Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Strategic Customer Insights: Leveraging Online Reviews for Service Enhancement in Wine Tourism

Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 3999; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093999

by Fatheia Ibrahim^1,*, Serdal Işiktaş²

and Ayşem Çelebi²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Florin Nechita

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4:

Theodore Metaxas

Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 3999; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093999

Submission received: 20 January 2025 / Revised: 1 April 2025 / Accepted: 3 April 2025 / Published: 29 April 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Co-Creating Sustainable Food & Wine Tourism and Rural Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is to identify positive and negative themes of wine tourism experiences and to explore how perceptions vary among traveler types through the analysis of 2,850 TripAdvisor reviews of wineries in Bordeaux, Champagne, and Burgundy. The authors are invited to revise the manuscript to address the following points:

Both in the title and in some parts of the text, the authors mention the concept of innovation (e.g. “Additionally, study provides insights for improving wine tourism services innovation”). Innovation does not arise from the topic and the analysis and any reference to it should be removed. Analyzing customers’ reviews will help wineries offer better services to visitors but not necessarily more innovative services.
In the abstract the authors state that “This research aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting sustainable tourism (Goal 12) and fostering economic growth (Goal 8)”. This is not supported by the analysis that follows and appears to have been added here only to link the article to the journal's topic. This sentence should be removed.
In the introduction the authors argue that “The global wine tourism market, estimated at $8.7 billion in 2020, is projected to grow significantly, reaching approximately €29.6 billion by 2030. Meanwhile, in California’s Napa Valley, wine tourism contributed $54.8 billion to the state’s economy in 2021”. How is it possible that the global wine tourism market is estimated at $8.7 billion and in California’s Napa Valley alone the contribution of wine tourism reaches $54.8 billion? Please double-check your data, apparently the data for California concerns the wine industry as a whole and not wine tourism specifically.
Lines 42-49: In addition to simply citing previous research, authors should also state the main findings of these studies. For example, authors argue that “Wu et al. (2024) researched the wine tourism experiences of Chinese tourists and found several important attributes”. What are these attributes?
Line 50: “Currently, a considerable number of studies have emphasized the need for more research on the dimensions of wine tourist experiences…”. Please add some references here.
In the methodology section, the statistics mentioned for wine production and wine tourism in France are old and outdated. Please update them with newer data.
Line 203: “This study adopts an ethnography approach”. This is not true, the method applied is netnography. There are differences between the two methods.
Line 222-223: “reviews were scraped from the “Travelers’ Top Picks” section”. Why this limitation? Doesn't it affect the content of the reviews? Please explain.
In the methodology section, more information is required: How many wineries were analyzed per region, how many reviews out of the total concerned each region, for what period of time were reviews analyzed.
Line 224: A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis. Line 525: The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French. Which of the two is true?
In the Findings Section, the categories are not clear. Some experiences are repeated in different categories, such as small portions which are mentioned in wine quality, tasting experiences and value for money, or cost in relation to the services offered which is mentioned in both time and organization issues and value for money.
Figures must be accompanied by a title and numbering.
Please follow journal’s instructions for in text references (with numbers).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A professional editing is useful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in refining and improving our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response detailing how we have addressed each of your comments. All revisions are highlighted in the manuscript for clarity.

Comment 1: Both in the title and in some parts of the text, the authors mention the concept of innovation (e.g. “Additionally, study provides insights for improving wine tourism services innovation”). Innovation does not arise from the topic and the analysis and any reference to it should be removed. Analyzing customers’ reviews will help wineries offer better services to visitors but not necessarily more innovative services.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree that the study does not focus on innovation, and any references to "innovation" have been removed from the title, abstract, and in key areas in the manuscript.

Comment 2: In the abstract the authors state that “This research aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting sustainable tourism (Goal 12) and fostering economic growth (Goal 8)”. This is not supported by the analysis that follows and appears to have been added here only to link the article to the journal's topic. This sentence should be removed.

Response 2:

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

We have removed this sentence from the abstract. However, in the Introduction and discussion section, we have clarified how wine tourism can align with sustainability efforts, ensuring a more appropriate connection to SDGs without overstating the study’s contributions.

See Page 3

Additionally, this study contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting sustainable tourism (Goal 12) and fostering economic growth (Goal 8). Through identifying critical elements that influence tourist satisfaction and service quality in wine tourism, the study provides solutions for wineries and tour operators to improve their offerings. These enhancements can lead to longer stays, increased return visits, and the development of local employment, thereby promoting a more sustainable and economically robust tourism industry and ultimately supporting the UN goals.

