What Defines the Perfect Wine Tourism Experience? Evidence from a Best–Worst Approach

Abstract

This paper investigates wine tourists’ preferences for the attributes of the wine tourism experience (WTEXP) in Italy and Turkey, exploring cross-cultural differences and similarities in two countries with diverse wine tourism development. Data were collected through an online survey of 253 wine consumers, and the Best–Worst Scaling method was employed in both countries to assess the perceived importance of selected WTEXP attributes that influence tourists’ choices. The samples were then segmented using cluster analysis based on key attitudinal scales (e.g., wine involvement), with BWS applied to each segment to further examine visitor preferences. The results show that both Italian and Turkish wine tourists prioritized expert-led tours but differed in other preferences. Italian tourists valued the winery’s aesthetic appeal, while Turkish tourists favored pre-visit informative sessions. Additionally, Italians placed less importance on accompanying events, while Turks considered the reputation of the wine, winery, or wine region the least significant factor. These preferences also varied within the clusters identified in each sample. This research represents the first comparison of consumer preferences in wine tourism between Turkey, a developing market, and Italy, a traditional Old World wine producer, while considering the diversity within each group. The findings provide key insights for wine tourism stakeholders, such as wineries and tourism managers, offering actionable recommendations to tailor their offerings for specific tourist segments to attract a larger number of wine tourists, enhance their experience, and foster sustainable growth of wine tourism.

1. Introduction

Wine tourism (WT) has emerged as a significant travel motivation globally, defined as visits to vineyards, wineries, and wine-related events, with wine tasting and experiencing local wine culture serving as the primary drivers for visitors [1,2]. The growing importance of wine tourism is underscored by its promising future prospects, with its market value expected to more than triple by 2030 [3], highlighting the economic importance of this sector for wine-producing countries. Over time, WT has evolved into a dynamic and immersive experience that integrates wine culture, heritage, and sensory engagement, enhancing loyalty and word-of-mouth for specific wineries or regions [4]. WT attracts diverse visitors, supports cultural heritage, and stimulates local economies by generating job opportunities through direct sales [5] and other tourism-related activities, all of which are considered integral parts of the WT supply chain [6]. As a result, wine regions can attract tourists, who in turn contribute to local economies, benefiting especially small wineries and their surrounding areas [7].

Although a significant body of literature attempted to profile wine tourists [8,9,10,11,12], there is no universally agreed-upon definition or profile of them to date. Furthermore, the majority of existing research predominantly addresses well-established wine tourism markets, whereas limited attention has been paid to emerging contexts like Turkey, which is characterized by distinct cultural and structural features. Although substantial attention has been devoted to the primary factors shaping the WTEXP, a significant gap persists in the academic literature concerning emerging markets. In particular, a systematic comparison between mature and developing wine tourism markets, such as those of Italy and Turkey, remains notably underexplored.

Wineries too often lack knowledge of their visitors, which limits their ability to effectively personalize their offerings and improve the WTEXP [13]. In fact, wineries recognize the diversity of visitors at the cellar door, but segmentation tends to rely more on general observations than on the systematic collection and analysis of data, as noted by Charters and Ali-Knight [14]. In this regard, it is important to note that cultural differences can have an impact on how experiences are evaluated, as suggested by Fernandes and Cruz [15]. Therefore, focused analyses are crucial for identifying specific preferences and customizing the WTEXP to suit visitors with diverse preferences, which are also influenced by their geographical and cultural backgrounds.

Moreover, many regions around the world that have the potential to become prominent WT destinations are underdeveloped and remain overlooked by contemporary research [16]. Turkey serves as an example of such a region. Indeed, this country boasts a long history of wine production, and its high planted area under grapes (6% of the world vineyard surface area) was even higher than the USA (5%) in 2023. However, Turkey has only recently begun organizing daily or weekly tours for tourists interested in visiting vineyards and tasting quality wines [17], showing a growing demand for WT [18].

Therefore, as a novel contribution, this study aims to address this gap by offering updated insights into consumers’ preferences in Turkey, a developing WT market. It specifically investigates the key elements of WTEXPs that influence consumer choices and expectations regarding WTEXPs. As highlighted by Terziyska [19], despite the vast body of research on WTEXPs, there remains a need for contributions that provide evidence from diverse contexts, such as Old and New World regions. Therefore, the current research compares Turkey and Italy, namely, a traditional Old World wine producer known for its long-standing wine production and tourism practices [20,21]. Indeed, Italy is the world’s leading country for WT [22]. This comparison aims to highlight both the similarities and differences among wine tourists in the two countries. Ultimately, the goal is to equip wineries and industry stakeholders, such as tour operators and destination managers, with essential insights to develop more personalized and engaging visitor experiences, enhance customer satisfaction, encourage repeat visits to wineries, and promote the growth of WT in both regions.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next section includes a literature review on WT and consumer preferences for the WTEXP, an overview of the data and methodology, a presentation and discussion of the findings, and conclusions with suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review on Wine Tourism Experience

The WT sector is becoming increasingly significant worldwide, with many wineries evolving into key tourist attractions, encouraging purposeful travel to these regions. According to Statista [3], the WT market is expected to grow, highlighting the economic importance of this sector for wine-producing countries. As WT continues to develop, understanding visitors’ preferences regarding WTEXP is essential to meet their expectations and enhance offerings. Exploring these preferences allows stakeholders to tailor services, increase customer satisfaction, and promote sustainable growth in WT. Tourists are increasingly seeking distinctive and diverse experiences [23]. For wine tourists, the experience involves much more than just wine tasting. Indeed, there is a growing emphasis on a comprehensive and fulfilling experience that combines education, aesthetics, and sensory pleasure [24]. This has led to a more structured and elaborated form of WT, which is now seen as a holistic experience [25]. The motivations for engaging in WT are linked to personal preferences but also to the pursuit of experiences ranging from visiting wineries and vineyards to attending exclusive events and the reputation of the wine region, all of which significantly influence tourists’ choices when selecting destinations for wine-related activities [10].

