue to pursue, the natural tendency is to identify the market, and that leads immediately to segmentation (see Ignatov, 2003; Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015).
Culinary Tourism
The culinary tourism landscape is littered with confusing terms that may or may not have different meanings. The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC), considered by some to be at the forefront of researching culinary tourism, uses several terms: “wine and culinary
enthusiasts” (U.S. Wine & Culinary Enthusiasts; Canadian Wine and Culinary Enthusiasts), “cuisine tourism” (Acquiring a Taste for Cuisine Tourism), and “culinary tourism” (How-to guide: Develop a culinary tourism product). Hjalager and Richards (2002) discuss “food tourism”, “food and wine tourism”, “food and beverage tourism”, and “gastronomy tourism”. Ignatov (2003) refers to “cuisine travel”, “cuisine travellers”, “culinary travellers”, “food travelers”, “wine travellers”, and “food and wine travellers”.
Given the relative newness of the concept of culinary tourism, this plethora of terms and the resulting confusion is understandable and, indeed, not a bad thing as it is pushing the examination of this tourism product forward. What is needed now however, is clarification in order that planning decisions not be made with ill-defined or inappropriate information.
While “culinary tourism” is an attractive term, it suggests that travelers are making a trip with the main purpose being to take in culinary activities. Lucy Long, who is credited with
coining the term, intended it to be so as she wrote: “I define culinary tourism as the
intentional, exploratory participation in the foodways of an other - participation including the consumption, preparation and presentation of a food item, cuisine, meal system, or eating
style considered to belong to a culinary system not one’s own.” “Exploration and intentionality define these instances as tourism” (Long, L., 2004, Culinary Tourism. The University of Kentucky Press, p. 21). It would seem then, that as first conceived, intentional is a key component of the definition of culinary tourism.
Wolfe (2006) stated that “…food and drink are the most overlooked components of the travel experience, and I am convinced they still offer the greatest potential for further development in the global tourism industry”. Evidence would suggest that many share his view. The ensuing excitement to develop the food and drink components of tourism, has led to “dozens of definitions and interpretations… throughout the world” (Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p.11). In developing their definition, Ontario stakeholders suggested definitions including:
• Travel that includes the appreciation and consumption of local/regional foods
• Travel for the primary purpose of experiencing and enjoying food and beverages or to attend culinary-specific activities such as cooking schools, visiting a food or beverage production/processing site, a farmer’s [sic] market, or a ‘taste trail’
• Unique dining and beverage experiences
(Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p.11).
It is insightful to note the difference in these first and second points - the first merely “includes”, whereas the second requires a “primary purpose”. When pressed further, these Ontario stakeholders suggested that key characteristics of defining culinary tourism included “purchasing [food and beverage items] to take home”.
Ultimately, Ontario proposed that their definition of culinary tourism be:
• “Culinary tourism includes any tourism experience in which one learns about, appreciates, and/or consumes food and drink that reflects the local, regional, and national cuisine, heritage, culture, tradition, or culinary techniques.”
This proposed definition does not include any notion of “intentionality” nor “primary purpose”.
Wolfe proposed that “Culinary Tourism is the development and promotion of prepared food/drink as an attraction for visitors” (Wolfe, 2006 p. ix). The word “attraction” probably is not strong enough: a hungry tourist will be attracted to food simply to satisfy his hunger. He may even deliberately select familiar (comfort?) food (perhaps branded QSR) if he is in a foreign country.
The Economic Planning Group of Canada stated that “Wine/culinary tourism is tourism in which the opportunity for wine and/or culinary related experiences contributes significantly to the reason for travel to the destination or itinerary planning while at the destination” (Economic Planning Group of Canada as cited in Stewart et al, p. 1). With this definition we are seeing at least some degree of intentionality in going to a specific destination.
It is not uncommon to see reports such as “…tourism accounts for 22% of all foodservice sales in Canada – valued at 6.1 billion [dollars]” (Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p. 24) in support of the importance of culinary tourism. The problem is that such a statistic includes all foodservice sales, including those from QSRs, and run-of-the mill chain or independent restaurants that may hold little or no interest to a true culinary aficionado. Clearly, some tourists contribute to foodservice sales simply to satisfy hunger. To report a total number is of little or no value in the pursuit of understanding culinary tourism and culinary tourists.
The Culinary Tourist
It is in defining the culinary tourist that the confusion really begins, and this confusion is then transferred to the concept of culinary tourism.
