Food Tourist Segmentation Attitude, Behavioral Intentions and Travel Planning Behaviour Based On Food Involvement and Motivation

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration
ISSN: 1525-6480 (Print) 1525-6499 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20
Food tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral

intentions and travel planning behavior based on
food involvement and motivation
Jamie A. Levitt, Pei Zhang, Robin B. DiPietro & Fang Meng
To cite this article: Jamie A. Levitt, Pei Zhang, Robin B. DiPietro & Fang Meng (2017): Food
tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral intentions and travel planning behavior based on food
involvement and motivation, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, DOI:
10.1080/15256480.2017.1359731
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1359731
Published online: 19 Sep 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 20
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjht20
Download by: [Australian Catholic University] Date: 30 September 2017, At: 22:10
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1359731
Food tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral intentions

and travel planning behavior based on food involvement
and motivation
a
Jamie A. Levitt , Pei Zhangb, Robin B. DiPietroa, and Fang Menga
a
School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina, USA; bDepartment of Retailing and Tourism Management, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, USA
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 22:10 30 September 2017
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study assessed attitudes, intentions, and travel planning Received June 1 2016
behavior for potential food tourists. Using two-step cluster ana- Revised January 10 2017
lysis, respondents were segmented into three groups based on Accepted January 18 2017
food involvement and motivation. These clusters had high, KEYWORDS
moderate, and low food involvement and motivation levels, Attitude; behavioral
respectively. Findings suggest moderate motivation and invol- intentions; food
vement food tourists are the largest group, but high motivation involvement; food tourism;
and involvement food tourists should be pursued by practi- motivation; segmentation;
tioners. They have the most positive attitudes and strongest travel planning
intentions to consume local cuisine. Further, high motivation
and involvement food tourists are most likely to select a desti-
nation based on the availability of food-related activities.
Introduction
In recent years, food tourism, which is broadly defined as the memorable interac-
tion with unique cuisines in a manner that differs from one’s daily dining activities,
has become a very popular activity (Hall & Mitchell, 2001; Long, 2004; Ottenbacher
& Harrington, 2010). The latest evidence suggests that as many as three quarters of
travelers act as food tourists—individuals that actively attempt to interact with
unique cuisines while traveling—during the course of a year (Long, 2004; Mandala
Research, 2013; McKercher, Okumus, & Okumus, 2008; Ottenbacher &
Harrington, 2010; Wolf, 2014). This is an important figure, as these individuals
have been shown to have an exceptionally strong positive economic impact on a
destination’s farmers, food producers, and small businesses (Everett & Aitchison,
2008). Growth has been notably strong for activities related to consuming a
destination’s local cuisine, or the ingredients, preparation techniques, and tradi-
tional recipes connected with a region (Clark, 1975; Wolf, 2014).
Although a large and growing number of people have participated in
food tourism, it is important to consider that food tourists are not a
CONTACT Jamie A. Levitt JLevitt@email.sc.edu University of South Carolina, School of Hotel, Restaurant
and Tourism Management, Carolina Coliseum, 701 Assembly St., Columbia, SC 29208.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
2 J. A. LEVITT ET AL.
homogeneous group with standardized demographics, psychographic

values, or lifestyles. In fact, a limited number of studies have demonstrated
that food tourists can be segmented based on singular variables including
levels of motivation, which is one’s level of desire to fulfill biological and
psychological needs and wants, as well as food involvement, which is the
level of importance that an individual places on food (Getz & Robinson,
2014; Getz, Robinson, Andersson, & Vujicic, 2014; Goody, 1982; Hjalager,
2003; Mandala Research, 2013; Ontario Ministry of Tourism, 2007; Pearce,
1982). Yet, no study to date has segmented potential food tourists based
on a more comprehensive set of criteria. Particularly, no study has seg-
mented potential food tourist via multiple segmentation variables such as
both motivation and food involvement. Further, only limited research has
attempted to profile the demographics of food tourist segments (Kline,

Greenwood, & Joyner, 2015; Ontario Ministry of Tourism, 2007). The lack
of comprehensive segmentation using more than a single variable, as well
as the lack of food tourist segment profiling, indicate that there is a gap in
the research for providing a more in depth understanding of food tourism
and potential food tourists.
There is also a paucity of research that has investigated potential food
tourist segments’ resultant attitudes, behavioral intentions or travel plan-
ning behavior towards consuming local cuisine while travelling. Along with
a lack of comprehensive segmentation, there is a need for a deeper, critical
investigation of these key variables as they serve as proxies for actual
behaviors among the current study’s more comprehensive segments of
potential food tourists (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998; Laesser & Dolnicar, 2012;
Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). The omission of these variables from prior
studies represents a considerable shortcoming in the current literature
(Hjalager, 2003; Mandala Research, 2013; Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
2007). In other words, the research gap in the current literature lies in
three parts. First, previous studies have only segmented potential food
tourists via either food involvement or motivation instead of a more
comprehensive set of criteria such as using both variables. Second, so far
only limited research has attempted to profile different food tourists seg-
ments. Third, there is a lack of research investigating the behaviors of
different, specific segments. Consequently, this study aims to address the
three gaps by providing a greater understanding of food tourist segments
and their resultant behavior. The current study will allow researchers and
practitioners to more easily understand and target potential food tourists.
Specifically, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to determine the
different segments of potential food tourists based on their food involve-
ment and food tourist motivation, and to provide profiles of each food
tourist segments (Gaps 1 and 2); and (b) to determine if potential food
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 3
tourist segments differ in terms of attitude, intentions to consume local