The existing literature has extensively explored the many attributes that influence wine tourists’ choices and motivations when participating in WTEXPs. Numerous studies have identified several key factors that play a pivotal role in shaping these preferences. Among the most notable attributes are expert-led tours [26,27], which provide visitors with in-depth knowledge and insights from industry professionals. Additionally, the opportunity to engage in food and wine pairings [28] has emerged as a significant draw, allowing tourists to explore harmonious flavors and enhance their overall sensory experience. Practical wine-related experiences [29], such as participating in grape harvesting or winemaking processes, offer a hands-on and immersive approach to understanding the complexity of wine production. The beauty of the winery landscape and architecture [11,30,31] is another crucial factor that attracts visitors, appealing to their aesthetic sensibilities and contributing to the overall ambiance of the experience. Furthermore, the reputation of the wine, winery, and wine region [32] can significantly influence tourists’ choices, as they seek prestigious destinations. Finally, the organization of accompanying events [31,33], such as festivals, concerts, or culinary demonstrations, can add an extra layer of entertainment and engagement to WTEXP. This study is fully aligned with the literature on WTEXP, with a focus on the attributes selected for BWS, which reflect the four main dimensions of WTEXPs: educational, aesthetic, entertaining, and escapist experiences, i.e., the four Es [34]. In fact, WTEXP encompasses a variety of activities that allow tourists to appreciate the beauty of the landscape, escape, be entertained, and learn [6,35]. Recognizing the significance of these factors enables stakeholders to design experiences that respond to tourists’ preferences, ultimately enhancing their overall satisfaction.

An emerging body of literature has emphasized the role of cultural consumption models in shaping wine tourism experiences. These models conceptualize wine tourism not merely as a leisure-oriented activity but as a form of symbolic and experiential consumption, where wine becomes a cultural artifact embedded in broader lifestyle and identity narratives. As noted by Bruwer and Alant [11], wine tourists frequently engage with wineries as spaces of emotional, educational, and social meaning, where consumption practices are influenced by individual values, social norms, and cultural expectations. Charters [14] further suggests that wine tourism often reflects aspirational behaviors and a desire to engage with authenticity, tradition, and the symbolic capital of wine-related experiences. Such culturally embedded consumption patterns can vary significantly across countries due to differences in wine culture, historical familiarity with wine consumption, tourism infrastructure, and social perceptions of wine as a product. These cross-cultural differences highlight the importance of understanding wine tourism not only through economic or hedonic frameworks, but also through the lens of cultural consumption theory, which allows for more targeted and context-sensitive segmentation and marketing strategies.

Moreover, the literature has extensively used attitudinal scales to segment wine tourists based on psychographic variables related to wine and WT. These scales provide valuable insights into the attitudes, motivations, and behaviors of wine tourists, facilitating a deeper understanding of their preferences and enabling the development of targeted offerings that cater to specific segments within the diverse WT market. Among the most commonly used scales are wine involvement (WI), which measures the importance of wine in an individual’s lifestyle [14,36]; interpersonal facilitators (IF), which assess the influence of social factors, such as recommendations from friends or family, on the decision to participate in WTEXPs [31]; wine tasting excitement (WTE), which captures the thrill and enjoyment derived from tasting wines directly in the cellar [37,38]; and customer engagement (CE), which evaluates the level of excitement, interest, and pleasure associated with visiting wineries [39,40,41]. By incorporating these scales, wineries can gain valuable insights into different segments of the WT market, enabling them to create customized strategies and offerings that align with the distinctive preferences and motivations of each group.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Structure and Procedure

Figure 1 shows the research flow of this study. In May 2023, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 5 wineries in Italy and 5 in Turkey, all offering WTEXPs. The goal was to collect data on the activities they provide to visitors and their views on potential additional activities of interest. The selected wineries were located in key tourist regions: Aegean, Thrace, and Central Anatolia in Turkey and Veneto and Tuscany in Italy. The wineries selected in the most representative wine-producing areas proved to be particularly interesting. This was because the goal of this preliminary phase was to identify the main attributes of WTEXPs, which were further complemented by a review of the existing literature. The winery sample was not intended to be statistically representative; rather, it served as a qualitative foundation, later enriched through the analysis of relevant academic sources. Drawing on insights from both the field interviews and the existing literature [26,27,28], seven key attributes of the WTEXP were identified (

Table 1. List of attributes related to the WTEXP.

Attribute	Description
1—Provision of a training session before the visit	Short training sessions on wine tasting provided to visitors before starting the winery visit
2—Winery and winescape’s beauty	Enjoying the beauty of the winescape and the winery (e.g., architecture, position)
3—Visit guided by wine experts	Visit guided by wine experts as sommeliers, winery owner, wine producer (informing on wine, the wine-making process, and the winery)
4—Food pairing	Food pairings with local products
5—Provision of accompanying events	Enriched winery visits with different experiences (e.g., music events, cooking shows, horse riding, e-bike tour)
6—Practical wine related experience	Practical experiences (e.g., harvesting or wine-making sessions) for visitors during the winery visit
7—Wine/winery/wine area reputation	Good reputation of the wine/winery/wine area

) and used to develop the Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) section of the final questionnaire.

After the questionnaire was finalized, data from both the Italian and Turkish samples were processed using the BWS methodology.

We further deepened the analysis by segmenting each sample based on certain psychographic variables related to wine and WT (i.e., WI, FC, WTE, CE) through cluster analysis, with the optimal number of clusters determined through hierarchical clustering using the Ward method and Squared Euclidean distance [42], as well as the dendrogram and k-means clustering technique. BWS was also applied within each cluster to identify the most and least important WTEXP attributes for different respondent groups. Differences between the samples and within clusters were analyzed, and for this purpose, t-tests and Pearson’s χ² test were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 18.0).