Wolfe stated that if you have “ever driven an hour or two just to try a new restaurant”, or have “found yourself lost in the aisles of a foreign grocery store while overseas”, or have scheduled a vacation around food festivals or seasonal fruits or vegetables, then you are
probably a culinary tourist (Wolfe 2006, p. 1). But the real issue may be the primary purpose of any trip/vacation. Could it be that one spent time in the grocery store primarily as a reprieve from the heat of the noon-day sun? Long suggested that “The culinary tourist anticipates a change in the foodways experience for the sake of experiencing that change, not merely to satisfy hunger” (Long 2004, p. 21) (italics added).
The Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015 makes a very noble attempt to differentiate between tourists with intentionality and those who are better
described as enthusiasts. The Action Plan sees culinary tourism markets being broken down into:
• Primary: Travellers whose main focus and intent is for a culinary tourism experience • Secondary: Travellers’ focus on culinary tourism is shared with another tourism
motivator such as golf, shopping, visiting family and friends. Culinary tourism is part of their itinerary.
• Tertiary: Travellers’ itinerary or motivators does not include culinary tourism. Culinary tourism experience is impromptu or ad hoc to their original intent (Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p. 21).
Ignatov (2003) defined “culinary travellers”, food travellers”, “wine travellers”, and “food and wine travellers”. In the same paper, she referred to “cuisine travellers” and “cuisine travel”. Her definitions were similar to those used in Smith and Ignatov (Segmenting Canadian Culinary Tourists, 2004, as reported in Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p. 31). Using the TAMS 2001 data, Smith and Ignatov identified three segments: food tourists, wine tourists, and food and wine tourists and created differentiating characteristics of these three groups. The respondents were referred to as “food tourists” or “wine tourists”, if they participated in as few as one, or two, of the following ten activities:
Wine tourist: (any one of) tour a region’s wineries with a stay of one or more nights; visit wineries on a day-trip for a wine tasting; staying at a wine-tasting school
Food tourist: (any one of) visit farmers’ fairs or markets; shop gourmet foods in retail stores or farms; visit pick-your-own farm operations
plus
(any one of) dine at restaurants featuring local or regional cuisine; dine at internationally acclaimed restaurant; stay at a cooking school; stay at a gourmet restaurant with accommodation on the premises.
They were referred to as “food and wine tourists” if they met the above criteria for each of wine tourist and food tourist. Each of the three ‘segments’ were then profiled using relatively typical demographics, psychographics, trip characteristics and media habits information gathered in the TAMS survey. The difficulty is that the resulting “distinctive characteristics” could well apply to tourists who travelled for a main reason that was far removed from participating in any of the ten food and wine activities.
Stewart et al (2008), using the TAMS 2006 data, used almost identical activities as those used by Smith and Ignatov to identify culinary tourists, although they referred to them as “…“winos” (tourists on the wine side of the wine and culinary tourism interests)… and “foodies” ((tourists on the food side of the wine and culinary tourism interests). They reported that “Almost three quarters (74%) of all Canadian tourists (15.4 million in total) in 2004 and 2005 engaged in, at minimum, one type of wine and cuisine activity.” (Stewart et al 2008, p. 2) (see below for the activities used). Should participating in one of several activities constitute being a culinary tourist?
The following Tables use the same approach to describing a culinary tourist and are
presented as food for thought. The results come from the TAMS 2006 data in which 46,284 US tourists responded. A culinary tourist (n=5,358), for the purposes of the following Tables, was defined as someone who ticked the box opposite one or more of the 12 criteria listed below in response to the statement “Sometimes the main reason people take a trip is to participate in a specific activity. For each activity you check under [column] A, also check the box beside it (under [column] B) if that activity was the main reason for taking any of your trips in the past 2 years.” The wording under column A read: “On out-of-town trips of one or more nights in past 2 years”.
• Food/drink festivals
• Cooking/wine tasting courses
• Dining – restaurants offering local ingredients and recipes • Dining at a farm
• Shop or browse – gourmet foods in retail stores 1 • Went to wineries for day visits and tasting • Went to breweries for day visits and tasting • Went fruit picking at farms or open fields 1
• Visited food processing plants such as a cheese factory • (stayed at) Cooking school
• (stayed at) Wine tasting school
• (stayed at) Country inn or resort because it had a gourmet restaurant on the premises 1
not included in Stewart et al (2008) analysis
These individuals were then compared to the remaining tourists (n=40,926) who did not check at least one of the criteria. Stewart et al (2008) used the same procedure to decide who was a “culinary tourist” (i.e. tourists who engaged in a minimum of one of 15 food/wine related activities (they also used “same day tour to winery”, “aboriginal cuisine”, “dining- high end international reputation”, “dining- other high end”, and “went to local outdoor cafes”)), but performed their analysis on TAMS data from Canadian respondents. Part of the problem may lie in the wording of the question and the way individuals responded. Despite the use of the phrase “the main reason” in the questionnaire, many respondents checked more than one activity under column B, thus, at a minimum, turning this from “the” main reason into, at best, “a” main reason.
