Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

The double-edged sword of wine tourism: the

economic and environmental impacts of wine
tourism in Australia

Ya-Yen Sun & Donald Drakeman

To cite this article: Ya-Yen Sun & Donald Drakeman (2021): The double-edged sword of
wine tourism: the economic and environmental impacts of wine tourism in Australia, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1903018

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903018

Published online: 14 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 194

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903018

The double-edged sword of wine tourism: the economic and

environmental impacts of wine tourism in Australia
Ya-Yen Suna and Donald Drakemanb,c
a
Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; bCentre for Health Leadership and
Enterprise, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; cProgram on Constitutional Studies, University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

With more than 40 million tourists visiting wineries each year, wine Received 12 November 2020
tourism is increasingly seen as a business strategy that provides eco- Accepted 9 March 2021
nomic benefits not only for the wine industry but also for the surround-
KEYWORDS
ing region. These economic benefits come with the environmental cost
Wine tourism; carbon
of increasing carbon emissions. This important environmental issue, emissions; environmentally
however, has received very limited attention in existing wine tourism extended input-output
policies, wine industry carbon footprint studies, and wine industry sus- analysis; Australia;
tainability frameworks. In this study, we provide the first-ever macro- sustainability
level carbon emission profile for wine tourism activities in Australia.
Using environmentally extended input-output modelling, we offer a
comprehensive picture of the carbon footprint of this growing market,
showing that tourism is responsible for more than one-third of the wine
industry’s carbon footprint. We also provide a tradeoff analysis that dis-
cusses the amount of emissions that are produced to earn one-dollar of
revenue via wine tourism. The results demonstrate that the failure to
take the carbon costs of wine tourism into account may encourage the
pursuit of an unlimited growth approach to wine tourism, which will
increase greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the effects of cli-
mate change that are already being felt in the wine sector.

1. Introduction
Wine tourism has been defined as “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals, and wine
shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a grape wine region
are the prime motivating factors for visitors” (Hall et al., 1996, p. 1). In the 21st century, wine
tourism has been an increasingly popular phenomenon, and in 2016 the eight leading destina-
tions reported a total of over 40 million international wine tourist visits (Mintel Group Ltd, 2017).
Wine tourism is increasingly seen as a business strategy that not only provides financial benefits
to the wine producers but also assists the surrounding region in strengthening its position in an
increasingly competitive tourism market. With greater integration of regional culture, heritage,
and winescape, wine tourism has been perceived as one of the most thriving segments of tour-
ism demand globally (Sottini et al., 2019; UNWTO, 2018a).
In Australia, which is the world’s fifth largest wine-producing region (OIV, 2015), more than
eight million tourists visit wineries annually (Wine Australia, 2020c). Over a million of the wine

CONTACT Ya-Yen Sun y.sun@business.uq.edu.au Business School, University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

tourists in Australia travel from overseas, a number that has increased over three-fold over the
past two decades (Wine Australia, 2018). The tourists’ purchases of wine at the wineries’ “cellar
doors” make a significant contribution to the economic sustainability of the Australian wine
industry, especially in the case of the many small producers for which direct-to-consumer sales
represent over half of their wine sales by value (Wine Australia, 2019). All together, the wine
industry supports 172,736 full-time and part-time jobs, most of which are located in rural and
regional Australia (Australian Grape & Wine, 2019). Additionally, wine tourists’ expenditures for
hotels, restaurants, transportation, and other non-wine related tourism activities contribute to
the Australian rural economy. Wine tourism may also lead to potential future purchases either
directly resulting from the customer relationships nurtured during the visit or indirectly through
the tourists’ positive experiences enhancing the reputation of wines from the region in their
countries of origin (Fischer & Gil-Alana, 2009; Madaleno et al., 2017). Prioritising wine tourism
development for its economic value can be seen in the ongoing $50 million government funding
program to promote international wine tourism to Australia (Wine Australia, 2020b). Known as
the Export and Regional Wine Support Package, it focuses considerable resources on attracting
visitors to Australian wineries, especially those who travel from some of Australia’s largest, but
quite distant, foreign wine markets, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
Besides an increasing growth of wine tourism demand, a second important trend affecting
the wine industry in the past few decades has been the effect of global warming on viticulture.
“There are no climate-change skeptics among winegrowers”, writes wine expert Andrew Jeffords
(2017). Winemakers can see the visible effects of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming
in their vineyards, with the grape growing season being compressed, harvest dates being
brought forward, and existing vineyards losing their viticultural suitability (Cook & Wolkovich,
2016; Jarvis et al., 2018). Along with more rapid grape ripening timetables, winemakers are also
facing unpredictably disruptive weather patterns, from drought to hail, and catastrophic frosts to
excessive heat. All those advanced harvest times and temperatures are found to increase grape
sugar concentrations, ultimately affecting wine aroma, colour and its price (Mira de Ordun ~ a,
2010). With higher temperature and increased drought, it has been forecasted that a global
warming of 2 and 4 degrees Celsius would wipe out 56 percent and 85 percent of current
grape-growing regions (Morales-Castilla et al., 2020). This would have a profound long-term
impact on wine destinations that currently sit in the warmer temperature zones. Their competi-
tiveness in the wine tourism market is expected to diminish over time due to an increasing num-
ber of wineries being relocated to higher altitude regions (Fraga, 2020).
In response, wineries are at the forefront of voluntary efforts by producers of agricultural
products to identify and address issues of environmental sustainability (OIV, 2015). Proactive
approaches to assess carbon emissions on a life cycle basis have been employed to identify com-
ponents in grape growing, winemaking, and the sales and distribution process to cut back car-
bon emissions (Ferrara & De Feo, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Marshall et al., 2005; Point et al., 2012).
However, existing approaches to performing an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) in the
wine industry have not considered the emissions associated with wine tourism. Instead, they
focus primarily on the wine industry as a producer of agricultural products that are sold in both
domestic and international markets. As a result, the emissions generated by shipping wine to
overseas customers are included in the LCA, but the carbon costs of transporting those custom-
ers to the winery when they visit as tourists have not been taken into account. Carbon emissions
for tourist activities associated with lodging, food, recreational activities and shopping have also
been overlooked. This omission hinders our ability to understand the full environmental impact
of further developing the market for wine tourism globally.
In this article, we seek to close this gap by linking the economic benefits of wine tourism to
its environmental costs. Using the environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) modelling
methodology, we provide the first-ever macro-level carbon emission profile for wine tourism
activities in Australia. The profile offers a comprehensive picture of the carbon footprint of this
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3

growing market, and provides a tradeoff analysis that discusses the amount of emissions that are
produced to earn one-dollar of revenue via wine tourism. Specifically, we (1) quantify the eco-
nomic impact of wine tourism in Australia in terms of GDP, employment, personal income and
tax, (2) calculate the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with that increase in GDP, and (3)
identify the specific economic and environmental impacts of both domestic wine tourists and
those from six key inbound visiting countries (China, New Zealand, USA, UK, Japan, and
Singapore). This study shows that wine tourism is a double-edged sword, offering potentially
sizeable economic benefits at considerable environmental costs.