cuisine, or food tourist travel planning behavior (Gap 3).
The following section will review the relevant literature related to food
tourism, food tourists, segmentation variables, and evaluation variables.
Literature Review
Food Tourism
Food tourism is a broad concept, which multiple researchers have attempted to
define. Long’s (2004) seminal study argued that food tourism is manifested by
consumption of the culinary “other.” This is to say that food tourism represents
one’s food-related experiences, which differ from day-to-day practices. More
specifically, it includes experiences, while traveling, in which individuals con-
sume, taste, or observe the preparation of another culture’s cuisine (Long, 2004).
It is important to note that Long’s (2004) definition includes, but is not
limited by, the consumption or eating of food. In a similar vein, the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (2011) argued that food tourism encom-
passes the study, appreciation, as well as consumption of a destination’s
cuisine. Other researchers have totally omitted the consumption of food
from their definition of food tourism. Notably, Hall and Mitchell (2001)
defined food tourism as visitation to certain locations while traveling, includ-
ing food production facilities, festivals, restaurants, or food-tasting rooms.
Long (2006) also argued that food tourism encompasses visits to wineries,
chef demonstrations, and trips accompanying farmers or fishermen. Several
other studies also noted that these aforementioned food tourism activities
coincide with other forms of tourism (McKercher et al., 2008; Richards,
1996). On the other hand, Kim, Goh, and Yuan (2010) argued that an activity
can only be defined as food tourism when that is the primary purpose for
participating in one of these aforementioned activities.
While some researchers have omitted consumption from their definitions
of food tourism, other researchers have argued that this is an essential
component of food tourism. For example, Ottenbacher and Harrington
(2010) suggested that food tourism experiences are those in which the dining
experience was memorable. Several researchers, including Richards (1996),
Long (2004), and Smith and Xiao (2008), have also suggested that food
tourism represents experiences in which a region’s local cuisine is consumed.
Overall, the published definitions of food tourism share some similar
concepts, including interaction (often via consumption) with unique cuisines
(that are often local) while traveling.
The Food Tourists

Food tourists are a dynamic group with differing demographic and psy-
chographic characteristics, as well as varying levels of motivation and food
involvement (Hjalager, 2003; Mandala Research, 2013; Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, 2007). For the most part, they are between 26 and 55 years old
and have an annual income over US$45,000 (Ignatov & Smith, 2006; Kim,
Kim, Goh, & Antun, 2011). Many have also been characterized as having
robust relationship values with strong motivations to dine with a group,
to interact while dining, and to boast to friends about the unique inter-
actions that they have with food while traveling (Fields, 2002; Ignatov &
Smith, 2006). Many food tourists are also highly involved with food in
their day to day lives, enjoy tasting different foods and identify as “foo-
dies” or food enthusiasts (Fields, 2002; Mason & O’Mahony, 2007;
Robinson & Getz, 2014).
It is important to note that not all food tourists have elevated levels of food
involvement or motivation to consume local cuisine. These individuals may
participate in food tourism as an ancillary experience to a different type of
travel experience (McKercher et al., 2008). Yet, these individuals should not
be ignored by food tourism practitioners since, on the whole, individuals who
participate in food tourism while traveling spend more than the average
tourist (Mandala Research, 2013).
It is also important to note that regardless of a potential food tourist’s
motivation and food involvement levels, there are five key stages to their food
tourism experience (Mitchell & Hall, 2004). Firstly, they will dine at home
and in restaurants in their hometown (Stages 1 and 2). In these stages, food
tourists anticipate the dining experiences they will have when traveling. They
then dine and have unique food-related experiences while traveling (Stages 3
and 4). Lastly, their dining at home is influenced by their travel experiences
as they reminisce about their travels (Mitchell & Hall, 2004).
Overall, many food tourists enjoy social dining experiences and tasting
new foods, but they are not a homogeneous group as food tourists are
comprised of segments with differing levels of food involvement and motiva-
tion (Hjalager, 2003; McKercher et al., 2008; Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
2007). The following section will discuss the concept of consumer segmenta-
tion and theory of lifestyle segmentation, which will serve as the theoretical
grounding for the current study.
Consumer Segmentation
The idea that consumers have differing buying behavior is a key concept in
marketing. By segmenting consumers, practitioners have the ability to iden-
tify their core customer subgroups and can more carefully tailor their
marketing, products, services, and customer relations to meet a diverse set of