The statistical significance shown in Table 1 leads one to suggest that a culinary tourist is better educated, has a higher income, is more likely to be retired, and is older than other tourists. Table 2 suggests that culinary tourists are seeking ‘self-esteem’ and ‘learning’ benefits more than other tourists. Similarly, significant differences can be inferred from Tables 3 and 4. The problem is in how loosely the culinary tourist has been defined.
Table 1.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics: Culinary Tourists vs Others
Characteristics Culinary Tourists % Others % χ2 Statistics Education
High school or less 15.7 19.4 Some college/college diploma 39.4 39.3 Bachelor's degree 24.9 24.0 Some graduate/grad. degrees 20.0 17.2
χ2 = 57.40**** Income Under $20,000 8.9 10.2 $20,000 - $59,999 35.4 39.6 $60,000 - $99,999 30.6 29.5 $100,000 - 149,000 16.8 14.4 150,000 - 249,000 6.4 4.8 $250,000 or more 2.0 1.5 χ2 = 73.57**** Gender Male 52.2 53.7 Female 47.8 46.3 χ2 = 4.19** Job Status Full time 62.7 62.4 Part time 7.3 8.4 Unemployed 9.4 10.6 Retired 17.8 14.7 χ2 =56.43**** Age <26 26 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 59 60+ 8.0 29.7 18.5 21.0 22.8 10.5 33.3 19.7 17.0 19.5 χ2=121.97**** Marital status Married 62.4 64.3 Never Married 18.5 18.7 Divorced, widowed, separated 19.1 17.1
χ2 =13.97****
Table 2.
Benefits Sought: Culinary Tourists vs Others
Note: Benefit sought items were anchored by 1 “Of no importance” and 3 “Highly important”. ** significant at the 0.05 level; **** significant at the 0.001 level
Benefits Sought Culinary Tourists Others t-test
Learning
To see or do something new & different 2.51 2.37 17.56****
To gain knowledge of history, other cultures or other places 2.17 1.99 19.24****
To enrich your perspective on life 2.19 1.99 19.50****
To stimulate your mind/be intellectually challenged 2.09 1.89 19.38****
Relaxation
To relax and relieve stress 2.72 2.70 2.21**
To get a break from your day-to-day
Environment 2.70 2.70 0.06
To have a life with no fixed schedule 2.49 2.44 5.36****
To seek solitude and isolation 1.76 1.70 6.28****
Self Esteem
To have stories to share back at home or
something interesting to talk about 1.83 1.69 13.76****
To be challenged physically/ to feel physically energized 1.79 1.66 12.96****
To create lasting memories 2.59 2.52 8.38****
To be pampered 1.86 1.71 13.98****
Family/Social Bonding
To keep family ties alive 2.30 2.31 -1.06
To renew personal connections with people 1.96 186 9.16****
To enrich your relationship with your
Table 3.
Culinary Activity Participation: Culinary Tourists vs Others
Culinary Activity Participation Culinary Activity Culinary Tourists (N = 5,358) % Others (N = 40,926) % Total (N=46,284) % Chi-Square Test Restaurants offering local ingredients & recipes 79.6 56.3 59.0 1062.97**** Went to wineries for day visits and tasting 42.2 13.4 16.7 2829.60**** Shop or browse - Gourmet foods in retail stores 31.9 14.0 16.0 1128.57****
Food/drink festivals 32.3 7.5 10.3 3145.33****
Went to breweries for day visits and tasting 20.6 6.5 8.1 1257.94****
Food processing plants 15.0 4.9 6.1 841.29****
Went to fruit picking at farms or open fields 17.2 4.4 5.9 1405.51**** Cooking/wine tasting courses 14.9 2.7 4.1 1806.56****
Dining at a farm 8.9 2.9 3.6 487.73****
Resort or country inn with a gourmet restaurant 7.1 1.1 1.8 993.55****
Cooking school 2.8 0.3 0.6 558.72****
Wine tasting school 2.3 0.2 0.4 506.07****
**** significant at the 0.001 level
Table 4.