2. Literature review
In the World Tourism Organization’s Georgia Declaration, wine tourism has been hailed as an
effective approach to achieve sustainable development, especially for rural regions (UNWTO,
2016). Situated on the three-pillar framework, wine tourism sustainability has been discussed
from the economic, social and environmental perspectives. In the literature, significant academic
attention has been focused on the creation and maintenance of an economically viable and sus-
tainable wine tourism business. Based on a review of 91 wine tourism studies published in tour-
ism journals from 1989 to 2019, the most frequently mentioned keywords are tourist behaviour,
marketing, destination, experience and segmentation (And-elic et al., 2019). Research efforts have
been dedicated to better understanding consumers’ motivations and preferences in engaging
with winery activities. This is driven by a strong demand from government and private industry
to utilise wine tourism as a vehicle to improve economic viability and social-cultural sustainability
at the destinations. Indeed, successful wine tourism-led growth in rural regions has been
reported for the Peloponnesian wine routes, Greece (Karagiannis & Metaxas, 2020), Limassol,
Cyprus (Liasidou, 2018) and Vojvodin, Servia (Trisic et al., 2019).
While there can be great economic and socio-cultural sustainability synergy between the ben-
efits of wine tourism to the wine producers and to the local community, the third pillar, environ-
mental sustainability, has rarely been addressed, especially with respect to the impact of
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). This omission results primarily from the disconnection of
empirical approaches to the existing theoretical foundation in assessing the environmental
impact of wine tourism.
From a theoretical perspective, the sustainability literature draws a comprehensive portrait of
all sources that are required to support wine tourism, and has stressed that each source has an
important impact on the environmental sustainability (Flores & Medeiros, 2016). The elements of
a successful wine tourism operation include (1) unique natural and social capital resources for
grape growing (i.e. the weather, land, water, labour, viticulture, and infrastructure), (2) specific
tourism activities onsite (i.e., wine tours, wine & cooking classes, and special events at wineries),
and (3) the regional resources supporting the tourism industry (e.g., accommodation, food, trans-
port, shopping and recreational activities) (Poitras & Donald, 2006). Identifying and managing the
environmental impacts, including GHG, arising from these individual elements has been argued
to be necessary to address the overall sustainability of wine tourism (Montella, 2017).
From an empirical perspective, current guidelines and tools of the wine industry, however,
evaluate only the GHG associated with wine production and distribution through conventional
channels. In essence, they focus on the environmental impact of the wine sector without touch-
ing on the emissions associated with tourism itself. As a result, current tools for assessing the
wine industry’s impact account for the water and energy usage of tourists when they are visiting
a winery’s tasting room, but do not take into account any emissions generated in bringing tou-
rists from their homes to the (sometimes quite distant) wineries. This is reflected in the green-
house gas protocol published by the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV),
4 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

including the enterprise protocol that tracks the operation of the vineyard and winery, and the
product protocol that evaluates the production and consumption of wine.
For the enterprise protocol, carbon emissions are calculated based on the viticultural practices
of grape growing and winemaking, and the operation of all activities associated with the tasting
room and cellar door operations (OIV, 2015). This includes direct emissions that are associated
with the vineyard via land-use change, onsite energy use, cooling and refrigerating systems,
waste disposal, and transport. It also recommends including indirect emissions for activities that
are outsourced to other suppliers. This may range from transportation services provided by a
third party and business travel by employees, to a diverse array of inputs such as fertilisers and
wine bottles.
For the OIV product protocol, the life cycle concept is employed to address the complete
range of carbon emissions from a supply chain perspective. The life cycle assessment quantifies
the environmental influence of a product’s production and consumption using a “cradle to grave”
concept. This includes seven stages of wine production and consumption, starting from
“vineyard planning, viticulture and grape growing, wine making, to packaging, transport and
retail distribution, storage and consumption, and finally the end of life process” (Rugani et al.,
2013, p. 67). It is important to note that these 7 stages are defined based on the traditional 3-
tier wine distribution system, in which, the wine is first shipped to a wholesaler and then trans-
ported to retailers that are close to consumers (Abbott et al., 2016). The same procedure and
assumptions have been adopted by the existing wine life cycle literature (see the review of
Ferrara and De Feo (2018) and Rugani et al. (2013)).
Wine tourism does not fall into this standard 3-tier distribution system. Instead of transporting
wine to consumer, wine tourism works in the opposite direction by “transporting” customers to
the point of sale – the cellar door. This influences substantially how the emissions should be cal-
culated for the “transport & distribution, “storage & consumption” and “end of life process”
stages included in the standard wine LCA steps. While these additional tourist-related elements
are seldom discussed in the prior wine literature, Cholette and Venkat (2009) offered a rare
account of addressing wine tourism. Their research calculated the carbon emissions for a private
vehicle travelling 72 km round trip from home to the wineries. However, a visit to the winery
covers more emissions than the land transport itself, especially when wine tourism involves inter-
national travel, hotel stays, shopping, local activities and food offsite.
It is clear that both the enterprise and the product protocol aim for a comprehensive account-
ing of the GHG associated with the wine sector and its production. However, little is said about
the relationship of the wine industry with its regional tourism suppliers and how the develop-
ment of wine tourism can be captured in the carbon accounting process. This lack of connection
with the tourism industry is also observed in the national sustainability frameworks that have
been developed for the wine industry as guiding principles for promoting and enhancing the
economic, social and environmental benefits to wine businesses and the community. Flores and
Medeiros (2016) observed that among nine sustainability stewardship programs across major
wine-producing countries, including South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, US and France,
the environmental assessments only cover agricultural practices, and water, energy and waste
management in the vineyard and the winery. The environmental impacts associated with tourist
activities at the regional level have not been directly integrated into these sustainability frame-
works. Instead, only the positive economic and cultural value of tourism has been recognised.
For example, the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program points out that tourism adds to
“the economic vitality of diverse wine regions” (California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance,
2012), and the Biodiversity & Wine Initiative in South Africa sees tourism as a basis for income
generation and increased collaborations among various components of the agriculture sector
(CAPE., 2009). The only exception is the South Africa Integrated Production of Wine framework,
in which a self-assessment indicator asks winery owners whether “provisions have been made for
the impact of tourism on the infrastructure & environment?” (South African Wine & Spirit Board,
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5

2018, p. 26). Even so, this indicator alone provides little guideline in terms of what to measure
and how to measure with respect to the environmental impacts of tourism.
The lack of understanding of wine tourism and its impact on carbon emissions has not only
occurred in industry publications describing practices in the field but is also observed across the
academic literature. Very few studies have discussed the carbon footprint of wine tourism by
mentioning the various elements associated with tourism services. This is evidenced in the
Go mez et al. (2019) review study, where we find that none of the 176 wine tourism papers pub-
lished from 1995 to 2014 discussed issues related to energy use, carbon emissions or climate
change. This is a significant knowledge gap given that travel is fundamentally carbon intensive
due to its extensive use of aviation and land transport (WTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008).
From a carbon efficiency perspective, earning one dollar via tourism will produce 1 kg CO2e
based on an analysis of the global travel patterns (Lenzen et al., 2018). This is 20% higher than
the carbon footprint of global manufacturing (0.8 kg CO2e per US$) and 25% higher than the
global average across all sectors (0.75 kg CO2e per US$). The carbon efficiency of tourism is
determined by a number of supply and demand factors. For consumers, the propensity to use
aviation and private vehicles, and how far they have travelled, directly affects the carbon foot-
print per capita (Go €ssling et al., 2005). If wine destinations host mainly inter-continental foreign
visitors, the carbon footprint of those visits will be much larger than destinations that cater to
local and regional tourism demand. At the same time, the use of efficient technology, infrastruc-
ture, and operations by local businesses can provide an off-set effect by reducing the amount of
energy required in the service process. The availability of public transportation systems, the
adaption of green technology, and the uses of newer, more energy-efficient buildings and infra-
structure will help destinations to serve tourists while lowering demand on fossil energy (Rico
et al., 2019). Measuring the environmental performance of winery operations, thus, is insufficient
to reflect the capacity of a destination to develop environmental-friendly wine tourism. Only a
comprehensive sector-wide footprint analysis is able to shed light on how demand and supply
factors shape the overall carbon emissions resulting from cellar door visits.
In summary, we have identified a knowledge gap. Carbon emissions associated with wine
tourism have not been adequately discussed in the literature related to tourism (Go mez et al.,
2019; Montella, 2017; Poitras & Donald, 2006), wine industry life cycle studies (Ferrara & De Feo,
2018; Navarro et al., 2017), or existing wine industry sustainability frameworks (Flores &
Medeiros, 2016). Due to the energy-intensive nature of transport and accommodation, it has
been shown that a wine-tourism journey can generate considerably more emissions than the
production, transportation, consumption and end of life stages of the wine lifecycle (Sun &
Drakeman, 2020). Excluding the impact of tourism, therefore, is a highly significant omission in
the effort to create a complete picture of the environmental cost of wine tourism. In the context
of the very extensive literature dedicated to marketing wine tourism opportunities more effect-
ively, this failure to take the carbon costs of wine tourism risks the pursuit of an unlimited
growth approach to wine tourism, which, in turn, can exacerbate the negative impact of climate
change on the wine sector.