demands (Haaijer, Wedel, Vriens, & Wansbeek, 1998; Rogers, 2005; Wedel &
Kamakura, 2012). It is also a complicated process that can be carried out in
many ways, including via demographics, psychographics, or lifestyle.
The current study’s segmentation process has been grounded in lifestyle
segmentation theory. The theory broadly asserts that a relationship exists
between an individual’s lifestyle, such as their buying behavior, the activities
in which they participate, their interests, their personal preferences, and their
beliefs with the social and consumer groups to which they belong (Frank &
Massy, 1965; Holt, 1997; Scott & Parfitt, 2005).
Overall, there are two different methods to carry out lifestyle segmentation.
The first is segmentation via the examination of the products that an indivi-
dual consumes, while the second represents lifestyle segmentation via the
assessment of an individual’s activities, interests, opinions, and values (Frank,
Massy, & Wind, 1972; Scott & Parfitt, 2005). It should be noted that both are
viable means of lifestyle segmentation, but the latter form is more common in
the literature (Scott & Parfitt, 2005). Further, for the current study, potential
food tourists will be segmented using variables that fall into this latter category.
Use of the lifestyle segmentation theory is an important foundation for market
research as individuals’ lifestyles and different social and consumer groups
continue to become more numerous, varied, diverse, and nuanced (Gonzalez
& Bello, 2002). Thus, prior hospitality and tourism research has utilized lifestyle
segmentation as a theoretical grounding (Gonzalez & Bello, 2002; Middleton &
Clarke, 2001; Nie & Zepeda, 2011; Scott & Parfitt, 2005; Tuppen, 2000). Most
notably, Middleton and Clarke (2001) identified multiple means of segmenting
customers via lifestyle including purpose of travel, customer needs, tourist
motivations, benefits sought from travel, differences in product usage, and
psychographics (Middleton & Clarke, 2001). Nie and Zepeda (2011) also utilized
lifestyle segmentation theory to develop their food related lifestyle model.
For the purposes of this study, potential food tourists are segmented based
on a combination of food involvement, as well as motivation for consuming
local cuisine while traveling. Research suggests that the two are both repre-
sentative of the interests and personal preferences that define tourist’s life-
style (Cohen, 2011; Gross & Brown, 2008; Mason & O’Mahony, 2007; Scott &
Parfitt, 2005). For example, Gross and Brown (2008) conceptualized and
tested tourism involvement as a multidimensional construct consisting of
attraction, centrality to lifestyle, and self-expression. Cohen (2011) indicated
lifestyle travelers engage in distinctive behavior related to enduring involve-
ment, cultural reassimilation, work motivation, and problematizing home.
The following section will introduce the concepts of food involvement and
motivation, their importance to food tourism, and previous research using
those specific constructs as means of segmentation.
Segmentation by Food Involvement

Involvement is the perceived relevance that an individual places on an object
based on their inherent needs, values or interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). For
this study, food involvement represents the level of significance and impor-
tance that food plays in one’s day-to-day life. It is manifested in how
frequently an individual thinks about food, has food-related discussions,
purchases food, prepares ingredients, and cooks (Goody, 1982; Robinson &
Getz, 2016). The concept of food involvement also contains an element of
knowledge development as individuals with higher levels of food involve-
ment are more able to discern subtle differences between ingredients and
cuisines (Bell & Marshall, 2003; Robinson & Getz, 2016). Similarly, Xie,
Bagozzi, and Østli (2013) also note that high food involvement can be
associated with a deeper understanding of cooking techniques and recipe

development. It is an important concept in food tourism as many food
tourists are also highly involved with food in their day-to-day lives, enjoy
tasting different foods, and identify as foodies or food enthusiasts (Fields,
2002; Mason & O’Mahony, 2007; Robinson & Getz, 2014).
A limited number of attempts to segment food tourists based on their
levels of food involvement have been made in prior studies (Getz &
Robinson, 2014; Getz et al., 2014). Getz et al.’s (2014) study of food enthu-
siasts in Europe conducted a segmentation based on frequency of participa-
tion in food-related events; a segmentation variable closely related to food
involvement. Three segments of potential food tourists were uncovered, with
the most involved individuals being defined as “dynamic foodies” (Segment
1). These individuals enjoy and actively seek out food-related activities (and
particularly interactive and educational food-related activities) at home and
for travel. On the other hand, less involved food tourists are defined as
“active foodies” (Segment 2) who enjoy participating in some food-related
activities, but normally do not plan their travels based on food or food-
related activities, or “passive foodies” (Segment 3) who only participate in
food-related activities on rare occasions.
Getz and Robinson’s (2014) study assessing the preferences and behavior
of food enthusiasts in Australia asserted that there is a positive link between
food “lovers,” who tend to be individuals who have high levels of food
involvement, and participation in food-related activities while traveling.
The study further determined that individuals with higher levels of food
involvement had a stronger preference for highly active food-related experi-
ences while traveling such as cooking lessons or cooking classes in contrast to
individuals with relatively lower levels of food involvement.
Along with empirical attempts to segment food tourists based on food
involvement, conceptual segmentations have also been carried out (Hjalager,
2003; Mitchell & Hall, 2004). Hjalager (2003) carried out a conceptual
segmentation based on Cohen’s (1979) phenomenology of tourist
experiences, which contains segmentation categories associated with food