See Page 26

Additionally, our analysis reveals emergent evidence of sustainable practices within the region's wine tourism. Several reviewers highlighted aspects that suggest an ongoing commitment to sustainability. For example, one review stated, "Their commitment to ecologically friendly wines and winemakers is refreshing."

See Page 28

Additionally, the knowledge from this study can help wineries and tour operators customize their products to satisfy the various demands of guests. By addressing common concerns like time management and perceived value, as well as by incorporating sustainable practices into their service offerings, industry players may increase overall visitor satisfaction. These developments are vital not just for increasing local economic growth (SDG 8) but also for encouraging environmentally friendly travel habits (SDG 12), therefore helping the region to expand sustainably.

Comment 3: In the introduction the authors argue that “The global wine tourism market, estimated at $8.7 billion in 2020, is projected to grow significantly, reaching approximately €29.6 billion by 2030. Meanwhile, in California’s Napa Valley, wine tourism contributed $54.8 billion to the state’s economy in 2021”. How is it possible that the global wine tourism market is estimated at $8.7 billion and in California’s Napa Valley alone the contribution of wine tourism reaches $54.8 billion? Please double-check your data, apparently the data for California concerns the wine industry as a whole and not wine tourism specifically.

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable comment.

Upon review, we found that the Napa Valley figure referred to the overall wine industry, not specifically wine tourism. We have corrected this inconsistency and ensured that all statistics are properly sourced and relevant to wine tourism.

See Page 1

Accordingly, the revenue growth in 2025 was recorded to be $347.1 billion [2]. A poll carried out in late 2020 in some parts of Europe revealed that some wineries are preparing to increase expenditures in wine tourism following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

Comment 4: Lines 42-49: In addition to simply citing previous research, authors should also state the main findings of these studies. For example, authors argue that “Wu et al. (2024) researched the wine tourism experiences of Chinese tourists and found several important attributes”. What are these attributes?

Response 4:

We have revised this section to summarize the findings of each cited study, particularly specifying the important attributes of wine tourism experiences identified in Wu et al. (2024).

See page 2

The study found seven traits for outbound wine tourists and eleven for local wine drinkers. Three frequent features revealed in the study found both in domestic and outbound tourists are "wine tasting and purchase," "scenic view," and "wine knowledge" [8].

Comment 5: Line 50: “Currently, a considerable number of studies have emphasized the need for more research on the dimensions of wine tourist experiences…”. Please add some references here.

Response 5:

Thank you

We have added appropriate references to support this claim.

comment 6: In the methodology section, the statistics mentioned for wine production and wine tourism in France are old and outdated. Please update them with newer data.

Response 6:

We have updated these statistics using the most recent available sources to provide more accurate and relevant information.

See page 11

France has around 11,000 wineries that welcome tourists, 10 million wine tourists annually, and 5.2 billion euros in income [56]. France dominates Europe's wine tourism business (51% of worldwide sales), aided by efforts such as the Vignobles & Découvertes label, which promotes 72 wine tourist sites [57]. Among France’s wine regions, Bordeaux stands out as one of the most popular destinations [58]. The Bordeaux region attracted nearly two million visitors annually, drawn by its diverse wine-related activities [59]. Notably, international guests comprised 53% of the 2024 visitors, with significant representation from Spain, the United States, and the United Kingdom [60].

Comment 7: Line 203: “This study adopts an ethnography approach”. This is not true, the method applied is netnography. There are differences between the two methods.

Response 7: We acknowledge this mistake and have corrected "ethnography" to "netnography" in the methodology section.

Comment 8: Line 222-223: “reviews were scraped from the “Travelers’ Top Picks” section”. Why this limitation? Doesn't it affect the content of the reviews? Please explain.

Response 8:

We have provided a justification for this methodological decision. The "Travelers' Top Picks" section was chosen to ensure high-quality and informative reviews, as these reviews are typically rated as helpful by users.

See page 13

The decision to scrape reviews only from the "Travelers' Top Picks" section is a conscious methodological decision designed to ensure the obtaining of high-quality, trustworthy data. This section contains reviews that have been emphasized for their apparent usefulness, detail, and credibility, frequently based on favorable comments from the traveler community

Comment 9: In the methodology section, more information is required: How many wineries were analyzed per region, how many reviews out of the total concerned each region, for what period of time were reviews analyzed.