3.2. Data Collection

The primary aim of this study is to examine preferences of wine tourists (WTs), highlighting the factors they prioritize when participating in wine-related experiences in two countries which differ in their wine production history and wine- and WT-related attitudes such as Italy and Turkey. In 2023, Italy was the second largest wine producing country in the world, with 38.3 million hl, and the fourth largest in terms of vineyard surface area with 720,000 hectares of vineyards. The WT sector has flourished over the past two decades and is well established in all regions of the country. This is also demonstrated by the numerous wine routes that have been set up in the most important wine-producing areas of the country [42]. Accordingly, the interest in WT has grown significantly, attracting over 15 million visitors and generating a total turnover of EUR 2.65 billion in 2019 [43,44]. In response, the range of activities has expanded to include vineyard tours, outdoor tastings, and cultural experiences organized by farms, cooperatives, and local authorities. However, not all farms have capitalized on these opportunities, often due to internal organizational challenges or a lack of strategic development [45]. Indeed, WT is currently not fully developed in Italy, especially considering the country’s potential [46]. In contrast, Turkey is one of the major grape-growing countries, ranking fifth globally with 410,000 hectares of vineyards [47]. However, only a small fraction (2–3%) of the grapes harvested are used for winemaking, while the rest is processed into fresh grapes, dried grapes, grape molasses, or grape leather [18]. Despite its rich winemaking history and ideal viticultural conditions, Turkey has yet to fully capitalize on WT. Alaeddinoğlu et al. [48] note that Turkey’s focus on coastal tourism has limited the growth of winery visits, although its natural advantages hold significant potential for the future development of the WT sector.

In July 2023, data were collected in Italy and Turkey using an online questionnaire distributed via snowball sampling on social media and by email. The questionnaire, available in Turkish, English, and Italian language, gathered 253 completed responses (104 from Italy and 149 from Turkey) from participants over 18 years old, all of whom were informed of the research objectives and consented to participate.

The questionnaire was structured into five sections. The first section gathered initial information about participants’ past WTEXPs, their preferred locations (whether domestic or international), and their future interest in such experiences. The second section focused on wine consumption and purchasing habits, exploring aspects like frequency, preferred locations, the number of WTEXPs in the past year, the desired duration of such experiences, willingness to pay for WT, and the price paid for the last bottle of wine (0.75 L).

The third section included the BWS task, while the fourth section contained four Likert-type scales collected through 5-point anchored items (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree) and related to wine and WT, as adapted from the literature. Eventually, Section 5 included sociodemographic questions.

The fourth section included several scales to assess participants’ attitudes and psychographic traits related to wine and WT. These were used to segment the sample, following the literature [14,36,37,38,39,40,41]. First, the wine involvement (WI) scale, adapted from Mittal and Lee [49], was measured using 7 items, such as “Wine is important for me in my lifestyle”. The wine tasting excitement (WTE) scale was based on work by Santos et al. [50] and adapted from Pan and Ryan [51], Kim et al. [52], and Schmitt [53], ultimately including 4 items such as “Tasting wine directly in the cellar excites me”. Moreover, the interpersonal facilitators (IF) scale was drawn from Gu et al. [54] and comprised 3 items like “The advice of a friend encouraged me to participate in a wine tourism experience”. Lastly, the customer engagement (CE) scale, with 6 items adapted from Gaetjens et al. [41] and Dessart et al. [55], included statements like “I feel excited about visiting a winery”.

3.3. Best–Worst Scaling Task

As previously mentioned, this study utilizes Best–Worst Scaling, a technique for measuring preferences first introduced by Finn and Louviere [56]. In recent studies, BWS has been used to examine consumer evaluations of food- and drink-related attributes for wine [57,58,59], cheese [60], beer [61], and olive oil [62], as well as agricultural and food policies [63].

In our study, these items represent the attributes of WTEXPs, specifically different aspects such as the activities included in a winery visit. This technique aims to uncover consumer preferences by extending the pairwise comparison method [64] and, through a structured interview process, revealing the relative importance of various attributes within the sample being studied. This method effectively differentiates the ranking of preferences among the items presented to respondents while also determining suitable distances between the value of one item and its neighboring options [65]. Moreover, BWS measures are not subject to scale distortions, making this approach very simple, quick, and valuable for assessing overall preferences as well as the degree of preference heterogeneity among individuals [60].

In this study, BWS is applied to examine the preferences of WTs regarding the activities offered during a winery visit or the characteristics of WTEXPs.

We utilized a Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) 7,7,3,1, created using RCommander, a plugin for R Studio (Version 2.7-1) [66]. Specifically, our experimental design includes 7 attributes, 7 choice sets, and 3 attributes per choice set, tailored to fit the specific research attributes, as detailed in

Table 2. Distribution of elements according to the BIBD design.

Choice Set	Attributes
1	1	2	4
2	1	6	7
3	3	4	6
4	4	5	7
5	2	5	6
6	1	3	5
7	2	3	7

. This design is considered balanced because each element appears with equal frequency across all choice sets [67]; BIBDs organize items in a manner that allows for their distribution across various choice sets. A significant advantage of BIBDs is that they facilitate the analysis of a large number of items while keeping the number of subsets manageable, allowing for a comprehensive classification with minimal blocks.

After being introduced to the attributes of the WTE, respondents were presented with seven attributes of a WTEXP and asked to imagine that they were participating in a winery visit and to select, for seven times (i.e., for each choice set), their most and least important attribute among those available. Figure 2 shows an example of a choice set.

4. Results

In the analysis, we calculated each scale using the mean score of its items. The four scales measuring WI, IF, WTE, and CE demonstrate good reliability in both the Italian and the Turkish samples, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above the 0.7 threshold (

Table 3. Scale reliability for the Italy and Turkey sample.