3. Methods
To perform a sector-wide analysis with respect to wine tourism at the national level, a critical
step is to define a clear system boundary for the components that are addressed. A system
boundary can be delineated by an analysis of: (1) the type of visitors included, (2) the type of
expenditures measured, and (3) the level of climate impacts (Sun et al., 2020).
In this study, the analysis covers both domestic and inbound visitors who have visited at least
one winery in Australia. Their trip expenditures to/from Australia, as well as within Australia, are
included, which encompasses a broad spectrum of tourism consumption: transport (aviation,
6 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

marine and land transportation), accommodations, food and beverages, culture, sports, recre-
ation, travel agencies, and retailing services. The breakdown of spending on various items follows
the international system recommended by the United Nations World Tourism Organization
(WTO) (2010). In terms of the level of impacts, a complete analysis of the tourism carbon foot-
print covers 1) direct emissions: the emissions provided by tourism industries in serving tourists,
such as airlines, and 2) indirect emissions: the emissions produced by suppliers who provide
goods and services to the tourism businesses, e.g., truck services that transport jet fuels to air-
crafts (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). The system boundary adopted in this study follows the
“Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism (MST)” framework that is proposed by the United
Nations World Tourism Organization and the United Nations Statistics Division (UNWTO., 2018b).
This framework ensures a consistent basis for the calculation of the economic contributions and
environmental impacts of wine tourism, and facilities a direct comparison between wine tour-
ism’s contributions to GDP and its carbon emissions.
There are multiple approaches available to evaluate the economic impacts and carbon emis-
sions of tourism activities, including Computable Generable Equilibrium (CGE), Input-Output
Analysis (IO) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) (Dwyer et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2020). CGE and IO meth-
ods capture the economic changes across all sectors of a given economy, outlining how revenue
fluctuates within tourism industries and their suppliers due to tourism demand. IO and LCA, on
the other hand, are the dominant approaches to evaluating the carbon emissions of tourist activ-
ities based on monetary and physical units, respectively. With its capacity to bridge the eco-
nomic and environmental assessments based on a consistent system boundary, the
environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) approach has been selected to provide a calcula-
tion of the economic and carbon footprint of wine tourism in Australia.
The EEIO model is highly regarded for its transparency and its ability to compute economy-
wide impacts on resources required and waste produced (Wiedmann, 2009; Wiedmann et al.,
2006). For tourism applications, the EEIO provides a top-down approach that assesses tourism as
a sector within a comprehensive national economic platform (Sun et al., 2020). This approach
matches the supply and demand information in the tourism production and consumption pro-
cess and evaluates the degree to which national GDP and emissions are contributed by specific
visitor activities.
At the national level, the EEIO approach has been adopted to evaluate the tourism carbon
footprint for several countries. This includes Australia (Dwyer et al., 2010), China (Meng et al.,
2016), Japan (Kitamura et al., 2020), Iceland (Sharp et al., 2016), New Zealand (Becken &
Patterson, 2006), Portugal (Robaina-Alves et al., 2016), Spain (Cadarso et al., 2015), and Taiwan
(Sun, 2014). The appealing feature of the EEIO approach is its ability to effectively address multi-
faceted information on sustainability, accounting for changes in the economic, social and envir-
onmental dimensions (Lundie et al., 2007; Malik et al., 2019). This allows tourism-related eco-
nomic contributions: gross domestic product (GDP), employment, income and tax dollars, to be
quantified side by side with the carbon emission indicator. This provides a basis for calculating
the tradeoffs between economic outputs and environmental impacts via the tourism carbon effi-
ciency ratio, measured as emissions per dollar of GDP generated. This critical tradeoff information
is useful in formulating macroeconomic wine tourism strategies and providing a benchmark for a
market segmentation policy (Collins et al., 2009).
It is important to note that IO analysis is bounded by its assumptions, including constant
returns to scale, homogeneity, and fixed price and production structures (Miller & Blair, 2009a).
Based on these assumptions, the model assumes that all wine tourism businesses in rural regions
have the same input structure, energy efficiency, and employment patterns as the average tour-
ism businesses across the country. This implies that IO analysis may overestimate the economic
impacts of wine tourism expenditures, as rural regions tend to have a weaker economic linkage
between sectors due to their limited economic size, while the model may understate its
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7

environmental cost given that rural firms tend to have a slower adoption ratio of energy-effi-
cient facilities.

3.1. Calculation
Tourism is an agglomeration of different services and activities. A visit to the winery, for most
tourists, constitutes only a small part of their overall itinerary. Attributing all economic and envir-
onmental impacts of the trip to a particular site or business easily leads to a misleading and
overestimated outcome (Loomi & Caughlan, 2006). For example, visitors may engage with more
than 30 different types of tourism businesses during a 10-day tour from the USA to Australia. It
would be an oversimplification to say that 100% of trip expenditures, as well as the total emis-
sions of a 10-day cross-continental journey, should be directly allocated to a winery visit of a few
hours. To account for the economic and environmental impact that is related to winery visits, it
is therefore critical to set up an attribution process that identifies the share represented by win-
ery visits and its importance in shaping the overall travel behaviour and expenditures. In the fol-
lowing, we use a two-step procedure to quantify the economic and environmental impacts of
wine tourism in Australia.
Step 1: Total economic and environmental impact
The first step is to measure the total economic and environmental impacts for trips that
involve at least one visit to a winery on the journey. To perform the EEIO modelling, two sets of
parameters have been selected: the total spending profile of wine tourists in Australia, and the
Australia environmentally extended input-output model. The visitor spending profile of wine tou-
rists was sourced from the official National Visitor Survey (NVS) and the International Visitor
Survey (IVS) (Tourism Research Australia, 2019). The large-scale NVS includes the annual survey
data from 120,000 domestic travellers aged 15 years and over while IVS contains longitudinal
data for 40,000 short-term international travellers. Wine visitors are defined as those who visited
at least one winery in Australia, and their spending consists of expenditures across 18 catego-
ries.1 In addition, the survey collects information regarding how much visitors have spent for
wine at wineries, how many wineries they have visited on the trip, and whether this journey is
primary for visiting wineries. In this study, we employed NVS and IVS datasets of the 2014/2015
fiscal year as they are the latest datasets available for wine tourism.2
The Australia environmentally extended input-output model is constructed via the Industrial
Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab), which is a collaborative platform for multi-region input-output
modelling and research (Lenzen et al., 2014; UNSW, 2020). IELab used the national published
input-output tables and Matlab-based software package to construct the input-output model
based on user specified industry/product classification, spatial unit classification, year, and envir-
onmental and social extensions. In the case of Australia IELab, the root database includes 1,284
industries and 2,214 spatial units across the country. To perform the analysis of Australian wine
tourism, the 2014/2015 national Australia input-output table with 111 sectors was generated via
Australia IELab, which includes economic parameters of gross domestic product (GDP), personal
income, employment, profit and tax, as well as the environmental indicators of CO2-equivalent
carbon emissions.
The EEIO model traces how visitor spending has circulated throughout the economy, starting
from the receiving sides of tourism industries, and then flowing to multiple rounds of suppliers
in the local supply chain, thus providing a comprehensive picture of the impact on the destin-
ation economy. The calculation proceeds by multiplying visitor expenditure (Yd) with Australia’s
sector-specific multipliers (B) for 2014/2015. Six conversation coefficients (Ci) then are adopted to
convert total revenue into GDP, income, employment, profit, tax and carbon emissions. The cal-
culation formula of total (direct and indirect) economic and environmental impact is provided
below (Miller & Blair, 2009b).
8 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