Response 9:

We have added details specifying the number of wineries analyzed per region (Bordeaux: 12, Champagne: 9, Burgundy: 8), the distribution of reviews per region, and the timeframe (January 2018–December 2022).

See page 13

Specifically, the dataset includes 12 wineries from Bordeaux, 9 from Champagne, and 8 from Burgundy. Reviews were collected over a five-year period, specifically from January 2018 to December 2022. This timeframe was selected to ensure a comprehensive representation of visitor experiences, capturing both recent trends and longer-term patterns in customer perception

Comment 10: Line 224: A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis. Line 525: The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French. Which of the two is true?

Response 10: The study analyzed English-language reviews only. The inconsistency in Line 525 has been corrected.

Comment 11: In the Findings Section, the categories are not clear. Some experiences are repeated in different categories, such as small portions which are mentioned in wine quality, tasting experiences and value for money, or cost in relation to the services offered which is mentioned in both time and organization issues and value for money.

Response 11: We have refined the categorization, ensuring that overlapping aspects (e.g., small portions in "wine quality," "tasting experiences," and "value for money") are placed under the most relevant theme while avoiding redundancy.

Comment 12: Figures must be accompanied by a title and numbering.

Response 12: All figures have been labeled with appropriate titles and sequential numbering.

Comment 13: Please follow journal’s instructions for in text references (with numbers).

Response 13: We have revised all in-text references to align with the journal’s required numbering format.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The aim of the paper, as stated in the abstract and title, which is to examine online reviews to identify positive and negative themes of wine tourism experiences and to determine sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction based on nearly 3,000 TripAdvisor reviews, is clear. The abstract also briefly presents the research method and the main results.

In line 52, it would be better to use "research gap" instead of "research lacuna."

In line 131, there is a small typo: “… emphasizes no the need to customize…” (remove “no”).

It is suggested that the authors provide more details in the Methodology section. For instance, lines 227-228 state that “only reviews from establishments with a substantial number of comments were considered.” The authors should specify exact criteria, such as “comments with fewer than [specific number] of words/characters were excluded.” Additionally, it is recommended to include a table showing the number of reviews assigned to each segment and the number of reviews categorized under each theme. Furthermore, the Methodology section should clarify whether a single comment was assigned to only one main theme or if it could be assigned to multiple themes where applicable.

The examples provided in sub-chapter 4.1.1 Wine Quality, are not relevant to this section. For instance, the second comment mentions a “very small quantity”, so the only reference to the wine was not related to its quality.

The two figures are inserted in the text but are not numbered. It is necessary to include a caption below Figure 1 indicating what it represents (e.g., "Key themes based on the analysis of 2,850 comments"). The same observation applies to the second figure. Does the second figure represent the key themes based solely on reviews from solo travelers? Additionally, it is recommended to generate a separate figure for each segment. Furthermore, it is suggested that the authors provide a table or mention in the text how many comments were analysed for each segment.

There are two contradictory statements:

On lines 224-226: “A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis.”
On lines 525-526: “The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French.”

Although the authors mention two SDGs in the abstract, the discussion on sustainable development and sustainable tourism is notably absent from the Discussion and Conclusions section. Based on the analyzed TripAdvisor comments, can it be inferred whether wine tourism in the selected area can be characterized as sustainable? It would be valuable to include excerpts from the comments to support this perspective.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Comment 1: In line 52, it would be better to use "research gap" instead of "research lacuna."

Response 1: We have replaced "research lacuna" with "research gap" to improve readability and clarity.

Comment 2: In line 131, there is a small typo: “… emphasizes no the need to customize…” (remove “no”).

Response 2: The typo has been corrected, and the sentence now reads properly.

Comment 3: It is suggested that the authors provide more details in the Methodology section. For instance, lines 227-228 state that “only reviews from establishments with a substantial number of comments were considered.” The authors should specify exact criteria, such as “comments with fewer than [specific number] of words/characters were excluded.” Additionally, it is recommended to include a table showing the number of reviews assigned to each segment and the number of reviews categorized under each theme. Furthermore, the Methodology section should clarify whether a single comment was assigned to only one main theme or if it could be assigned to multiple themes where applicable.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We first added the following information to improve our method section;

“Comments with fewer than 100 words/characters were excluded, enabling a more comprehensive analysis of themes and patterns (Cassar et al., 2020). This rigorous selection process helped ensure that the dataset captured meaningful insights rather than fragmented or superficial feedback.”