Scale	Items	Italy		Turkey
		M (SD)	Alpha	M (SD)	Alpha
Wine involvement (WI, 7 items)	(WI1) Wine is important for me in my lifestyle	3.5 a (0.9)	0.922	3.7 a (0.9)	0.942
	(WI2) Drinking wine gives me pleasure
	(WI3) I have a strong interest in wine
	(WI4) For me wine does matter
	(WI5) I choose my wine very carefully
	(WI6) Deciding which wine to buy would be an important decision for me
	(WI7) Which wine I buy is very important to me
Interpersonal facilitators (IF, 3 items)	(IF1) The support of my partner/family encourages me to participate in a wine tourism experience	2.9 a (0.9)	0.706	3.0 a (1.0)	0.730
	(IF2) The advice of a friend encouraged me to participate in a wine tourism experience
	(IF3) The opportunities to meet new friends encourage me to participate in a wine tourism experience
Wine tasting excitement (WTE, 4 items)	(WTE1) Tasting wine directly in the cellar excites me	3.1 a ** (0.8)	0.736	3.6 b ** (0.9)	0.833
	(WTE2) Tasting wine on vacation helps me relax
	(WTE3) Tasting wine makes me feel exhilarated
	(WTE4) Tasting wine on vacation makes me stop worrying
Customer engagement (CE, 6 items)	(CE1) I feel excited about visiting a winery	3.7 a * (0.9)	0.936	3.9 b * (0.9)	0.947
	(CE2) I feel that wineries are interesting
	(CE3) When visiting a winery, I feel happy
	(CE4) I enjoy visiting a winery
	(CE5) Visiting a winery is a pleasure for me
	(CE6) I am interested in anything related to a winery

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; alpha = Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. t-tests were performed to test statistically significant differences between the two samples: the presence of the same letter indicates the absence of a statistically significant difference (* sig. is at 0.05 level; ** sig. is at 0.001 level) between the two samples.

). As shown, respondents in both samples are generally equally engaged with wine and have similar levels of neutrality regarding whether recommendations from trusted relatives or friends motivate them to participate in WTEXPs. However, Turkish respondents appear to be more enthusiastic about wine tasting activities during winery visits and are more involved in the overall wine visit experience compared to their Italian counterparts.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for socio-demographic variables for the Italy and Turkey samples.

Variable	Level	Italy (n = 104)	Turkey (n = 149)
		M (SD)	M (SD)
Age		39.5 b (13.9)	50.8 a (14.6)
		%	%	Sig.
Gender	female	33.7	34.9	-
	male	65.4	64.4
	other	1.0	0.7
Education	primary/secondary school	1.0	0.0	0.000
	high school	27.9	5.4
	university	51.9	63.1
	postgraduate	19.2	31.5
Occupation	employed	46.1	24.2	0.000
	retired	1.0	38.9
	self-employed	12.5	14.1
	student	19.2	12.8
	homemaker	0.0	1.3
	unemployed	2.9	0.7
	freelance	18.3	8.0
Income (monthly) *	EUR < 2000 or TRY < 25,000	26.0	19.0	-
	EUR 2000–4000 or TRY 25,000–75,000	51.0	62.0
	EUR > 4000 or TRY > 75,000	23.0	19.0
Past WTEXPs	yes	89.4	87.3	-
Future interest in WTEXP	yes	97.1	89.3	0.020
Wine purchase frequency	never	1.0	0.7	-
	1–2 times a year	7.7	10.1
	once every 2–3 months	17.3	20.1
	once a month	21.2	20.1
	2–3 times a month	34.6	26.2
	once a week	9.6	11.4
	2–3 times a week	8.6	11.4
Wine consumption frequency	less than once a month	2.9	9.4	0.002
	once a month	6.7	14.1
	2–3 times a month	13.5	24.2
	once a week	27.9	13.4
	2–3 times a week	35.5	30.2
	everyday	13.5	8.7
Wine purchase source	supermarket	40.3	51.0	0.000
	discount store	1.0	2.7
	wine shop	21.2	14.8
	winery	21.2	7.4
	online	11.5	4.7
	other	4.8	19.4
Wine consumption location	at home	60.6	88.6	0.000
	at the restaurant	16.4	8.1
	in the wine shop/bar	21.1	1.3
	other	1.9	2.0
No. of WTEXPs in the past year	none	24.0	43.0	0.004
	1–3	55.8	46.3
	more than 3	20.2	10.7
WTEXP duration	one day only	89.4	59.7	0.000
	at least 2 days	8.7	40.3
	other	1.9	0.0
Willingness to pay for a cellar WTEXP *	EUR < 20 or TRY < 600	16.3	29.5	0.016
	EUR 20–30 or TRY 600–800	46.2	28.2
	EUR 31–40 or TRY 800–1000	21.2	23.5
	EUR > 40 or TRY > 1000	16.3	18.8
Willingness to pay for a cellar wine bottle purchase (0.75 L) *	EUR < 10 or TRY < 300	10.6	28.9	0.001
	EUR 11–20 or TRY 300–500	48.1	48.9
	EUR 21–30 or TRY 500–700	25.0	14.8
	EUR 31–40 or TRY 700–900	6.7	2.0
	EUR > 40 or TRY > 900	9.6	5.4

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation. WTEXP = wine tourism experience. t-tests and χ² Chi-squared tests were performed to test statistically significant differences between the two samples. For the variable Age, the presence of the same letter indicates the absence of a statistically significant difference (sig. at 0.001 level) between the two samples. * These variables are presented with the specific levels used in both the Italian and Turkish versions of the questionnaire, in euros and Turkish lira, without accounting for exchange rate differences.

displays the descriptive statistics for the sociodemographic characteristics, wine consumption habits, and attitudes toward WT of both samples. The average age is higher in the Turkish sample, and both samples are predominantly male. Additionally, it is noteworthy that more than 85% of respondents in both samples have previously participated in WT. Significant differences are observed in the frequencies of various descriptive variables. For example, the Turkish sample shows a higher level of education and a higher proportion of retired people (in line with age). Respondents in the Italian sample show a higher frequency of wine consumption and a greater preference for buying wine in specialized shops than their Turkish counterparts. Looking at the variables strictly related to WTEXP, although the interest in WTEXPs is high in both samples, it seems to be higher in the Italian sample (97%, compared to 89.3% in the Turkish sample), where the frequency of such experiences in the last year is also higher, although the average duration of the experience is mostly one day (89.4%), in contrast to the Turkish sample where 59.7% prefer a one-day experience, while 40.3% prefer an experience of at least two days. In general, respondents in the Italian sample seem to be willing to pay more for a WTEXP: in fact, the majority shows a willingness to pay in the range of EUR 20–30 (TRY 600–800) compared to 28.2% in the Turkish sample, while the proportion of people willing to pay less than EUR 20 (less than TRY 600) is higher in the Turkish sample (29.5%) than in the Italian (16.3%). This somehow reflects the willingness to pay for the wine purchased during the visit to the winery.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for WTEXP’s attributes for the Italy and Turkey samples.

