1. Introduction
The world of wine is attracting more and more interest, from learning about the vineyard, winemaking, and acquiring knowledge about grape varieties and their characteristics, as well as the bottling process. This interest has led to the emergence of enotourism, also known as wine tourism. Hall et al. [
1], Getz [
2], and Charters and Ali-Knight [
3] agree that wine tourism is a sensory experience through various visitor attraction possibilities, including the experience of a lifestyle, the pleasure of tasting, or attending festivals.
This tourist alternative became so relevant and in demand that Europe established the definition of this term in the so-called European Charter of Wine Tourism [
4], understanding it as the development of tourism, leisure, and free time activities dedicated to the discovery and cultural and oenological enjoyment of the vineyard, the wine, and its territory. Ten years later, the digital journal VINTUR [
5] offered an official definition of wine tourism, conceiving it as “integration under the same thematic concept of the existing and potential tourist resources and services of interest in a wine-growing area”.
Moreover, wine tourism is seen as an example of integral tourism that reflects the elements of the rural environment such as its folklore, its local gastronomy, or the customs of that geographical area [
6]. In other words, the social, cultural and environmental history of a territory or the idiosyncrasy of its inhabitants can be defined in a global way as “the wine landscape” [
7]. In short, it is experiential tourism, which is based on the emotional relationship between the tourist and everything that surrounds the wine, creating a bond through the emotions experienced during the visit to the winery and/or its vineyards. The experiential visitor seeks to live the destination according to the experiences he/she wants to live.
Tourists who want to take part in this experience can do so from regions classified as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or Denomination of Origin Qualified (DOCa) [
8]. Therefore, they are active visitors, they ask questions, they are interested, and even get involved—in some wineries they have, for example, the alternative of participating in the grape harvest, which would provide them with a unique experience. Alternatively, wine tourism might be seen as a model of sustainable and economic development. By promoting and improving the image of wine as a product, diversifying and seasonally adjusting tourist activity, it becomes one of the recent and potential drivers of the economy. Getz and Brown [
9] consider that wine tourism is simultaneously a consumer behavior, a strategy to develop the geographical area and the wine market of that area, and a promotional opportunity for wineries to sell their products directly to consumers.
Since the 1990s, the diversification of a place’s attractions and the offer of a greater variety of products throughout the year has encouraged alternative and/or complementary tourism to the sun and beach tourism typical of the months of July and August. Wine tourism would be one of the thematic tourism alternatives that meet these characteristics, by shifting preferences towards shorter and more frequent trips, avoiding the concentration of trips only for short periods and the tourist overcrowding that revives the well-known “tourism-phobia” (antipathy or aversion to tourism and tourists, especially when it becomes a mass phenomenon in an area).
On the contrary, wine and tourism form the perfect symbiosis to promote the socio-economic and environmental development of wine regions that are not overcrowded for tourism by creating jobs or generating wealth in rural areas through, among other alternatives, sustainable agriculture [
10]. This is because wine tourism is a complementary element for rural development for three reasons: it increases tourist flows in that geographical area, it creates an important image of a quality tourist destination, and it serves to develop certain geographical areas [
11,
12]. In Spain, the first wine route was created in Cambados (Galicia) [
13]. At present, the Association of Wine Cities (ACEVIN, for its acronym in Spanish), created in 1994 to establish the design and methodology necessary for different wine routes to become a reality, confirms that there are 34 certified routes in Spain by 2022, with three others already at an advanced stage: Uclés and Méntrida, in Castilla-La Mancha, and Txacolí, in the Basque Country.
During 2021, the Spanish wine route which received the highest number of visitors was the Calatayud Wine Route (Aragon), with 213,614 visitors, followed by the Ribera del Duero Wine Route (Castilla and Leon), with 197,145. The second wine-growing area received the approval of its PDO in 1982 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA, for its acronym in Spanish), and is the one selected for this study for two reasons: because it is one of the most important for both the quality of its wines and its volume of production, and because of its recent commitment to ecological agriculture. This route covers an area of around 21,000 hectares of vineyards and is the only route that includes municipalities in four Castilian provinces: Burgos, Valladolid, Soria, and Segovia. In fact, as Alonso et al. [
14] (p. 112) point out, “Ribera del Duero is the largest PDO in Castilla and Leon, both in number of municipalities and registered hectares, as well as in production, number of wineries and winegrowers”.