Total impact ¼ Ci ðIAd Þ1 Y d ¼Ci BY d

Where
C is the intensity matrix (n x n), the diagonalised coefficient per unit monetary output for n
industry; i refers to GDP, income, employment, profit, tax and carbon emissions, respectively.
Yd is the consumption of tourism services in Australia by domestic and international wine tou-
rists (n x 1).
(I-Ad)21 or B is the Leontief inverse matrix for domestic transaction table (n x n).
The scope of our analysis considers only economic benefits and carbon emissions associated
with the Australian economy. Visitor expenditures occurring outside Australia, e.g, the local trans-
port to/from the airport in the departure country, will not be considered. Economic and environ-
mental impacts of imported goods and services that are utilised by the Australian tourism
industry are also excluded in the analysis.
Step 2: Economic and environmental impact due to winery visits
Tourism consists of a basket of goods and services. How to determine the importance of any
individual site, event, or particular business service for its contribution to the development of
tourism is an important issue (Crompton, 1995; Dwyer et al., 2010). Studies have explored differ-
ent ways to calculate the contributions. In the domain of tourism economic impact analysis, the
following attribution process is widely applied (Loomi & Caughlan, 2006; Stynes et al., 2000).
First, studies evaluate how critical the site, event, or agency is in the visitors’ travel decision;
especially, they emphasize whether the subject being assessed is the primary purpose. If a par-
ticular subject is the primary purpose of the trip, 100% of the trip expenditure is recorded as a
direct contribution of that subject (site/event) to the local economy; otherwise only a portion of
the trip expenditure is allocated (typically in relation to visitors’ length of stay onsite). This con-
sideration of trip purpose is important because we assume these trips would not have been
made possible if the particular subject had not been made available to the tourists. This particu-
lar attribution process has been extensively supported in the literature and is adopted in many
tourism contexts to allow policy makers to clearly understanding how the financial support of a
particular area or event will help to contribute to tourism development (Frechtling, 2006; Loomi
& Caughlan, 2006; Stynes & White, 2006).
We adopt the same attribution procedure in this study to quantify impacts that are directly
attributable to wine tourism and cellar door sales. For those visitors who have identified this trip
as a dedicated food and wine journey, 100% of their spending is included, as their visits would
not have been materialized if the winery did not exist. For trips by tourists who have expressed
“an interest in food & wine” or have described “an accidental visit to the winery”, only a half-day
expenditure will be included. We assume that the duration of most visits to wineries is about a
few hours to half-a-day at the most. Adopting this criterion allows us to pinpoint the share of
trip expenditures that are directly associated with winery operation (Sw) among all wine travel-
lers. With this information identified, economic and environmental impacts are calculated accord-
ingly. The allocation formula is as follows:
Share of attribution to winery visits ðSw Þ

total expenditure  pct of dedicated visitors þ halfday expenditure  pct of nondedicated visitors
¼
total trip expenditure

Economic impacts and environmental impacts of wine tourism ¼ Total impacts  Sw

4. Results
Domestic tourism accounts for the majority of wine tourism demand in Australia. In 2014/2015,
there were about 3.4 million overnight wine tourists and 2.6 million day-trip wine visitors
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of wine tourists in Australia (2014/2015).

Domestic overnight Domestic day trip International
Category wine tourists wine tourists wine tourists Total
Visitor number and activity (2014/2015)
Visitors to winery (million) 3.43 2.58 1.82 7.83
Dedicated wine visit (Pct) 16% 16% 0.13%
Expenditure at wineries $99 $69 $58 $80
Average bottles purchased 4.0 2.8 2.3
Average spending per person in Australia $1,041 $145 $5,041
Total spending (million) $3,570 $374 $3,793 $7,736
Attribution of spending to cellar door (million) $897 $218 $55 $1,169
Contribution (Pct) 77% 19% 5% 100%

annually – corresponding to 4.1% and 1.6% of the total domestic overnight and day trip markets
(Table 1). Around 63% of overnight visitors purchase wine to take home, and the average spend-
ing per wine tourist is $100. The overnight tourists spend about $1,041 per person per trip
across all items on the journey and the day-trip tourists spend $145 per person.
For the international visitor market, 1.82 million international tourists visited wineries in
Australia annually during 2014/2015, implying that one in every 7 international visitors engaged
with winery activities. However, only a very small percentage (0.13%) of inbound tourists indi-
cated that “to experience Australia’s food, wines and wineries” is their primary purpose. While
international visitors, on average, spent $5,000 for the trip to Australia, their average expenditure
at the winery is only about $58, around 60% of what is typically spent by domestic overnight vis-
itors at wineries. Travel arrangements also influence the way international visitors engage with
the winery and formulate their experiences. Free and independent travellers tend to participate
in a variety of winery activities, visit more wineries (2.5 vs. 1.7) per trip, are more likely to pur-
chase wine (41% vs. 31%) and spend a higher amount at the winery ($68 vs $32 per capita) in
contrast to package tour customers.
Domestic tourists made significantly more dedicated wine trips (16%) than international visi-
tors (0.13%). This results in a higher trip expenditure to be directly attributed to wine tourism for
the domestic market. On average, wine tourism contributes $1,169 million of tourism revenue to
Australia annually, of which 77% is contributed by domestic overnight tourists, 19% by domestic
day visitors, and 5% by inbound tourists.
The annual spending amount of $1,169 million that is directly related to wine tourism has a
significant economic impact on the Australia economy. Considering both direct and indirect
impacts, the initial $1,169 million of visitor expenditures results in a total impact of $1,310 mil-
lion of GDP, $509 million of business profit, and $729 million of personal income, and it supports
12,000 full-time equivalent jobs (Table 2).
From an environmental perspective, the related carbon emissions are estimated to be 790 kil-
otonnes (kt). This translates to an average of 101 kg of carbon emissions per trip that are directly
related to wine tourism. Domestic overnight wine tourists contributed the majority of economic
and environmental impacts (82%). However, due to their higher spending at the winery, the
tourism carbon efficiency ratio of domestic overnight tourists is lower (better) than that of
inbound travellers. Compared across three major tourist segments, Australia will produce 1 kg
CO2e in order to earn $1 of GDP from the international inbound tourists, however, it only costs
0.5  0.6 kg CO2e if the dollar of GDP is earned through domestic visitors.