WTEXP’s Attributes	Total Best	Total Worst	BW	Average B−W
	Italy
Visit guided by wine experts	158	53	105	1.010
Winery and winescape’s beauty	120	74	46	0.442
Food pairing	104	69	35	0.337
Wine/winery/wine area reputation	99	75	24	0.231
Practical wine related experience	87	94	−7	−0.067
Provision of a training session before the visit	79	94	−15	−0.144
Provision of accompanying events	64	109	−45	−0.433
	Turkey
Visit guided by wine experts	262	63	199	1.336
Provision of a training session before the visit	182	123	59	0.396
Food pairing	135	104	31	0.208
Winery and winescape’s beauty	140	138	2	0.013
Practical wine related experience	115	147	−32	−0.215
Provision of accompanying events	94	187	−93	−0.624
Wine/winery/wine area reputation	75	186	−111	−0.745

Note: BW = best–worst.

shows the results of the BWS, listing the attributes in descending order in the two samples. As in other similar studies (see, for instance, Sidali et al. [68]), we discuss the results in terms of standard scores (hereafter, Average B−W). This was calculated, for each sample, as the difference between the sum of the times a specific attribute was chosen as the most important and the sum of the times the same attribute was chosen as the least important, divided by the number of questionnaires collected. A positive score means that an attribute is chosen as the most important more frequently than as the least important [61].

As shown also in Figure 3, the most important aspect of the winery experience for Italian respondents is having a wine expert (e.g., sommelier, winery owner, or winemaker) guide the visit and provide detailed information about the wine, the winemaking process, and the winery itself. This is followed by the beauty of the winery (e.g., architecture, location) and its surrounding viticultural landscape, considered the second most important attribute. The opportunity to participate in a wine tasting session with local food comes in third. Other important factors include the reputation of the wine, winery, and wine-growing region, followed by hands-on wine-related experiences (e.g., harvesting or winemaking sessions) and pre-visit training sessions (e.g., wine tastings). The least important aspect is participation in accompanying events such as festivals, cooking shows, or tours (e.g., horse riding, e-bikes) as part of the WTEXP.

Through cluster analysis, both the Italian and Turkish samples were segmented into two groups of respondents: the more engaged WTs (52% of Italian respondents and 60% of Turkish respondents) and the less engaged WTs (48% and 40%, respectively). In both samples, the more engaged tourists significantly differ from the less engaged on all the attitudinal scales considered, as indicated by the t-test results. As shown in

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for clusters in Italy and Turkey.

Variable	Italy		Turkey
	More Engaged WTs (52%)	Less Engaged WTs (48%)	More Engaged WTs (60%)	Less Engaged WTs (40%)
	M (SD)		M (SD)
WI	4.1 a (0.6)	2.9 b (0.6)	4.2 a (0.7)	2.8 b (0.8)
IF	3.5 a (0.8)	2.3 b (0.8)	3.4 a (0.9)	2.4 b (0.7)
WTE	3.5 a (0.7)	2.5 b (0.5)	4.1 a (0.7)	2.8 b (0.7)
CE	4.3 a (0.6)	3.0 b (0.6)	4.4 a (0.6)	3.1 b (0.8)

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; WTs = wine tourists. t-tests were performed to test statistically significant differences between the clusters in each sample (Italy and Turkey). For mean values, the presence of the same letter indicates the absence of a statistically significant difference (sig. at 0.05 level) between the two clusters of the same sample (Italy and Turkey).

, the highest average values are found for the CE scale, which led to the naming of the two clusters. As a result, the more engaged WTs show higher levels of engagement with the winery visit compared to their less engaged counterparts. For a detailed description of the clusters of the two samples, see the Appendix A 

Table A1. Descriptive statistics for the clusters in the Italian and Turkish samples.