Along with wine tourism activity, wine tourists are interested in wineries whose production processes are more respectful of the environment—a concern that has reached viticulture. In this regard, Spain is the world’s leading producer of organic wine. In 2021, 15% of the total vineyard surface area in this Iberian country was dedicated to organic production. In Castilla and Leon, this production increased by 21% in 2021 compared to the previous year. On a global scale, it accounts for 27% of the total area dedicated to vine cultivation, with an average annual growth rate of 16%, according to data from the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV).
In this sense, the development of ecological agricultural practices can act as a pole of attraction for wine tourists with high environmental awareness, which in turn, has an impact on improving the economic performance of wineries. In addition, the production of organic wines derived from ecological agricultural practices developed by wineries can increase their differentiation, which can translate into greater economic performance. The present research aims precisely to analyze the mediating effect that ecological agricultural practices can have on the wine tourism–economic performance relationship, thus answering the following two Research Questions (RQs): (RQ1) does wine tourism positively affect the economic performance of wineries? (RQ2) do ecological agricultural practices mediate the wine tourism–economic performance relationship?
The study thus contributes to the academic literature and to wine industry professionals in a number of ways. First, the research advances the understanding of wine tourism in the Spanish wine industry, as well as the benefits of this activity. Second, to our knowledge, there are no previous studies that have addressed the mediating role of ecological agriculture in the wine tourism–economic performance link, so the research represents an advance in scientific knowledge. Third, the proposed model has not been previously proposed, which represents an opportunity to continue advancing the role that the development of wine tourism activities and ecological agriculture practices play in improving winery performance. Fourth, the study provides insight into the relationship between wine tourism and economic performance, which can be useful for winemakers who are considering developing wine tourism activities at their facilities. Fifth, through the results of this study, winemakers and winery environmental managers can learn about the role played by the development of ecological agricultural practices in improving winery profitability.
In order to achieve the two proposed research objectives, the study is divided into the following sections. After this brief introduction,
Section 2 reviews the literature and sets out the research hypotheses to be tested.
Section 3 presents the methodology,
Section 4 the results of the study,
Section 5 discusses these findings,
Section 6 reflects on the theoretical and practical implications arising from the research, and finally,
Section 7 presents the main conclusions.
4. Results
To report the results, we followed the indications of Hair et al. [
72], who recommend presenting the results through three evaluations: (1) the evaluation of the global fit model, (2) the evaluation of the measurement model, and (3) the evaluation of the structural model.
First, regarding the evaluation of the global model, it should be noted that the model presents an adequate fit, since the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR) is 0.077 < 0.08 [
76], which means that it cannot be rejected and, therefore, is an adequate model to analyze the proposed relationships. Once the SRMR fit criterion was checked, we proceeded to verify if the unweighted least squares discrepancy (d_ULS) and the geodesic discrepancy (d_G) were within the confidence range after bootstrapping.
Table 1 shows that the values of these indicators are below HI95 and HI99, thus fulfilling both requirements.
Table 2 shows the basic descriptive statistics consisting of the mean, maximum, and minimum values, as well as the standard deviation of each construct analyzed. As can be seen, the minimum and maximum values of the variables wine tourism (WT), ecological agriculture (EA), and PDO membership are 0 and 1, respectively, since they are dichotomous variables. Likewise, while the minimum number of workers in the wineries analyzed is 1 and the maximum 252, the minimum number of years is 1 and the maximum 226. Regarding economic performance, of the four indicators that make up the construct, the smallest value is 0 and the largest 198 (corresponding to the average operating income in the last three years in millions of euros). With regard to the results of the mean and the dispersion to the mean, it should be noted that the average number of workers and years is 12 and 14, respectively, with the ecological agriculture variable showing the greatest dispersion to the mean (1.231).