4.1. International visitors by country of residence

A closer look of international visitors finds remarkably different patterns based on the country of
residence. We highlight the top six countries in numbers of visitors travelling to Australia in
10 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

Table 2. Economic and environmental impacts of wine tourism in Australia (2014/2015).

Domestic overnight Domestic day trip International Grand total /
Category wine tourists wine tourists wine tourists average
Economic impacts associated with wine tourism
GDP ($ millions) 1,079 186 46 1,310
Government tax ($ millions) 71 12 5 88
Income ($ millions) 588 102 39 729
Gross profit ($ millions) 420 71 18 509
Employment (full-time equivalent) 9,863 1,748 622 12,233
Environmental impacts associated with wine tourism
Greenhouse gas emissions (Kt CO2e) 647 96 47 790
Emissions per visitor (kg) 188.7 37.0 26.1 101.0
Emissions per GDP (kg CO2e/$) 0.60 0.51 1.03 0.60

2019: China, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Singapore. Their trip char-
acteristics and spending patterns, and the associated economic and environmental impacts are
displayed in Table 3.
Visitors across the groups contribute to different level of economic benefits. The best per-
formers are China and Singapore (based on wine purchase expenditures), New Zealand (based
on the number of wineries visited), and Japan and United States (based on the total tourism
expenditures). Besides monetary indicators, information regarding “dedicated wine tourists” fur-
ther reveals how individual segment may contribute to the successful long-term operation of the
Australian winery. When compared to accidental wine tourists, dedicated wine tourists are more
likely to purchase wine (60% vs. 40%), spend more on wine ($160 vs. $58), visit more wineries
per trip (3.6 vs. 2.4) and are more likely to recommend “services, products or experiences in the
wine regions” to their friends and family (8.5 rating out of 10 points). Based on this criterion, a
higher proportion of dedicated wine tourists was observed among Japan and Singapore visitors
than the other countries.
The amount of carbon emissions also varies across visitor segments. Emissions for their visits
to cellar doors are primarily influenced by the total trip emissions and the length of stay. The
emissions per visitor to a wine producer will be low if visitors are from nearby countries and
their stay in Australia is relatively long, which makes the amount allocated to their daily emission
rate much lower. Based on these two criteria, visitors from Japan and Singapore are at the top
of the list for incurring the lowest emissions attributable to wine tourism.
Displaying the economic benefits and environmental costs side by side further identifies the
tradeoffs and contributes to the discussion as to which markets might be preferred in future
tourism development policies that seek to accommodate both economic and environmental
objectives. In terms of absolute GDP contribution, the United States and United Kingdom mar-
kets are currently responsible for a significant share – three times bigger than the Japan and
New Zealand markets; however, at the same time, their carbon efficiency per dollar emissions
are the worst (1.2 kg CO2e/GDP). As a result, these two segments contribute to 56% of total
emissions that are produced across these six key segments (Figure 1, part A).
If the analysis focuses on the per visitor spending at the wineries, a different ranking surfaces.
Figure 1, part B, highlights the fact that visitors from China and Singapore not only travel shorter
distances than UK and USA visitors, but they are also relatively big spenders during their visits to
wine producers. As a result, they are responsible for a smaller carbon cost per dollar of revenue
(0.8  0.9 kg CO2e) than wine tourists from the other countries. By contrast, the US and UK mar-
kets, which are prioritised in the ongoing $50 million Australia government funding program to
promote international wine tourism, provide lower levels of per capita spending at the wineries
along with a considerably higher carbon footprint per visit. This type of carbon cost per dollar of
economic contribution analysis may offer a good foundation for considering future tourism
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11

Table 3. Economic and environmental performance of international wine tourists in Australia, 2014/2015.
Category China New Zealand USA UK Japan Singapore
Visitor number
Total visitors (000’s) 1,755 2,325 1,118 1,271 621 654
Total visitors that visited winery (000’s) 257 122 157 266 54 130
Pct of visitors who visited winery 15% 5% 14% 21% 9% 20%
Economic aspects (per person)
Visitor spending per person in AU ($) $5,715 $2,718 $5,836 $5,796 $7,029 $2,990
Length of stay 37 17 28 41 57 11
Pct of dedicated wine tourists 0.3% 0.7% 1.2% 1.3% 2.1% 1.6%
Number of wineries visited per trip 2.5 2.8 1.7 2.8 2.5 2.5
Purchase wine 45% 46% 25% 43% 43% 45%
Expenditure for wine purchase ($) $99 $77 $59 $80 $85 $99
Average bottles purchased 3.9 3.1 3.2 2.1 3.4 4.0
Economic / Environmental impacts associated with winery
GDP ($ millions) 426.7 133.6 324.0 599.8 138.4 137.1
GHG (tonne) 388.3 124.7 394.0 723.3 115.7 119.0
Emissions per GDP (kg CO2e/$) 0.91 0.93 1.22 1.21 0.84 0.87

Figure 1. Environmental and economic aspects of international wine tourists markets, 2014/2015.

development policies seeking to balance both the economic and environmental performance of
wine tourism.

5. Discussion
A sectoral-wide environmental impact analysis is essential for addressing the current lack of con-
versations about developing synergies between the tourism and the wine industries to account
for the environmental impacts of wine tourism. While wineries have been at the forefront of agri-
cultural enterprises in reducing their energy consumption and in striving for carbon neutral oper-
ations, the wine industry has not recognised the substantial amount of carbon emissions
resulting from the tourists visiting their vineyards and cellar doors. To enable the industry and
policy makers to see how the interplay of economic and environmental factors make wine tour-
ism a double-edged sword, we have provided the first ever macro level profile of carbon emis-
sions from wine tourism in Australia.
To put this profile in an industry wide context, we compare the wine tourism emissions to
that of the remaining components contained in existing life cycle analyses of the wine industry.
According to the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI), the carbon footprint of the
Australian wine industry (including all of the steps involved in viticulture, viniculture, packaging,
12 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