involvement. While food involvement typically relates to an individual’s
day-to-day relationship with food, Hjalager (2003) segmented food tourists
based on the influence that food has on an individual’s travel habits (Bell &
Marshall, 2003; Goody, 1982; Robinson & Getz, 2016). More specifically,
food tourists are categorized by Hjalager (2003) as “existential” food tourists
who prefer secluded local restaurants, “experiential” food tourists who prefer
trendy restaurants, “recreational” food tourists who prefer to dine on familiar
cuisine with friends and family, and “diversionary” food tourists who con-
sume food only as a means of sustenance.
Similar to Hjalager’s (2003) conceptual segmentation, Mitchell and Hall
(2004) developed a conceptual segmentation based on involvement, food
neophobia, and interest that separates food tourists into four clusters. More
specifically, food tourists are categorized by Mitchell and Hall (2004) as
“gastronome” food tourists who actively explore cuisine as a cornerstone of
their travels, “indigenous” food tourists who are open to exploring local
cuisine while traveling, “tourist” food tourists who may be open to tasting
familiarized versions of local cuisine, and “familiar food” food tourists who,
for the most part, prefer that their meals be included with their hotel or travel
reservations (such as a package tour or all-inclusive plan).
Segmentation by Motivation
Motivation is defined as the desire to fulfill biological and psychological
needs and wants (Dann, 1981; Pearce, 1982). Levels of motivation are
influenced by both internal, social-psychological push factors and external,
situational pull factors (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). It is an important concept in
the food tourism literature, as individuals who partake in food tourism often
have strong motivations to dine in groups, interact while dining, and to boast
about the unique interactions that they have with food while traveling
(Fields, 2002; Ignatov & Smith, 2006). Thus, several studies have attempted
to assess the key elements of food tourist motivation. This can be seen in
Nicholson and Pearce’s (2001) study of motivations to visit food festivals in
New Zealand, which determined that socialization with friends and family,
desires to attend novel and entertaining events, and opportunities to escape
from a daily routine represented the key motivators to attend a food festival.
Park, Reisinger, and Kang’s (2008) study of the South Beach Food and Wine
Festival observed similar results. Key motivators to attend the festival
included the desire to taste new cuisine and meet new chefs, desires to
meet new people and enhance social status, a desire to socialize with family,
and a desire to escape from daily life.
Previous attempts to segment food tourists based on their levels of
motivation have been made by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism (2007)
travel activities and motivation survey (TAMS). The TAMS is a
comprehensive survey that collected descriptive data on the motivations,

desires, and practices of American inbound tourists. With regard to food
tourism, the TAMS measured tourists’ motivation to participate in 15
food-related activities. Respondents were then categorized into three seg-
ments: low, moderate, and high interest based on the number of activities
in which they were motivated to participate (Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
2007).
Food involvement and motivation are important concepts for food tour-
ism as individuals who have higher levels of food involvement or motivation
are more likely to participate in food tourism. The following section will
discuss food tourist attitudes and behavioral intentions, which, along with
food tourist travel planning behavior, will serve as the current study’s
evaluation variables.
Attitude and Behavioral Intention

Attitude represents an individual’s level of favor or disfavor towards carrying
out a behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). Previous research on food tourism
and the consumption of local cuisine supports the relationship between one’s
attitude and behavioral intentions. Notably, Ryu and Jang (2006) and Ryu
and Han (2010) observed a positive relationship between attitudes and
intentions to consume local cuisine in New Orleans.
Prior research suggests that both attitude and intentions are positively
influenced by food involvement and motivation. With regard to attitude,
Sparks’ (2007) study of wine tourists measured and confirmed the positive
influence of food and wine involvement on attitudes towards participating in
a wine tour. Hsu and Huang’s (2012) study of Chinese tourists, which was
based on an expanded version of the theory of planned behavior, observed
one’s level of motivation towards visiting a destination to positively influence
attitudes towards visiting that destination.
With regard to intention, Verbeke and Vackier’s (2005) study of fish
consumption confirmed a positive relationship between one’s food involve-
ment and intentions to consume fish. Perugini and Bagozzi’s (2001) model of
goal directed behavior proposed a relationship between motivation (which
the authors termed as “desire”) and intentions. The model was tested in the
closely related field of wine tourism by Lee, Bruwer, and Song (2015) and
affirmed a positive relationship. Smith, Costello, and Muenchen (2010)
observed a positive relationship between the food tourist motivation and
intention when mediated by one’s satisfaction.
As can be seen, previous research suggests that food involvement, as well as
motivation, each positively influences attitudes and intentions, respectively.
The following section will discuss food tourist travel planning behavior.
Food Tourist Travel Planning Behavior

Food tourist travel planning behavior represents the extent to which the
presence of food-related activities such as dining on local cuisine, visiting
food festivals, visiting food factories, or visiting specialty shops influence a
food tourist’s choice of destination and the activities that he or she plans to
participate in while travelling (Mandala Research, 2013). One study showed
that individuals who solidify travel plans further in advance tend to travel for
longer lengths, but may be more price-sensitive and may spend less per diem
(Laesser & Dolnicar, 2012). Similarly, Schott’s (2007) study into adventure
tourism planning behavior noted that individuals who plan activities in
advance often shop around and carefully consider the value provided by
different service providers.