As per your suggestion, we have constructed a table that summarizes the number of reviews allocated to each segment (Couples, Friends, Family, Solo) and the number of reviews under various themes. This table serves to enhance transparency and improve understanding of the way the data was allocated and analyzed. Please see table 1.

Comment 4: The examples provided in sub-chapter 4.1.1 Wine Quality, are not relevant to this section. For instance, the second comment mentions a “very small quantity”, so the only reference to the wine was not related to its quality.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful observation. We have carefully reviewed the examples provided in sub-chapter “Wine Quality “and acknowledge that certain comments may not directly align with the intended focus of this section. Specifically, the example mentioning "very small quantity" does not explicitly address wine quality. We revised this section with relevant comments.

Comment 5: The two figures are inserted in the text but are not numbered. It is necessary to include a caption below Figure 1 indicating what it represents (e.g., "Key themes based on the analysis of 2,850 comments"). The same observation applies to the second figure. Does the second figure represent the key themes based solely on reviews from solo travelers? Additionally, it is recommended to generate a separate figure for each segment. Furthermore, it is suggested that the authors provide a table or mention in the text how many comments were analysed for each segment.

Response 5: We thank you for your comments. Derived from Leximancer, the second figure basically shows the main thematic constructs common to all four traveler segments. These traveler segments comprised couples, friends, family, and solo travelers. To this end, we created an Excel file for each of the four traveler types and imported them into Leximancer. Subsequently, we asked Leximancer to process the collected data and visualize the most salient themes pertaining to each travel segment. Nonetheless, we do acknowledge the importance of this being explicitly clear in the text, and this is now amended in the manuscript accordingly.

We also appreciate your suggestion to generate separate thematic maps for each traveler segment. However, due to the nature of Leximancer’s analytical process, generating four completely independent thematic maps is not feasible for the following reasons

- Leximancer recognizes themes and builds concept maps on the co-occurrence and strength of relation of the words throughout the entire dataset. Where separate maps would be drawn for each segment, the program would treat these as independent data sources and hence might create inconsistencies in the emergence and structure of the themes. If this were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to make straightforward comparisons across traveler segments, each map being built upon a given subset of its own rather than under a unified analytical framework.

- Instead of creating separate maps for each traveler type, we uploaded four different Excel files into Leximancer, and then allowed the software to analyze traveler types individually under the same thematic framework. This approach enables us to observe which themes are most often cited by a segment, without affecting the overall conceptual relationships.

You can also see similar studies also followed the same analysis;

Brochado, A., & Brochado, F. (2019). What makes a glamping experience great?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 10(1), 15-27.

Saydam, M. B., & Altun, Ö. (2023). An analysis of British Michelin-starred restaurants: guests' online reviews. British Food Journal, 125(11), 4214-4228.

Comment 6: There are two contradictory statements:

On lines 224-226: “A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis.”

On lines 525-526: “The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French.”

Response 6: The study analyzed only English-language reviews. The conflicting statement in Line 525 has been corrected.

Comment 7: Although the authors mention two SDGs in the abstract, the discussion on sustainable development and sustainable tourism is notably absent from the Discussion and Conclusions section. Based on the analyzed TripAdvisor comments, can it be inferred whether wine tourism in the selected area can be characterized as sustainable? It would be valuable to include excerpts from the comments to support this perspective.

Response 7: To strengthen the discussion on sustainability, we have:

Provided excerpts from TripAdvisor comments that reference sustainable practices.

Discussed whether wine tourism in Bordeaux, Champagne, and Burgundy can be characterized as sustainable based on visitor feedback.

Clarified how elements of sustainability (e.g., eco-friendly wine production, waste reduction) were mentioned in reviews.

See Page 3

See Page 26

Additionally, our analysis reveals emergent evidence of sustainable practices within the region's wine tourism. Several reviewers highlighted aspects that suggest an ongoing commitment to sustainability. For example, one review stated, "Their commitment to ecologically friendly wines and winemakers is refreshing."