distribution, shipping and end of life processes, but excluding wine tourism) is 1.16 kg/L (Abbott
et al., 2016). For 2015, the total production of wine in Australia was 1.2 billion liters of wine
(Australia Grape & Wine Authority, 2016), which translates to 1,380 kt of carbon emissions, based
on the AWRI analysis. In comparison, our study concludes that wine tourism activities have
amounted to 790 kt in carbon emissions (Table 2), which is approximately 36.4 percent (790 kt of
a total of 2170 kt) of the total carbon footprint associated with the Australian wine industry.
The 790 kt carbon emissions generated by wine tourism reflects the current market compos-
ition of the travelers (demand) and the existing technology relating to energy use among all
tourism firms (supply) in Australia. This offers an important insight concerning the pathway for-
ward in managing the related carbon emissions. Given that most wine tourism is cultivated in
rural regions, the adaption of green technology, the uses of newer, more energy-efficient build-
ings, and the establishment of public transport infrastructure may require a bigger investment
and longer time to materialise than for tourism in more densely populated areas. Alternatively,
pro-actively determining, fostering, and developing a long-term tourist market portfolio that con-
sists of low carbon, high yield wine travellers offers considerable potential for reducing emissions
while sustaining economic yields (Sun et al., 2020).
Similar to other forms of tourism, the propensity to use aviation and private vehicles,
together with the distance tourists have travelled, directly affects the carbon footprint per cap-
ita (Go€ssling et al., 2005). Our analysis shows that domestic wine tourists produce 0.5  0.6 kg
of carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, whereas international wine tourists produce 1.0 kg of
emissions per dollar of GDP. Developing domestic wine tourism, especially intra-state travel,
thus offers the benefit of assisting the recovery of tourism during and post-COVID, directly in
line with the “Domestic led” strategies that have been implemented by Australia to help the
tourism industry to reopen their businesses (Tourism Research Australia, 2020). In addition, pri-
oritising intra-state domestic wine tourists will likely to reduce the demand of domestic avi-
ation and foster an overall shorter travel distance between origin-destination for wine tourism.
This is in keeping with the WTO’s call for the pursuit of sustainability in the recovery policy
(UNWTO., 2020).
For international wine tourism, the distance concept also applies. We observed that visitors
from nearby regions of Australia, such as New Zealand, Hong Kong, China and Singapore, pro-
duce approximately 20-40% fewer emissions per GDP dollar than visitors from the United States
and the United Kingdom. Given that some short-haul markets report higher spending at wine-
ries, and have a higher ratio of dedicated wine tourists, targeting the China, Japan and
Singapore markets will offer benefits to Australia for both economic viability and environmental
improvement. This study confirms again the observation that reduced reliance on intercontinen-
tal long-haul aviation markets may provide the most effective carbon mitigation pathway for-
ward (Peeters et al., 2019; WTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008).
However, we also acknowledge that the above-recommended tourist market portfolio is
based on the assumption that the dollar values of all contributions to GDP are equal, irrespective
of the countries of origin of those dollars. The portfolio will change if the economic value of
international tourism is further highlighted. Compared to domestic tourism, international tourism
spending is perceived as “new money”, with a tangible effect on increasing foreign receipts,
boosting service exports, and playing a significant role in the tourism-led growth of the domestic
economy (Brida et al., 2016). Additionally, wine tourism has been associated with greater wine
export sales to the tourists’ countries of origin (Gil-Alana & Fischer, 2010; Madaleno et al., 2017).
For example, in our analysis, the emissions per dollar from Japanese tourists are the lowest
(0.84 kg) and those from American tourists are the highest (1.22 kg), but the American wine
market is the world’s largest, and is around 8 fold larger than the Japanese wine market for
Australian wine exports (Wine Australia, 2020a). If inbound wine tourism is found to signifi-
cantly increase export sales of Australian wine, the emissions per dollar GDP ratio calculated
in the study can be adjusted for individual markets to take into account the flow-on effect on
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 13

generating additional wine exports. Future research that models the extent of the flow-on
effect for different wine regions from various inbound visitor segments is called for. This
would allow the wine industry and policy makers to consider the environmental costs of mar-
keting strategies whiling maximizing cellar door and wine export revenue per wine vis-
itor served.
Besides the consideration of economic benefits, a method for how to assess the cultural bene-
fits of wine tourism in a manner that allows them to be incorporated along with the emissions/
GDP ratio will be needed. The UNWTO, 2016 Georgia Declaration on wine tourism says “Wine
tourism provides an innovative way [for tourists] to experience a destinations culture and life-
style, responding to consumersevolving needs and expectations” (UNWTO, 2016, p. 3). One such
expectation, especially for visitors with an abiding interest in wine, is that the oenological con-
cept of “terroir” makes vineyard visits an especially meaningful aspect of wine tourism. “Terroir”
is essentially “the vine’s whole natural environment, the combination of climate, topography,
geology and soil that bear on its growth and the characteristics of its grapes and wine”
(Gladstones, 2011). For example, because of widespread pest infestations that destroyed vine-
yards in many other wine regions, Australia offers wine tourists the opportunity to see some of
the world’s oldest still-active grapevines (Jeffreys, 2017). Future efforts to assess ways to reduce
the greenhouse gas emissions associated with wine tourism should consider these intangible cul-
tural benefits as well as the tangible economic consequences that a reduction in tourism could
have for the economic viability of the many small wine producers that rely heavily on direct-to-
consumer sales, especially at the cellar door.
Overall, the development of wine tourism has generated substantial socio-economic benefits,
linked strongly with many United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, such as poverty
reduction, female empowerment, decent work and economic growth (Karagiannis & Metaxas,
2020b). However, without an appreciation for the environmental costs, this is very likely to lead
to the pursuit of “pro-growth” wine tourism policies without a consideration for the environmen-
tal consequences, as evidenced in many wine tourism economic impact reports published in the
United States (Destination Analysts, 2018) and Australia (Gillespie Economics, 2019). Our study
contributes to these discussions by linking wine tourism development to Sustainable
Development Goal 13, “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts,” based on
the first ever sectoral-wide environmental impact analysis.
The substantial carbon footprint of wine tourism identified in this study supports the call to
further strengthen the theoretical sustainability framework by which the wine industry and policy
makers evaluate wine tourism. Showing how emissions have been reduced at wineries through
various viticultural and vinicultural initiatives may no longer be sufficient to portray the full envir-
onmental performance of the wine producers. Rather, the carbon footprint of wine tourism will
need to become part of the analysis, and it will depend on the full range of tourism services
(lodging, food, transport, retail, and recreational activities) and the consumer behaviors (distance
travelled, vehicle used and visitor volume) that are associated with cellar door visits. Therefore,
any genuinely comprehensive carbon mitigation efforts within the wine sector will need to move
from assessing the carbon footprint of wineries considered only as the producers of agricultural
products to a more complete understanding that includes the emissions generated because
many wine producers are also tourist destinations.

6. Conclusion
A successful wine tourism operation requires unique natural and social capital resources for
grape growing, authentic tourism activities at the winery, and the support of the tourism indus-
try at the regional level (Poitras & Donald, 2006). While the sustainability performance of the first
two components has been thoroughly researched, the linkage between cellar door operations
14 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

and the carbon emissions impact on the broader tourism industry remains rarely addressed. Our
study contributes to the literature by proposing a methodology to profile the complete sector-
wide carbon footprint of wine tourism, together with the economic benefits to the wine pro-
ducers from tourists’ purchases at the cellar door and the effect of wine tourism on GDP. The
empirical findings demonstrate that wine tourism in Australia has an average carbon efficiency
of 0.60 kg CO2e per dollar GDP earned, leading to total emissions of 790 kt in the fiscal year
2014/2015. At the macro level, wine tourism emissions contribute over 1/3 of the total emissions
associated with the wine sector (viticulture, viniculture, packaging, distribution, shipping, end of
life processes and wine tourism) in Australia. Given that cellar door wine sales have grown by
7  9% in 2017–2019 in Australia (Wine Australia, 2019), and the substantial degree of tourism’s
contribution to the wine industry’s total carbon emissions, any efforts by the Australian wine
industry to reduce the size of its carbon footprint will need to take tourism into account.
Specifically, we found that the ratio of carbon emissions per dollar of GDP described in this
article offers a valuable tool for assessing the trade-offs involved in encouraging wine tourism
from various markets. This can assist policy makers to consider how to identify a long-term tour-
ist market portfolio that consists of low carbon, high yield wine travellers, with the goal of
achieving emissions reductions without reducing economic yield. While this study only quantifies
the trade-off of visitor expenditure and carbon emissions, a more comprehensive ratio can be
further developed to quantify important cultural benefits, the stimulating effect of wine exports
via inbound tourism, as well as the economic viability of the many small wine producers that
rely heavily on direct-to-consumer sales. Further research is called for to enable the development
of a comprehensive model capable of measuring all of the ways in which wine tourism affects
both carbon emissions and the economy.
Overall, this study presents the first step in incorporating the many benefits and costs of
wine tourism in the same equation. Doing so provides an opportunity to move “Beyond GDP”
in the configuration of an overall wine tourism strategy by placing priorities on the well-being
of the community via economic, human, social, and natural capital (Dwyer, 2020). With wine-
ries starting to relocate to higher elevations and colder regions due to the reduced area suit-
able for viticulture as a result of climate change (Hannah et al., 2013), the nature of the
environmental and cultural landscapes underpinning wine tourism is already being affected. In
the long-term, one potential outcome is a reduction in wine tourism, which then negatively
impacts the other hospitality sectors, such as food and accommodation, that rely on the tourist
arrivals and that support the social stability and cultural preservation of rural communities.
Accordingly, the long-term sustainability of the wine and the tourism industries requires a
committed effort from wine producers, tourism sectors, government policymakers, and the tou-
rists themselves to address how best to achieve economic, social and environmental sustain-
ability at the same time.