Secondly, with regard to the evaluation of the measurement model, it should be noted that the indicators of the constructs analyzed meet the requirement of individual item reliability, as can be seen in
Table 3, since their loadings are greater than 0.707, which means that the indicators present adequate levels of reliability [
72]. Similarly, all the constructs meet the internal consistency reliability criterion, since both the composite reliability (pc) and Cronbach’s alpha have values above 0.8, as well as the convergent validity criterion, since the values of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) are above 0.5 [
77], thus showing that the constructs are able to explain more than half of the variance of their indicators. As can also be seen, the composite reliability values, Cronbach’s Alpha and AVE, have a value of 1 for both the wine tourism and the ecological agriculture variable. This is due to the fact that both constructs are composed of a single indicator.
Table 4 shows the discriminant validity test of the variables analyzed according to the Heterotrait-Monotrait criterion (HTMT). As can be seen, all the values of the constructs are clearly lower than 0.85, so that each construct measures different realities.
Third, regarding the evaluation of the structural model, before proceeding with the structural model analysis, the possible presence of collinearity problems in the structural model was examined. According to the indications of Hair et al. [
72], there are indications of quality when the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is greater than 5 (VIF > 5). That is, values greater than 5 in the endogenous constructs imply critical levels of multicollinearity. In this sense, the VIF values obtained in the present investigation do not exceed the pre-established maximum threshold for any of the variables (see
Table 5).
Figure 2 shows the R-Squared and β-squared results based on a bootstrap test with 5000 subsamples. The results of the research reveal that wine tourism has a positive and statistically significant effect on economic performance (0.340); this activity also has a positive and significant effect on ecological agriculture (0.249), and this in turn has a positive effect on economic performance (0.326). This implies that the ecological variable construct partially mediates the wine tourism–economic performance relationship, given that both the direct (0.340) and indirect (0.081) effects are positive and significant, with a total effect of wine tourism on economic performance of 0.421 (see
Table 6). Therefore, the four hypotheses put forward can be accepted.
Table 7 shows the degree to which an exogenous construct allows for explaining a given endogenous one in terms of R
2, i.e., it shows the results of the effect sizes (f
2). As can be seen, the most representative f
2 values correspond to the effect of wine tourism in explaining the economic performance variable (0.362), being also, as explained above, the relationship with the highest path coefficient. Likewise, to analyze the quality of the model, the Geisser test (Q
2) was performed, which must present estimated values greater than 0 (Q
2 > 0). As can be observed through
Table 8, the values reflect an average predictive relevance of the model, since the Q
2 values are higher than 0.25 [
71]. Finally, regarding the control variables, the results reveal that while size and PDO membership have a positive relationship on economic performance, winery age has a negative relationship on this variable. However, none of the three relationships are significant, so the results cannot be extrapolated to the study population.
5. Discussion
The link between wine tourism activities and economic performance can be understood through the economic contribution of this type of tourism to the winery, since it allows for (1) acquiring the margin kept by intermediaries; (2) obtaining instant liquidity, unlike other channels in which cash flow is delayed; (3) promoting cross-selling and incremental sales; as well as (4) generating an emotional bond with the customer, so that they can become brand ambassadors. Therefore, the development of wine tourism activities can increase the economic performance of wineries both by increasing their direct wine sales and by improving their commercial skills. It should also be noted that this activity plays a fundamental role for small wineries, as these are the ones that have the greatest difficulty in accessing the large wine distribution channels. The results regarding the wine tourism–economic performance link are in line with previous research in the field of wine tourism, such as those of Canziani et al. [
78], Smyczek et al. [
79], and Sun and Drakeman [
27].
Regarding the link between wine tourism and the development of ecological agriculture practices, this relationship can be explained through the increase in the stock of ecological knowledge derived from the wine tourism activity, since in order to transmit the environmental practices carried out by the winery, the wine tourism managers can interact and be in contact with other members of the winery (winemakers, quality, and environmental managers, etc.), as well as attend training courses of an ecological nature, which allows for improving the green knowledge of the wine tourism managers. Likewise, environmental questions and suggestions from wine tourists can also increase the stock of green knowledge of the workers in charge of carrying out the wine tourism activity in the winery. In this way, the increased environmental knowledge of the members of the winery can lead to the improvement of ecological agriculture practices, which can serve as a pole of attraction for wine tourists with a high awareness of the protection and care of the environment. Therefore, the link between wine tourism and ecological agriculture can occur both by increasing the green knowledge of workers and by the winery’s willingness to attract tourists with high environmental awareness, which, in turn, can lead to an increase in its economic performance as a result of the greater ability to attract wine tourists, as well as the greater differentiation of the winery by being able to offer ecological wines to the market. This is in line with the research carried out by Grimstad and Burgess [
80], Karagiannis and Metaxas [
81], and Trigo and Silva [
82], who consider that wine tourism can enhance the value of the ecological agricultural activities carried out by the winery, and can also serve to attract wine tourists who are aware of the need to protect the environment.