See Page 28

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article explores ways to improve the organization of wine tourism. The topic of the study is relevant. The study presented in the article contains a review of literary sources related to wine tourism, and also fills a gap in existing research by proposing to take into account the division of tourists into categories into individual tourists, couples, groups and families when organizing excursion wine tours. The authors of the article express the opinion that taking into account the categories of tourists will improve the perception of wine tours and will have a positive impact on tourists' reviews. In Section 5, the authors presented a discussion of the research results, provided recommendations and identified prospects for future research.

Comments for improving the article:

At the end of Section 1. Introduction, a brief description of the following Sections of the article should be presented.

Lines 252-255: “ Seven primary themes have emerged from the analysis: two of them denote negative aspects, whereas five refer to positive aspects of wine tourism (Figure 1). These are “Wine Quality,” “Tasting Experiences,” “Tour Guide,” “Time and Organization Issues,” “Value for Money,” “Cultural and Historical Charm,” and “Vineyard Views”. “

For a better understanding of the text, it is necessary to note which topics relate to the negative aspects and which relate to the positive aspects of wine tourism.

The title under Figure 1 is missing! (line 256). Does the intersection between the depicted topics in the Figure mean anything and does it need to be explained?

The title under Figure 2 is also missing! (line 394).

Lines 525-526: “The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French.” And in lines 224-226: “A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis. “

So, are only English-language reviews considered, or are they also in French?

The following are some notes on citing sources. Perhaps, to better track the use of sources, authors should use citation by number, such as Hall et al.[22].

Line 37: “Hall et al., 1998, p. 267”, and in reference 22 we see the year 1997.

Line 125: “Nella and Christou, 2021”. This literature is not in the list of literary sources.

Line 127: “Tassiopoulos et al., 2004”. This literature is not in the list of literary sources.

Line 190: “Fountain et al., 2021”. This literature is not in the list of references.

Line 210: “Terziyskac and Damyanova, 2020”. And in line 686 we see the author Terziyska, I.

Line 447: “…research by Bruwer (2003)”. This literature is not in the list of literary sources.

Line 481: “(Meneses et al., 2025;…”, and in reference 31 (line 626) we see the year 2023.

Line 570: “Shannon, 2022”. This reference is not in alphabetical order in the reference list, and there is no serial number.

Line 666: This reference is not assigned a serial number.

Line 673: Reference 50 is not referenced in the text of the article.

Lines 690 and 688: Reference 57 duplicates reference 56!

Line 706: Reference 64 is not referenced in the text of the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. Your insights have significantly helped us improve the clarity, organization, and accuracy of our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response detailing how we have addressed each of your concerns. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: At the end of Section 1. Introduction, a brief description of the following Sections of the article should be presented.

Response 1:

Comment 1: At the end of Section 1. Introduction, a brief description of the following Sections of the article should be presented.

Response 1: Thank you for the constructive comment. See page 4.

The following sections present a literature review on wine tourism, the research methodology, key findings, discussion of results, theoretical and practical implications, and concluding remarks with future research directions.

Comment 2: Lines 252-255: “ Seven primary themes have emerged from the analysis: two of them denote negative aspects, whereas five refer to positive aspects of wine tourism (Figure 1). These are “Wine Quality,” “Tasting Experiences,” “Tour Guide,” “Time and Organization Issues,” “Value for Money,” “Cultural and Historical Charm,” and “Vineyard Views”. “

For a better understanding of the text, it is necessary to note which topics relate to the negative aspects and which relate to the positive aspects of wine tourism.

Response 2: We have revised this section to clearly indicate that:

Positive themes: Wine Quality, Tasting Experiences, Tour Guide, Cultural and Historical Charm, Vineyard Views.

Negative themes: Time and Organization Issues, Value for Money.

See Table 2

Comment 3: The title under Figure 1 is missing! (line 256). Does the intersection between the depicted topics in the Figure mean anything and does it need to be explained?

The title under Figure 2 is also missing! (line 394).

Response 3: Thanks for the constructive comment. A title has been added below Figure 1.

A title has been added below Figure 2 for clarity

Comment 4: Lines 525-526: “The analysis relies on reviews written in both English and French.” And in lines 224-226: “A total of 2,850 reviews were selected for analysis, focusing exclusively on English-language reviews to ensure consistency and accessibility during analysis. “

So, are only English-language reviews considered, or are they also in French?

Response: 4: The study analyzed only English-language reviews. The conflicting statement in Line 525 has been corrected to maintain consistency.

Comment 5: The following are some notes on citing sources. Perhaps, to better track the use of sources, authors should use citation by number, such as Hall et al.[22].