		Turkey		Italy
Variable	Description	More Engaged WTs (60%)	Less Engaged WTs (40%)	More Engaged WTs (52%)	Less Engaged WTs (48%)
		M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Age		52 a (14.0)	50 a (15.5)	40 a (12.9)	39 a (15.0)
		%	%	%	%
Gender	female	32.2%	39.0%	31.5%	36.0%
	male	66.7%	61.0%	66.7%	64.0%
	other	1.1%	0%	1.9%	0%
Occupation	employed	26.7%	20.3%	53.7%	38.0%
	retired	36.7%	42.4%	1.9%	0.0%
	self-employed	15.6%	11.9%	9.3%	16.0%
	student	11.1%	15.3%	14.8%	24.0%
	homemaker	1.1%	1.7%	0%	0%
	unemployed	1.1%	0%	3.7%	2.0%
	freelance	7.8%	8.5%	16.7%	20.0%
Education	primary/secondary school	0%	0%	1.9%	0%
	high school	3.3%	8.5%	27.8%	28.0%
	university	58.9%	69.5%	51.9%	52.0%
	postgraduate	37.8%	22.0%	18.5%	20.0%
Income	TRY < 25,000 or EUR < 2000	16.7%	23.7%	22.2%	30.0%
	TRY 25,000–75,000 or EUR 2000–4000	60.0%	64.4%	48.1%	54.0%
	TRY > 75,000 or EUR > 4000	23.3%	11.9%	29.6%	16.0%
wt_pastexp	no	8.9%	18.6%	5.6%	16.0%
	yes	91.1%	81.4%	94.4%	84.0%
winexp_int *	no	3.3%	22.0%	0%	6.0%
	yes	96.7%	78.0%	100%	94.0%
freq_buy	never	1.1%	0%	0%	2.0%
	1–2 times a year	10.0%	10.2%	5.6%	10.0%
	once every 2–3 months	13.3%	30.5%	14.8%	20.0%
	once a month	16.7%	25.4%	20.4%	22.0%
	2–3 times a month	32.2%	16.9%	35.2%	34.0%
	once a week	12.2%	10.2%	14.8%	4.0%
	2–3 times a week	14.4%	6.8%	9.3%	8.0%
freq_cons *	less than once a month	4.4%	16.9%	1.9%	4.0%
	once a month	10.0%	20.3%	0%	14.0%
	2–3 times a month	18.9%	32.2%	11.1%	16.0%
	once a week	15.6%	10.2%	33.3%	22.0%
	2–3 times a week	40.0%	15.3%	40.7%	30.0%
	everyday	11.1%	5.1%	13.0%	14.0%
place_buy	supermarket	42.2%	64.4%	35.2%	46.0%
	discount store	2.2%	3.4%	1.9%	0%
	wine shop	17.8%	10.2%	22.2%	20.0%
	winery	11.1%	1.7%	20.4%	22.0%
	online	4.4%	5.1%	16.7%	6.0%
	other	22.2%	15.3%	3.7%	6.0%
place_cons *	at home	95.6%	78.0%	64.8%	56.0%
	at the restaurant	3.3%	15.3%	14.8%	18.0%
	in the wine shop/bar	0%	3.4%	18.5%	24.0%
	other	1.1%	3.4%	1.9%	2.0%
n_wtexp*	1–3	50.0%	40.7%	51.9%	60.0%
	more than 3	15.6%	3.4%	29.6%	10.0%
	none	34.4%	55.9%	18.5%	30.0%
wtp_wtexp	EUR < 20 or TRY < 600	25.6%	35.6%	14.8%	18.0%
	EUR 20–30 or TRY 600–800	32.2%	22.0%	46.3%	46.0%
	EUR 31–40 or TRY 800–1000	21.1%	27.1%	24.1%	18.0%
	EUR > 40 or TRY > 1000	21.1%	15.3%	14.8%	18.0%
wtp_wine	TRY < 300 or EUR < 10	27.8%	30.5%	3.7%	18.0%
	TRY 300–500 or EUR 11–20	47.8%	50.8%	50.0%	46.0%
	TRY 500–700 or EUR 21–30	16.7%	11.9%	25.9%	24.0%
	TRY 700–900 or EUR 31–40	0%	5.1%	11.1%	2.0%
	TRY > 900 or EUR > 40	7.8%	1.7%	9.3%	10.0%
wtexp_duration *	one day only	53.3%	69.5%	88.9%	90.0%
	at least two days	46.7%	30.5%	7.4%	10.0%
	other	0%	0%	3.7%	0%

* Note: statistically significant at a 0.05 level. M = mean. SD = standard deviation.

.

Table 7. BW results (Average B−W) for the clusters in the Italian and Turkish samples.

Attribute	Italy		Turkey
	More Engaged WTs (52%)	Less Engaged WTs (48%)	More Engaged WTs (60%)	Less Engaged WTs (40%)
Visit guided by wine experts	1.41	0.58	1.47	1.20
Winery and winescape’s beauty	0.15	0.76	0.02	0.00
Food pairing	−0.11	0.82	0.00	0.55
Wine/winery/wine area reputation	0.26	0.20	−0.88	−0.57
Practical wine related experience	−0.11	−0.02	0.07	−0.68
Provision of a training session before the visit	−0.09	−0.20	0.24	0.66
Provision of accompanying events	−0.19	−0.70	−0.61	−0.68

Note: WTs = wine tourists.

and Figure 4 compare the standard scores assigned by respondents from the two clusters across both samples. The most preferred attribute for the more engaged WTs in both samples is a guided tour by an expert, followed by the reputation for the Italian respondents and the provision of a training session before the visit for the Turkish respondents. Conversely, the least preferred attribute is the reputation for the Turkish sample, while the availability of various accompanying events (such as music events, cooking shows, horse riding, e-bike tours, etc.) is the least preferred for the Italian sample.

5. Discussion

Our findings show that respondents in both the Italian and the Turkish sample place equal importance on three key attributes: first, they regard the presence of an expert during the visit as the most crucial element of a WTEXP, with food and wine pairings ranked third, and practical experiences as those related to the wine manufacturing process placed fifth. It is worth noting that all these attributes are closely linked to the educational dimension of the WTEXP. Indeed, the presence of an expert guide (e.g., a sommelier or the winery owner) who can provide timely, detailed, and professional information about the wine, the winemaking process, and the winery during the visit is uniquely the most important aspect of the WTEXP. This highlights the importance of the educational component of the visit—considered as a moment of personal development, that motivates the WTEXP among wine consumers [11,69,70]. Consistently, Carlsen and Boksberger [71] highlighted staff knowledge, skills, and abilities as essential elements of WTEXP. Indeed, the educational experience contributes significantly to creating lasting memories and increasing satisfaction, as highlighted by Quadri-Felitti and Fiore [35]. As expected, we find that this feature also emerges as the most relevant for the more engaged—who are also the ones who are more involved with wine—WTs in both countries, and for the less engaged in the Turkish sample.

As previously mentioned, the opportunity to pair food and wine during the visit ranks among the top preferences of respondents in both countries. This aspect is also linked to the educational dimension of WTEXP. In the same vein, in a study on Italian WTs, Giampietri et al. [42] found that one of the most important pieces of information they would like to receive during a winery visit is related to food and wine pairing. As Serra et al. [72] outline, the enjoyment consumers perceive from tasting wines paired with foods is one of the reasons they pursue this activity. In line with this, Carvalho et al. [73] highlight that visitors of wine regions view this opportunity as engaging and participatory, offering them the chance to interact with knowledgeable staff and discover the fascinating stories behind the products they taste. Additionally, the link between gastronomy and wine enhances the overall visitor experience [74].