Level of Participation in Activities When Not Travelling
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ **** significant at the 0.001 level
Activity Culinary Tourists % Others % t-test
Going out to eat in restaurants frequently occasionally rarely not at all 67.0 28.7 3.5 0.8 57.7 35.5 5.6 1.2 174.55****
Going out to Festivals or Fairs frequently occasionally rarely not at all 28.4 49.2 17.6 4.8 16.1 50.3 24.3 9.4 599.01****
Going to Pick your own farms or farmers’ markets frequently occasionally rarely not at all 13.2 29.9 29.0 27.9 7.6 25.3 30.6 36.5 311.53****
In descriptions of culinary tourists, they are often compared to all other tourists or “generic tourists” (research of Wade and Martin as reported in Culinary Tourism in Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015, p. 22), and claims are made that they “spent nearly twice as much as non-culinary tourists”. Such a claim, however, begs the question about whether these identified “culinary tourists” are primary, secondary or tertiary. Could it be that golfers whose main reason for travel is to golf but who also enjoy great food, spend more than a person who travels primarily to experience things culinary? Could it be that culinary tourism, therefore, is more of a value-added component, albeit a potentially valuable one, for the destination? Might food and/or beverage be, for example, the deciding factor when choosing between two different golf locations? The variable “shop or browse – gourmet foods in retail stores” (similar to Wolfe’s “[browsing] the aisles of a foreign grocery store”) does not differentiate whether the foods of interest are local or imported. Similarly, using “went to local outdoor cafes” (Stewart et al, 2008) as a criteria for defining a culinary tourist does not necessarily fit with the notion of regional or local foods and beverages.
Further Research
What is needed now is clarity about how the terms “culinary tourism” and “culinary tourist” should be defined. If we accept Long’s premise that intentionality is required, then we cannot define the culinary tourist as loosely as ‘someone who appreciates local food’,
‘someone who spends time in a grocery store in a foreign country’ or ‘someone who happens to enjoy food that is beyond ordinary’. Is it reasonable to segment these people and treat them as a distinct market as opposed to, as the CTC has referred to them, “culinary enthusiasts”?
For starters, attention should be focused on the main reason that a person is traveling. Ontario’s concept of primary, secondary and tertiary culinary tourists, and the CTC’s expression of “culinary enthusiasts” provides good direction to help clarify the concept. It may be fruitful, especially now with predictions of the collapse of air travel as we know it (“…chances are you won’t be flying much in the future… …US$100 a barrel oil has airlines in a panic, at US$200 the industry’s business model completely falls apart.” (Campbell, K., and Campbell, C., 2008) to determine whether or not culinary travelers with intent in Canada
and the U.S. are predominantly day-trippers. It may be that there are two main kinds of culinary tourists: those who take a multi-day vacation with the primary purpose of
participating in things culinary, such as a vacation in Tuscany at a cooking school, and those who travel some distance, but just for a day, to experience unique or special dining. The others may best be identified by one of the other terms such as “culinary enthusiast” or “culinary aficionado”, and whatever variations are needed to take in wine, beer, Scotch whiskey, tea, or coffee enthusiasts, to name a few.
The concept of the culinary tourism and the culinary tourist are ripe for examination and promotion, but until clarity and agreement of terms and definitions can be brought to the topic, there is a very real risk of misunderstanding, misinformation, inappropriate market segmentation, and poor decision-making.
References
Campbell, K., and Campbell, C. (2008 June 9). After Cheap Oil. Maclean’s, 121(22), p. 48.
Canadian Tourism Commission. (2003). How-to Guide: Develop a culinary tourism product. Canadian Tourism Commission. Ottawa, Canada.
Cohen, E. and Avieli, N. (2003). Food in Tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755-778.
Culinary Tourism In Ontario: Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2015. (undated). (not attributed).
Denault, M. (2002). Acquiring a Taste for Cuisine Tourism. Canadian Tourism Commission.
Hjalager, A., and Richards, G. (eds) (2002). Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, NY
Ignatov, E. (2003). The Canadian Culinary Tourists: How well do we know them? Master of Arts Thesis, University of Waterloo, Recreation and Leisure Studies.
Long, L. (ed). (2004). Culinary Tourism. The University of Kentucky Press.
Research Resolutions & Consulting Ltd. (undated). Canadian Wine & Culinary Enthusiasts: A special analysis of the Travel Activities and Motivation Survey. Canadian Tourism Commission.
Research Resolutions & Consulting Ltd. (undated). U.S. Wine & Culinary Enthusiasts: A special analysis of the Travel Activities and Motivation Survey. Canadian Tourism Commission.
Stewart, J., Bramble, L., and Ziraldo, D. (2008). Key challenges in wine and culinary tourism with practical recommendations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(3), 302-312.
Wolf, E. (2006). Culinary Tourism: The Hidden Treat. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Iowa.