Notes
1. These 15 categories include “domestic airfares, international airfares, package tours, organised tours, rental
vehicles, petrol, taxi & local public transport, long distance public transport, accommodation, food and drink,
shopping, entertainment, gambling, education, other expenditure, motor vehicle, registration fees, and phone,
fax & postage”.
2. Tourism Research Australia discontinued the collection of data relating to wine tourism in 2016.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 15

Notes on contributors
Ya-Yen Sun is a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her interest is to profile, identify and
decompose factors that drive tourism economic impacts and tourism environmental impacts at the macro level.

Donald Drakeman is a Professor at the University of Notre Dame, United States. His current research focuses on
the use of historical materials in constitutional and statutory interpretation, including various topics in contempor-
ary originalism, as well as wine tourism.

ORCID
Ya-Yen Sun http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6788-7644

References
Abbott, T., Longbottom, M., Wilkes, E., & Johnson, D. (2016). Assessing the environmental credentials of Australian
wine. Wine & Viticulture Journal, 31(1), 35–37.
And-elic, S., Garabinovic, D., & Sormaz, G. (2019). A review of wine and wine tourism presence in the scientific
papers in journals in the field of tourism. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 66(4), 1055–1090. https://doi.org/10.5937/
ekoPolj1904055A
Australia Grape and Wine Authority. (2016). Australia Grape and Wine Authority Annual Report 2015–2016. Australia
Grape and Wine Authority.
Australian Grape & Wine. (2019). Pre-Budget Submission 2019–20. Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated.
Becken, S., & Patterson, M. (2006). Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions from tourism as a key step towards
achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost547.0
Brida, J. G., Cortes-Jimenez, I., & Pulina, M. (2016). Has the tourism-led growth hypothesis been validated? A litera-
ture review. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(5), 394–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.868414
Cadarso, M.-A., Go mez, N., Lo  & Zafrilla, J.-E. (2015). Quantifying Spanish tourism’s carbon
pez, L.-A., Tobarra, M.-A.,
footprint: The contributions of residents and visitors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6),
922–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008497
California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance. (2012). California code of sustainable winegrowing workbook. Wine
Institute, California Association of Winegrape Growers.
CAPE. (2009). Biodiversity and Wine Initiative (BWI): Stewardship within an industry context. Cape Action for People
and the Environment.
Cholette, S., & Venkat, K. (2009). The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A study of logistical options
for delivering wine to consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1401–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2009.05.011
Collins, A., Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2009). Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two
options? Tourism Management, 30(6), 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.006
Cook, B. I., & Wolkovich, E. M. (2016). Climate change decouples drought from early wine grape harvests in France.
Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2960
Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication.
Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.9.1.14
Destination Analysts. (2018). Napa Valley visitor industry: 2018 economic impact report. Visit Napa Valley.
Dwyer, L. (2020). Tourism development and sustainable well-being: A beyond GDP perspective. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1825457
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Dwyer, W. (2010). Tourism economics and policy (Vol. 3). Channel View Publications.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2010). Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903513061
Ferrara, C., & De Feo, G. (2018). Life cycle assessment application to the wine sector: A critical review. Sustainability,
10(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020395
Fischer, C., & Gil-Alana, L. A. (2009). The nature of the relationship between international tourism and international
trade: The case of German imports of Spanish wine. Applied Economics, 41(11), 1345–1359. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00036840601019349
Flores, S. S., & Medeiros, R. M. V. (2016). Wine tourism moving towards sustainable viticulture? Challenges, opportu-
nities and tools to internalize sustainable principles in the wine sector. In Marta Peris-Ortiz, Marıa de la Cruz Del
Rıo Rama, Carlos Rueda-Armengot Wine and tourism (pp. 229–245). Springer International Publishing.
Fraga, H. (2020). Climate change: A new challenge for the winemaking sector. Agronomy, 10(10), 1465. https://doi.
org/10.3390/agronomy10101465
16 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

Frechtling, D. C. (2006). An assessment of visitor expenditure methods and models. Journal of Travel Research, 45(1),
26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288877
Gil-Alana, L. A., & Fischer, C. (2010). International travelling and trade: Further evidence for the case of Spanish
wine based on fractional vector autoregressive specifications. Applied Economics, 42(19), 2417–2434. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00036840701858083
Gillespie Economics. (2019). Economic contribution of the Australian wine sector. Gillespie Economics.
Gladstones, J. (2011). Wine, terroir and climate change. Wakefield Press.
Gomez, M., Pratt, M. A., & Molina, A. J. C. I. i T. (2019). Wine tourism research: A systematic review of 20 vintages
from 1995 to 2014. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(18), 2211–2249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1441267
Go€ssling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., & Richardson, R. B. (2005). The eco-efficiency of tour-
ism. Ecological Economics, 54(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.006
Hall, C. M., Longo, A. M., Mitchell, R., & Johnson, G. (1996). Wine tourism in New Zealand [Paper presentation].
Proceedings of Tourism down under II, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Hannah, L., Roehrdanz, P. R., Ikegami, M., Shepard, A. V., Shaw, M. R., Tabor, G., Zhi, L., Marquet, P. A., & Hijmans,
R. J. (2013). Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(17),
6907–6912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210127110
Harris, I., Rodrigues, V. S., Pettit, S., Beresford, A., & Liashko, R. (2018). The impact of alternative routeing and pack-
aging scenarios on carbon and sulphate emissions in international wine distribution. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.08.036
Jarvis, C., Darbyshire, R., Eckard, R., Goodwin, I., Barlow, E. J. A., & Meteorology, F. (2018). Influence of El Nin ~o-
Southern oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole on winegrape maturity in Australia. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 248, 502–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.021
Jefford, A. (2017). How climate change is affecting the wine world. The Wine Society. Retrieved October 30, 2020,
from https://www.thewinesociety.com/thoughts-climate-change
Jeffreys, H. (2017). How to drink wine from the world’s oldest vines. Food&Wine. Retrieved November 3, 2020, from
https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/how-drink-wine-worlds-oldest-vines
Karagiannis, D., & Metaxas, T. (2020). Sustainable wine tourism development: Case studies from the Greek Region
of Peloponnese. Sustainability, 12(12), 5223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125223
Kitamura, Y., Ichisugi, Y., Karkour, S., & Itsubo, N. (2020). Carbon footprint evaluation based on tourist consumption
toward sustainable tourism in Japan. Sustainability, 12(6), 2219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062219
Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Wiedmann, T., Lane, J., Anderson, N., Baynes, T., Boland, J., Daniels, P., Dey, C., Fry, J.,
Hadjikakou, M., Kenway, S., Malik, A., Moran, D., Murray, J., Nettleton, S., Poruschi, L., Reynolds, C., Rowley, H., …
West, J. (2014). Compiling and using input-output frameworks through collaborative virtual laboratories. The
Science of the Total Environment, 485-486, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.062
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y.-Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y.-P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism.
Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
Liasidou, S. (2018). Unveiling the potentials of wine tourism: The way ahead for Limassol. Journal of Place
Management and Development, 11(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-07-2017-0065
Loomi, J., & Caughlan, L. (2006). The importance of adjusting for trip purpose in regional economic analyses of
tourist destinations. Tourism Economics, 12(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387105
Lundie, S., Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (2007). Environmental-economic measures of tourism yield. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(5), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost713.0
Madaleno, A., Eusebio, C., & Varum, C. (2017). Exports and tourism: Testing the causality. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 18(4), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1289140
Malik, A., McBain, D., Wiedmann, T. O., Lenzen, M., & Murray, J. (2019). Advancements in input-output models and
indicators for consumption-based accounting. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(2), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jiec.12771
Marshall, R. S., Cordano, M., & Silverman, M. (2005). Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive envir-
onmentalism in the US wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.
1002/bse.433
Meng, W., Xu, L., Hu, B., Zhou, J., & Wang, Z. (2016). Quantifying direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions of the
Chinese tourism industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 586–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.
067
Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009a). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (2009b). Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
Mintel Group Ltd. (2017). Wine tourism. Retrieved June 29, from https://www.aaaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
Global-Mintel-Wine-tourism-2017-03.pdf
Mira de Ordun ~a, R. (2010). Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food
Research International, 43(7), 1844–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.05.001
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 17