In both samples, practical wine-related activities (e.g., harvesting, grape crushing) serve as another motivating factor for WTs, closely tied to the educational aspect of the experience. In this regard, Cinelli Colombini [26] notes that themed guided tours have become increasingly popular in Italy, particularly during the grape harvest season in October, as tourists typically select renowned wineries to visit their cellars and participate in small courses on viticulture. Giampietri et al. [42], in their study on Italian WTs, demonstrate that the opportunity to observe wine processing during the winery visit is very important, especially for those more involved with wine. Indeed, according to Rachão et al. [29], who cited other authors, participating in the practical aspects of wine production acts as a form of co-creation that fosters involvement and satisfaction among WTs, ultimately contributing to a memorable experience.

Regarding the attribute related to the beauty of the winery and the surrounding vineyard landscape, our results show a discrepancy in the preferences of WTs between the two samples. In fact, while Italian respondents ranked this aspect second in preference, the Turkish sample considered it less important, placing it only fourth. Getz and Brown [5] highlight cultural differences in the aesthetic appreciation of wine regions, further explaining why WTs in the two surveyed samples value these aspects differently. In the literature, we find that the cellar door environment is a primary factor in enhancing consumer value in the WTEXP [71], and the beauty of the wine landscape serves as a key driver of aesthetic motivation for WTs [11,19,30,75]. In a recent paper focused on Bulgaria, Terziyska [19] argues that the beauty of the winery and the wine area is one of the most important factors that impress visitors. Previously, Quadri-Felitti and Fiore [35] stated that this factor plays a major role in shaping positive memories within the WTEXP. Consistent with this, Fernandes and Cruz [15] suggested that it is mainly the physical attributes and the appealing atmosphere of the winery that draw tourists.

For the Turkish sample, the second most important factor highlights the prominence of educational elements in motivating WTEXPs: the availability of a training session prior to the visit. In comparison, Italian respondents placed this aspect second to last in their rankings. Unfortunately, we cannot find any support in the literature regarding the importance of this aspect of the visit for WTs, and this highlights the need for further research in this area.

Another difference that emerges between the two samples concerns the importance attached to the attribute related to the reputation of the wine and the winery: the latter is ranked fourth by Italian respondents in our sample, while it is ranked last by Turkish respondents. Consistently, Back et al. [32] found that both the reputation of the winery and the perceived quality of its wine influence the choices of winery visitors, particularly the frequency of visits and the intention to return to the same winery. Consumers associate a winery with a good reputation with high-quality products, and confidence in quality drives consumers to prefer such wineries over lesser-known ones [76,77]. It follows that building a strong reputation is widely recognized as one of the most powerful strategies to enhance competitiveness by attracting and retaining consumers [78].

In contrast to the literature, which highlights the importance of offering attractions and activities beyond just a winery tour [31], our respondents from both samples place minimal priority on the provision of accompanying events. This suggests that factors related to the escapist/entertainment sphere are less preferred than educational or aesthetic elements in our sample.

As highlighted by several authors [71,79,80], it is crucial to ensure that wine consumer value is consistently delivered across all market segments (e.g., male vs. female or older vs. younger WTs) to avoid disparities in how different groups perceive it. Consequently, identifying and analyzing the preferences of these distinct clusters is essential.

The literature has made significant efforts to segment the wine tourist population. For instance, Charters and Ali-Knight [14] found five segments, namely, wine lovers, wine connoisseurs, wine enthusiasts, wine novices, and wine amateurs, while Hall et al. [10] found three segments of WTs s: wine lover, wine interested, and curious tourists. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies that segment WTs in Turkey to allow comparison with our results. In fact, a recent study by Koksal and Seyedimany [81] clustered wine consumers in Turkey, rather than WTs, according to their involvement with wine, identifying three groups: high, moderate, and low involvement. Conversely, the literature on WT in Italy offers several segmentation studies. For example, Giampietri et al. [42] categorized WTs based on their WI and their appreciation for new wine varieties, distinguishing four clusters: enthusiast explorers, average seekers, wine neutrals, and passionate conservatives. Additionally, Bitsani and Kavoura [82] identified four categories of wine festival participants: wine-friendly, beginners, occasional visitors, and tourists. Del Chiappa et al. [83] also contributed by segmenting WTs based on their perception of winery visits as authentic experiences, identifying two clusters: enthusiastic and indifferent WTs. Again, however, direct comparisons with our results on clusters of WTs from the Italian sample are limited by the use of different variables for segmentation.

Based on the above, when examining preferences within the two clusters for each country, both similarities and differences become apparent. In both countries, the more engaged WTs place a greater value on the preference of a wine professional guide during the visit. This aligns with findings in the literature, which suggest that experienced WTs are drawn to more authentic and detailed experiences [11,14]. These tourists often aim to enhance their knowledge and connection with wine through direct interactions with industry professionals.

Overall, the findings highlight that the importance of reputation is more influential in the Italian sample than in Turkish one, where the focus may be on other aspects of the WTEXP. This is likely due to the well-developed WT sector, as well as the presence of several regions that are internationally recognized for their wine, such as Tuscany, Veneto, and Piedmont. Indeed, the literature suggests that reputation is a key driver in mature markets [84]. In addition, the results show that more engaged tourists in the Italian sample attribute slightly greater importance to reputation compared to less engaged ones; in contrast, reputation receives negative ratings from both segments in the Turkish sample, with more engaged tourists rating it even lower than their less engaged counterparts. These differing views on reputation may stem from cultural differences or variations in market development.

Moreover, the emphasis on landscape aesthetics among WTs in the Italian sample may reflect their preference for occasional leisure and scenic enjoyment over wine-centric factors. This aligns with studies such as Charters and Ali-Knight [14] which indicate that non-expert tourists tend to prioritize environmental beauty over wine-specific elements.