To date, a limited amount of research has been conducted to better under-
stand food tourist travel planning behavior. Notably, The World Food Travel
Association’s investigation into the American culinary traveler, which surveyed
2,113 American tourists, determined that respondents who had participated in
food tourism fell into three groups based on the influence that food-related
activities had on their travel planning process: so-called “deliberates,” “oppor-
tunists,” and “accidentals.” A fourth group also contained any individual who
did not participate in food tourism (Mandala Research, 2013). Thirty percent
of tourists are considered to be deliberate food tourists. They select their
destination based on the presence of food-related activities. Twenty-six percent
of tourists are considered to be opportunist food tourists where food-related
activities were sought out after selecting a destination, and lastly, 19% of
tourists are considered to be accidental food tourists who will choose to
participate in food-related activities impulsively if they are conveniently offered
at their destination (Mandala Research, 2013).
To date, the relationship between food involvement and food tourist travel
planning behavior has not been investigated, but extant research suggests
that individual’s with higher levels of food involvement are more likely to be
deliberate food tourists (Clarke & Belk, 1979; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004;
Havitz & Dimanche, 1999; Mandala Research, 2013).
Prior research suggests that one’s level of involvement with an activity
influences their destination search behavior. More specifically, individuals
who are more involved with an activity go through a more extensive process
of searching for information and considering different destination choices.
Conversely, individuals who have low levels of involvement lack the desire to
conduct extensive deliberate external research into a destination (Clarke &
Russell, 1979; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999).
As was the case with the relationship between food involvement and travel
planning behavior, the relationship between food tourist motivation and food
tourist travel planning behavior has not been specifically investigated but
related research suggests that individual’s with higher levels of motivation are
more likely to be deliberate food tourists (Assael, 1984; Hassan, Zainal, &
Mohamed, 2015; Yeoh, 2005). Assael (1984), through his consumer informa-
tion acquisition and processing model, argued that one’s level of motivation
positively influences planning behavior. This is to say that individuals who
have higher levels of motivation to participate in an activity are more likely to
conduct more comprehensive research into that activity. A similar argument
was also put forward by Yeoh (2005), whose study into business export and
internationalization behavior asserted that individuals who have higher levels
of motivation are more likely to conduct more comprehensive information
searches. In the field of tourism and hospitality, Hassan et al.’s (2015) study
into the determinants of destination knowledge acquisition in religious
tourism observed a positive relationship between one’s purpose of travel

and the effort put into travel planning. This would suggest those who travel
with food tourism as a primary purpose will make be more exhaustive in
their travel planning behavior related to food tourism activities.
Overall, research suggests that individuals with higher levels of food invol-
vement and food tourist motivation are more likely to act as “deliberate” food
tourists. The following section will present the current study’s methodology.
Materials and Methods

Survey Design
A self-administered questionnaire was used for the current study. The first
section of the survey contained 20 items that were adapted from previous
studies. Reliability for each of these item’s factors was strong and the original
alpha scores are presented next.
Items in the first section pertained to food involvement which had six
items from Kim, Suh, and Eves (2010; α = .86); food tourist motivation,
which was based on push–pull theory and had three items attributed to push
factors and three items attributed to pull factors (six items overall) from Lam
and Hsu (2006; α = .86); attitudes which had five items from Hsu and Huang
(2012; α = .82); and behavioral intentions to consume local cuisine, which
had three items from Song, Lee, Norman, and Han (2011; α = .90).
Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with all of the statements
using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).
Further, a question was adapted from Mandala Research (2013) to measure food
tourist travel-planning behavior. Respondents were asked to think about their
prior travels where they participated in a food-related activity and to indicate the
degree to which food-related activities influence their travel-planning behavior.
The four options provided to respondents were: (a) “For most of those trips, the
availability of food-related activities was a factor in choosing between potential
destination”; (b) “For most of those trips, I researched food-related activities