Montella, M. (2017). Wine tourism and sustainability: A review. Sustainability, 9(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su9010113
Morales-Castilla, I., Garcıa De Cortazar-Atauri, I., Cook, B. I., Lacombe, T., Parker, A., Van Leeuwen, C., Nicholas, K. A.,
& Wolkovich, E. M. (2020). Diversity buffers winegrowing regions from climate change losses. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(6), 2864–2869. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1906731117
Navarro, A., Puig, R., Kılıç, E., Penavayre, S., & Fullana-I-Palmer, P. (2017). Eco-innovation and benchmarking of car-
bon footprint data for vineyards and wineries in Spain and France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142,
1661–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.124
OIV. (2015). Greenhouse gases accounting in the vine and wine sector – recognised gases and inventory of emissions
and sequestrations. International Organisation of Vine and Wine.
Peeters, P., Higham, J., Cohen, S., Eijgelaar, E., & Go €ssling, S. (2019). Desirable tourism transport futures. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 27(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1477785
Point, E., Tyedmers, P., & Naugler, C. (2012). Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption
in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.035
Poitras, L., & Donald, G. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism: The host community perspective. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 14(5), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost587.0
Rico, A., Martınez-Blanco, J., Montlleo , M., Rodrıguez, G., Tavares, N., Arias, A., & Oliver-Sola, J. (2019). Carbon foot-
print of tourism in Barcelona. Tourism Management, 70, 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.012
Robaina-Alves, M., Moutinho, V., & Costa, R. (2016). Change in energy-related CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions in
Portuguese tourism: A decomposition analysis from 2000 to 2008. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 520–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.023
Rugani, B., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Benedetto, G., & Benetto, E. (2013). A comprehensive review of carbon footprint ana-
lysis as an extended environmental indicator in the wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 61–77. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.036
Sharp, H., Grundius, J., & Heinonen, J. (2016). Carbon footprint of inbound tourism to Iceland: A consumption-based
life-cycle assessment including direct and indirect emissions. Sustainability, 8(11), 1147. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su8111147
Sottini, V. A., Barbierato, E., Bernetti, I., Capecchi, I., Fabbrizzi, S., & Menghini, S. (2019). Winescape perception and
big data analysis: An assessment through social media photographs in the Chianti Classico region. Wine
Economics and Policy, 8(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2019.07.001
South African Wine & Spirit Board. (2018). Integrated production of wine: Guidelines for farms. South African Wine &
Spirit Board.
Stynes, D., & White, E. M. (2006). Reflections on measuring recreation and travel spending. Journal of Travel
Research, 45(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288873
Stynes, D., Propst, D., Chang, W., & Sun, Y. (2000). Estimating national park visitor spending and economic impacts:
The MGM2 model. Michigan State University.
Sun, Y.-Y. (2014). A framework to account for the tourism carbon footprint at island destinations. Tourism
Management, 45, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.015
Sun, Y.-Y., Cadarso, M. A., & Driml, S. (2020). Tourism carbon footprint inventories: A review of the environmentally
extended input-output approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 82, 102928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.
102928
Sun, Y.-Y., & Drakeman, D. (2020). Measuring the carbon footprint of wine tourism and cellar door sales. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 266, 121937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121937
Sun, Y.-Y., Lin, P. C., & Higham, J. (2020, December). Managing tourism emissions through optimizing the tourism
demand mix: Concept and analysis. Tourism Management, 81, 104161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.
104161
Tourism Research Australia. (2019). TRA online. Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://www.tra.gov.au/
Tourism Research Australia. (2020). Moving forward: The role of domestic travel in Australia’s tourism recovery.
Tourism Research Australia.
Trisic, I., Stetic, S., Privitera, D., & Nedelcu, A. (2019). Wine routes in Vojvodina Province, Northern Serbia: A tool for
sustainable tourism development. Sustainability, 12(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010082
UNSW. (2020). Industrial ecology virtual laboratory. Universtiy of New South Wales. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from
https://ielab.info/
UNWTO. (2010). Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological framework 2008. World Tourism
Organization.
UNWTO. (2016). Georgia Declaration on Wine Tourism. Fostering sustainable tourism development through intangible
cultural heritage (Vol. 26). World Tourism Organization.
UNWTO. (2018a). The 3rd UNWTO global conference on wine tourism: Wine tourism as a tool for rural development.
World Tourism Organization.
18 Y.-Y. SUN AND D. DRAKEMAN

UNWTO. (2018b). Measuring Sustainable Tourism (MST). UNWTO. Retrieved June 1, from http://statistics.unwto.org/
mst
UNWTO. (2020). One planet vision for a responsible recovery of the tourism sector. World Tourism Organization.
Wiedmann, T. (2009). A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission
and resource accounting. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.026
Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint. In C. C. Pertsova (Ed.), Ecological economics
research trends (Vol. 1, pp. 1–11). Nova Science Publishers.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2006). Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption
categories with input-output analysis. Ecological Economics, 56(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.
05.012
Wine Australia. (2018). Growing international tourism to Australian wineries. Retrieved June 29, from https://www.
wineaustralia.com/news/market-bulletin/issue-93
Wine Australia. (2019). The value of DTC: Results of the Cellar door and direct-toconsumer survey 2019 (Vol. 2019).
Wine Australia.
Wine Australia. (2020a). The market explorer. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://marketexplorer.wineaustralia.
com/explore/where-is-australian-wine-exported-to
Wine Australia. (2020b). What is the $50m package? Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.wineaustralia.
com/whats-happening/export-and-regional-wine-support-package
Wine Australia. (2020c). Wine Tourism Snapshot 2018 – 19. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.wineaustra-
lia.com/market-insights/australian-wine-tourism-snapshot
WTO-UNEP-WMO. (2008). Climate change and tourism: Responding to global challenges. World Tourism Organization.