Regarding the positive link between organic agricultural practices and the economic performance of wineries, there is recent research that coincides with the findings of the study, such as that of Merot et al. [
83], Ingrassia et al. [
84], and Katunar et al. [
85], who demonstrate the capacity of these practices to improve the economic performance of wineries, since they favor the green organizational image, enable the attraction of new wine tourists, and allow for them to offer organic wines to the market. The results regarding the mediating effect of ecological agriculture in the wine tourism–economic performance relationship are pioneering, since, to our knowledge, there are no previous studies that have addressed the mediating effect of ecological agriculture in the study of the main relationship.
6. Theoretical and Practical Implications
Several practical and theoretical implications are derived from the study. Regarding the theoretical implications, the research contributes to elucidating the economic benefits of wine tourism activity in wineries by empirically demonstrating the positive relationship between wine tourism and the economic performance of Ribera del Duero wineries. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies that have empirically analyzed the mediating role of the development of ecological agriculture practices in the wine tourism–economic performance link, which represents an important advance in scientific knowledge, improving the understanding of the benefits that can be derived from the development of wine tourism activities.
In terms of practical implications, the study can be of great use to winemakers who are considering the implementation of wine tourism practices in their facilities, since it can demonstrate its impact on the economic profitability of the winery, as well as on the development of ecological agriculture practices, such as the use of organic vineyards, fertilization with organic materials such as compost, green manure or harvest residues, increasing diversity in and around the vineyard with different plants that stimulate diversity and promote favorable climatic conditions for the development of the vineyard, and controlling yields to obtain quality fruit. These practices, in turn, can lead to improved economic performance for the winery, as a result of the differentiation that the development of these practices can bring with respect to other wineries in the market. In fact, this differentiation can be capitalized through the wine tourism activities developed by the winery, which can lead to the enhancement of this type of ecological practices in the long term.
7. Conclusions
This research empirically demonstrates the positive and significant relationship between wine tourism and economic performance, as well as the mediating effect of ecological agriculture in this relationship. For this reason, the study may be of great interest to both academics and wine industry professionals who wish to understand the economic benefits that wine tourism activity can bring, as well as the mediating role of ecological agriculture in this link.
Wine tourism represents a crucial activity for wineries to improve their competitiveness (by increasing the direct sales of wine in the winery) and their organizational innovation processes (as it involves product innovation), as well as to boost the territorial development of a given wine region (by encouraging the creation and retention of employment in the territories where the wineries are located). Additionally, as demonstrated in this research, wine tourism activity can catalyze ecological farming practices in wineries. Thus, the study allows us to answer the research questions posed, since (RQ1) a positive and significant effect has been demonstrated between the development of wine tourism activities and economic performance, as well as (RQ2) the partial mediation of organic agriculture in this link.
The research, therefore, allows us to understand the meaning and significance between the variables wine tourism, organic agriculture, and economic performance. It highlights the catalytic role of wine tourism in improving the profitability of wineries by improving the direct, cross, and incremental sales of wine on the premises, as well as favoring environmentally friendly practices, such as organic agriculture. These practices, in turn, can act as a pole of attraction for wine tourists, improve the image and corporate reputation, as well as enable the production of organic wine, which could lead to an improvement in the economic performance of the wineries.
Despite the relevant contributions presented in this study, it is important to point out that the research suffers from certain limitations. In particular, given the relevance of the study, it is necessary to extend the geographical scope to other New World wine regions, thus, being able to establish similarities and differences in the model proposed for the New and Old-World wine contexts. In addition, the study has been nourished only by secondary data. To overcome both limitations, as a future line of research, we intend to extend the analysis to Californian wineries in order to establish similarities and differences in the proposed model, formulating a questionnaire to obtain primary information.