prior to travel, but they were not a factor in choosing between destination”; (c)
“For most of those trips, I did not research activities prior to travel, but
participated after arriving simply because they were available”; and (d) “I have
never participated in any food-related activities.”
Data collected from this survey was analyzed via cluster analysis,
MANOVA, MANCOVA, correlation, and chi-square analysis to (a) deter-
mine different segments of food tourists based on their food involvement and
food-tourist motivation and (b) determine if food-tourist segments differ in
terms of their attitudes, behavioral intentions, and food-tourist travel plan-
ning behavior in relation to the consumption of local cuisine.
A second section of the survey measured demographic information for
gender, age, ethnicity, family income, education, and marital status.
Data Collection
Data for the current study was collected using a sample of six restaurants
located in three midsized cities in the Southeastern United States. Each
restaurant served the region’s local cuisine. Two restaurants were located in
each city and each was situated in an area that is accessible to and frequented
by food tourists. Customers at these food tourist destinations serving local
cuisine were deemed appropriate to survey as consumers of local, traditional
cuisine are proportionally more likely to continue consume local, traditional
cuisine during future travels (Lee, Packer, & Scott, 2015).
All of the restaurants in this study were open seven-days per week and
served both lunch and dinner. In order to collect information from a
representative sample of these dining periods, researchers collected data
during lunch and dinner intercepts on two Fridays, two Saturdays, two
Sundays, and an additional two weekdays in December 2015. Collecting
data within this timeframe allowed researchers to obtain a sufficient sample
of food tourists because these were periods when these restaurants had the
majority of their dining guests. Every other customer over the age of 18 was
greeted by one of this study’s researchers either while they were waiting to
dine, while in the queue line of the restaurant, or after they had finished
dining and had received their meal check. The administration of surveys
either prior to or after meals was deemed appropriate as the items in this
study’s survey do not require diners to reflect upon the meal consumed at the
restaurant at which they had been surveyed. These survey distribution points
were also selected so as to minimize interference with operations. At the time
of diner intercept, the researchers introduced themselves and briefly
described the purpose of this study. Diners were asked if they would be
willing to complete a questionnaire using either a tablet computer or a paper-
and-pencil questionnaire. To incentivize participation, it was also noted that
those who completed a questionnaire would be entered into a drawing for a

restaurant gift certificate. Those who agreed to participate were provided
with a tablet or a paper questionnaire and were instructed to complete it. Of
the 878 individuals approached by researchers, 725 completed questionnaires
for a response rate of 82.57%.
Results
Descriptive Statistics of Respondents
The data set included 725 cases with 10 incomplete cases. Due to the low level of
incompletion, all the missing values were replaced with the mean value of all
remaining data points per column. This method has the benefit of not changing the
sample size and the sample mean of the variables. The majority of the respondents
were married (51.6%), Caucasian (82.1%), and female (58.4%). Most of the
respondents were 18–35 (60.3%) years old and had completed four years of college
(36.9%). A more detailed breakdown of demographics related to the specific
clusters determined in the study will be discussed later in the results section.
Principal Component Analyses

Before conducting cluster analysis, it is important to explore the dimensionality
of related constructs since component scores of each construct will be used as
either segmenting variables or evaluation variables in the cluster analysis.
Therefore, a series of principal component analyses with Varimax rotation
were conducted on motivation, food involvement, attitude, and behavioral
intention using SPSS v.22.0. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified
the sampling adequacy for the analyses. All the KMO values are “meritorious”
according to Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999). The principal component ana-
lyses results indicated all of the constructs are unidimensional, which is con-
sistent with what was informed from previous literature (Hsu & Huang, 2012;
Kim, Suh et al., 2010; Lam & Hsu, 2006; Song et al., 2011). One item of food
involvement (“I do most of my own food shopping”) was deleted due to low
loading. On the final factor analysis test, all loadings were above .70 with the
exception of one item that loaded at .68. Table 1 summarizes these results.
Cluster Analysis
A two-step cluster analysis was conducted using SPSS v.22.0 software to identify
homogeneous groups in the sample. This procedure includes preclustering and
hierarchical clustering algorithms, which generates a range of solutions being
reduced to the best number of clusters on the basis of Schwarz’s Bayesian
information criterion (Norusis, 2008). The variables used to cluster (or segment)
Table 1. Principle Component Analyses for Motivation, Food Involvement, Attitude, and Intention.
Explained
Factor variance Reliability
Factor loading Eigenvalue % coefficient
Motivation 3.76 62.59 0.87
It is important that I experience cultural differences. Thus, I am interested in participating in food-related activities 0.84
at a destination.
I am interested in participating in food-related activities at a destination as it is a means of seeing the authentic 0.82
aspects of a destination
I am interested in participating in food-related activities at a destination as it is a means of seeing landmarks 0.81
I am interested in participating in food-related activities at a destination as it is a means of sightseeing 0.80
It is important that I experience different lifestyles. Thus, I am interested participating food-related activities at a 0.79
destination.
It is important that I dine out. Thus, I am interested in participating in food-related activities at a destination. 0.68
Food Involvement 3.38 67.55 0.88
Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are very important 0.87
Talking about what I ate is something I like to do 0.82
I think a lot about food each day 0.82
When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most is eating the food at the destination 0.81
When I eat out, I think a lot about how the food tastes 0.79
Attitude 4.60 76.70 0.94
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is worthwhile 0.90
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is full of fun 0.90
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is pleasant 0.89
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is enjoyable 0.88
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is rewarding 0.86
Consuming local cuisine while travelling is satisfactory 0.83
Intention 3.51 87.72 0.95
I intend to experience local cuisine during my next vacation. 0.96
I will make an effort to experience local cuisine during my next vacation. 0.96
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION
I am willing to experience local cuisine during my next vacation. 0.91