The fact that food pairings are valued significantly more by less engaged tourists in both countries suggests that WT may be closely tied to gastronomy for those with lower levels of WI. This perspective is supported by studies highlighting the importance of food and wine pairings in attracting individuals seeking broader culinary experiences. As a result, such pairings make WT destinations more appealing by offering a well-rounded experience that goes beyond just wine, which aligns with research like Charters and Ali-Knight [14] that emphasizes the role of gastronomy in motivating certain tourist segments. A further difference emerges in the evaluation of the attribute related to practical wine-related experience. In the Italian sample, both groups rate this attribute poorly. In contrast, within the Turkish sample, more engaged tourists display a slight preference for such experiences, and this suggests that more engaged WTs may be motivated by a desire to expand their understanding through practical activities. This would align with engagement theories in WT proposed by researchers such as Alant and Bruwer [2]. Indeed, this trend underscores how practical experiences can appeal to those seeking deeper immersion and educational opportunities in WT. As for the interest in pre-visit wine tasting training sessions, the results show that it is notably more preferred among Turkish respondents across both clusters, reflecting their strong enthusiasm for gaining deeper insights into the wine sector. Indeed, in Turkey, this variable seems to appeal more to less engaged tourists, likely serving as an entry point to introduce beginners to the world of wine and stimulate their interest. In contrast, this aspect is not highly preferred by respondents in our Italian sample, both the more engaged and the less engaged ones. This may be linked to the fact that, in Italy, the WT sector is already well developed, so consumers, regardless of their engagement or involvement, are likely to feel sufficiently prepared to enjoy a WTEXP without the need for special preparation. It is also possible that they are driven more by other factors (e.g., escapism, aesthetics, entertainment) than by the desire for personal growth and self-improvement [14,35]. Regarding the attribute related to the presence of accompanying events, such as live music, cooking classes, wine festivals, and vineyard tours, our results show a general lack of interest in this aspect of the WTEXP, both among more engaged and less engaged WTs in both samples. These results contrast with the existing literature, which instead assigns an important role to such events in attracting tourists to wineries, offering both entertainment and educational value. According to Yuan et al. [85], events like wine festivals can enrich the experience for less engaged tourists, providing extra layers of enjoyment. Montella [33] highlights that such events enhance the tourist experience and encourage repeat visits, boosting the appeal of WT. Also, wine events are recognized for their positive impact on local development and the sustainability of wine regions [86].

6. Conclusions

This study investigates WTs’ preferences regarding attributes of the WTEXP in Italy and Turkey, revealing both differences and similarities between the two countries, each with varying levels of WT development. By employing the Best–Worst Scaling method, the results show that both Italian and Turkish tourists prioritize visits led by wine experts. However, Italians place more value on the beauty of the winery and the winescape, while Turks tend to consider the reputation of the wine/winery/wine region less important. Additionally, preferences vary within the identified clusters in each sample, which are based on attitudinal scales related to WI. The novelty of this study lies in being the first to analyze cross-cultural wine tourism preferences in Turkey and Italy, offering key and actionable insights for stakeholders in the industry to shape more tailored and effective WTEXPs. Additionally, these findings advance wine tourism research, particularly in Turkey, where the sector remains underdeveloped despite growing interest from both demand and supply sides. Indeed, this research is among the first to explore the preferences of Turkish consumers. Profiling WTs and understanding their preferences enables wineries to tailor their offerings accordingly. For example, Italian tourists in our sample are more drawn to the aesthetic appeal of the winery’s architecture and surroundings, while Turkish WTs seem to be more interested in informative sessions before their visit. These insights underscore the importance of customizing the WTEXP to align with the cultural and personal preferences of different tourist segments.

6.1. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Building on these findings, it is clear that factors such as expert-led tours, environmental and aesthetic aspects, and personalized engagement are essential in shaping the overall WTEXP. Furthermore, wineries should consider investing in skilled staff who can guide visitors effectively and highlight key elements that appeal to specific groups—whether that be the beauty of the surroundings for Italians or the educational aspect for Turks. Additionally, wineries can leverage these insights for targeted marketing strategies, emphasizing aesthetic appeal in communications aimed at the Italian market while focusing on informative and immersive experiences for Turkish tourists. By aligning staff training and marketing efforts with these preferences, wineries can enhance visitor satisfaction and create more engaging and memorable wine tourism experiences.

Finally, an important aspect to consider is the growing focus on sustainability in WT. Tourists are increasingly aware of ecological and sustainable practices and are seeking experiences that prioritize environmental responsibility alongside enjoyment. Wineries that adopt sustainable practices and offer eco-friendly experiences are becoming more popular, responding to the demand for responsible tourism. In parallel, technological advancements such as augmented and virtual reality are opening new possibilities for personalized, immersive experiences that allow visitors to explore WT in innovative ways. These trends are poised to shape the future of WT, offering wineries opportunities to innovate and grow while addressing the evolving expectations of tourists.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the significant insights provided by this research, some limitations should be noted. The use of convenience samples in both countries may impact the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the relatively small sample sizes (104 Italians and 149 Turks) and the limited number of wineries involved in the initial phase of this study suggest that further research could provide a more comprehensive understanding of WTs’ preferences. Future studies could also explore the reasons behind the differences in preferences among different clusters of tourists and investigate how specific events or experiences influence their decisions. Furthermore, expanding this research to other wine-producing countries, both Old and New World, could offer a broader perspective on the role of cultural factors in shaping WTEXPs. In particular, given the increasing demand for and supply of WTEXPs in Turkey, further research should delve deeper into understanding consumer behavior, destination competitiveness, and the role of local wineries in promoting enotourism. As interest in WT is increasing in Turkey, future research could examine how government policies, marketing strategies, and sustainable practices influence its development, ultimately contributing to a more structured and competitive wine tourism industry in the country.

Additionally, future studies could benefit from employing alternative research methods, e.g., stated preference techniques, to gain deeper insights into wine tourists’ preferences and their segmentation and profiling. These approaches could provide robust evidence to guide policy and marketing strategies.