I am planning to experience local cuisine during my next vacation. 0.91
13
the sample are the component scores of motivation and food involvement. The
evaluation variables used are component scores of attitude and behavioral
intention. The cluster analysis result revealed three clusters as the best solution.
These clusters were labeled as “high motivation and involvement” food tourists
(Cluster 1: n = 225, 31.0%), “moderate motivation and involvement” food
tourists (Cluster 2: n = 351, 48.4%), and “low motivation and involvement”
food tourists (Cluster 3: n = 149, 20.6%).
Based on the results, respondents in the Cluster 1 are highly involved with
food and are highly motivated to participate in food-related activities while
traveling. Not surprisingly, this group shows the strongest favorable attitude
and intention towards experiencing local cuisine in future trips. Cluster 2 is
comprised of the largest number of respondents. They have moderate levels
of motivation and involvement with food. In turn, they have moderate

attitudes and intentions to consume local cuisine while travelling.
Respondents in the Cluster 3 have the lowest factor scores of food involve-
ment and motivation, indicating they have the least involvement with food
and are barely driven to seek out food-related activities during their trips.
Accordingly, their attitudes and intention of experiencing local cuisine are
the lowest. Detailed results are displayed in Table 2.
Prior to further assessment of the three clusters, a consistency check was
conducted to ensure that no sampling error existed within the data. Independent
sample t-tests were conducted to ensure that there were no differences between
respondents surveyed before their meals and after in each cluster’s value for
attitude, intention, motivation, or food involvement. Results showed that there
were not significant differences for any cluster (p ≤ .05).
Demographic Characteristics by Clusters

Demographic characteristics were summarized for each cluster and these
characteristics are displayed in Table 3. Several notable demographic differ-
ences can be detected among the three clusters. First, Cluster 1 has a higher
percentage of female respondents compared to Clusters 2 and 3, while
Cluster 3 has a higher percentage of males. Cluster 1 also has the largest
proportion of respondents between the ages of 18 and 35 (67.5%), indicating
Table 2. Cluster Analysis Results.

Variable Cluster 1a Cluster 2b Cluster 3c
Inputs
Involvement 0.81 0.09 −1.44
Motivation 0.95 -0.06 −1.30
Evaluation fields
Attitude 0.59 0.01 −0.91
Intention 0.42 0.04 −0.72
Note. Involvement, motivation, attitude, and intention represent the component scores.
a
n = 225 (31.0%). bn = 351 (48.4%). cn = 149 (20.6%).
Table 3. Demographic Profiles of Clusters.

%
Demographic item Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 χ2 p
Gender 9.28 0.16
Male 36 41.4 49.3
Female 64 58.0 50.7
Age 17.58 0.13
18–25 32.4 32.2 25.7
26–35 35.1 26.7 27.0
36–45 12.0 13.2 16.9
46–55 11.6 12.1 13.5
56–65 5.8 10.9 10.8
66–75 3.1 3.7 6.1
76 and above 0 1.1 0
Ethnic group 12.37 0.42
Caucasian 81.3 83.0 81.1

African American 4.9 6.9 8.1
Hispanic 3.6 3.7 2.0
Asian 6.3 2.6 2.0
Native American 0.4 0.6 0.7
Pacific Islander 0 0.3 0
Other/mixed 3.6 2.9 6.1
Marital status 0.46 0.98
Single 43.6 41.7 44.6
Married/Domestic partnership 51.6 52.6 49.3
Divorced/Separated/Widowed 4.9 2.7 6.1
Education level 27.32 0.01
High school or less 10.2 6.6 12.2
Technical school graduate 1.8 2.9 3.4
Some college 13.3 21.8 19.6
Two-year college degree 7.1 6.3 8.8
Four-year college degree 47.1 32.8 31.1
Master’s or postgraduate degree 20.4 29.0 24.3
Other 0 0.6 0.7
Total 2014 annual household income 7.95 0.95
$25,000 or less 17.0 18.8 20.0
$25,001–$50,000 15.7 16.4 16.6
$50,001–$75,000 19.3 17.3 20.0
$75,001–$100,000 14.8 16.7 13.1
$100,001–$125,000 9.9 9.4 9.7
$125,001–$150,000 8.1 6.5 6.2
$150,001–$175,000 2.7 2.9 4.8
$175,001–$200,000 1.8 4.1 2.1
$200,001 or above 10.8 7.9 7.6
a comparatively younger group. Cluster 3, on the other hand, has a higher

percentage of respondents ages 36–55 (30.4%) and 56–75 (16.9%).
Furthermore, the education level in Cluster 1 is comparatively higher than
that of Clusters 2 and 3, as the proportion of respondents who attain a four-
year college or master’s/postgraduate degree is the largest (67.5%). Cluster 3
has the least proportion of those who had a four-year college or master’s/
postgraduate degree (55.4%). Cluster 3 also has a larger number of respon-
dents who fall into the lower income categories below US$75,000 (56.6%).
On the other hand, the number of people below US$75,000 is lowest in

Cluster 1.
To further interpret demographic differences between clusters, a chi-
square analysis was conducted for respondent gender, age, ethnicity, family
income, education, and marital status. Results determined that there was a
significant difference between Cluster 1 and Clusters 2 and 3 for education
level (χ2 = 27.32, p ≤ .01). More specifically, Cluster 1 was proportionally
more educated than Clusters 2 and 3.
MANOVA
MANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to determine if there were
statistically significant differences among the three clusters in terms of attitude
and intention. The results show attitude (F = 140.51, p < .01, R2 = 0.16) and
intention (F = 71.04, p < .01, R2 = 0.28) are significantly different among the
three clusters. Furthermore, the post-hoc tests show significant differences
between Clusters 1 and 2, Clusters 1 and 3, and Clusters 2 and 3 in terms of
both attitude and intention. Detailed results are presented in Table 4.
MANCOVA
Though few statistically significant differences were detected among the three
clusters in terms of most of the demographic variables, the varying demo-
graphic profiles of the three clusters still call for a rigorous investigation on
cluster differences related to attitude and intention, controlling for a set of
demographic variables as well as the restaurant dined at and city surveyed in.
Therefore, a MANCOVA analysis was employed to examine covariate effects.
The findings indicate that significant differences among clusters on attitude
and intention existed after controlling for these covariates. This means that the
three clusters, after eliminating the impact of gender, age, ethnicity, income,
Table 4. Multiple Comparisons.

Dependent variable (I) Cluster (J) Cluster M difference (I − J) Sig.
Intention Cluster 1 Cluster 2 .3893859* .000
Cluster 3 1.1483319* .000
Cluster 2 Cluster 1 −.3893859* .000
Cluster 3 .7589460* .000
Cluster 3 Cluster 1 −1.1483319* .000
Cluster 2 −.7589460* .000
Attitude Cluster 1 Cluster 2 .5823821* .000
Cluster 3 1.5041178* .000
Cluster 2 Cluster 1 −.5823821* .000
Cluster 3 .9217357* .000
Cluster 3 Cluster 1 −1.5041178* .000
Cluster 2 −.9217357* .000
Table 5. Cluster Differences on Attitude and Intention Controlling for Demographic Variables.
Attitude Intention
Variable controlled F Sig. F Sig.
Gender 141.94 .00 68.29 .00
Age 145.75 .00 70.48 .00
Ethnicity 142.77 .00 68.44 .00
Income 136.33 .00 69.31 .00
Marital status 145.63 .00 69.23 .00
Education 142.09 .00 67.51 .00
Destination 141.37 .00 69.05 .00
Restaurant 141.81 .00 69.29 .00
marital status, education, restaurant dined at, and city surveyed in had sig-
nificantly different attitude and intention toward consuming local cuisine in

future trips. Previous MANOVA tests indicated that there were significant
cluster differences in attitude and intention. The MANCOVA tests confirmed
the difference in a stricter manner by controlling the potential covariate effect
of the demographic variables. In addition, the MANCOVA findings were
consistent with the Pearson chi-square tests performed on cluster member-
ships and the demographic variables. Most of the chi-square values were not
significant except education level, indicating there were no significant differ-
ences among the three clusters in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, income, and
marital status. In terms of education, although the chi-square test indicated
significant different education levels among the three clusters, the different
education level did not act as a covariate influencing attitude and intention.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that demographic variables do not
influence food tourist clusters’ different levels of attitude and intention. The
detailed results are presented in Table 5.
Table 6. Chi-Square Test of Cluster Membership and Self-Reported Food Tourist Planning
Behavior.
Cluster
membership
Variable 1 2 3 Total
Think about your prior travels 1 = For most of those trips, the availability of 84 80 19 183
where you participated in a food-related activities was a factor in choosing
food-related activity between potential destinations.
2 = For most of those trips, I researched food- 68 150 30 248
related activities prior to travel, but they were
not a factor in choosing between destinations.
3 = For most of those trips, I did not research 45 112 68 225
activities prior to travel, but participated after
arriving simply because they were available.
4 = I have never participated in any food- 9 27 33 69
related activities.
Total 206 369 150 725
Food Tourist Travel Planning Behavior

The three-cluster solution was compared with the food tourist travel-planning
behavior groups using Pearson correlation and Pearson chi-square tests. The
travel-planning groups were measured by asking the respondents to “think
about their prior travels where they participated in a food-related activity” and to
indicate the degree to which food-related activities influenced their travel planning.
The correlation test showed significant relationships between the cluster member-
ship and the travel-planning behavior groups (r = 0.31, p < .01). A significant chi-
square value indicated the three clusters were notably dissimilar in terms of travel
planning behavior (χ2 = 90.43, p < .01). Table 6 displays these results.
Most people in Cluster 1 (high motivation and involvement food tourists)
identified themselves as being most likely to select a destination based on its

food-related activities. The largest number of respondents in Cluster 2 (moder-
ate motivation and involvement food tourists) fell into the second group who
planned their food related activities after selecting a destination. Lastly, most of
the respondents in Cluster 3 (low motivation and involvement food tourists)
belonged to self-reported Groups 3 and 4 who either participate in food-related
activities because they are convenient, or do not participate in food-related
activities at all. The following section will discuss these findings in more detail.
Discussion
In reviewing this study’s outcome it becomes clear that there are interesting
results that can add value to the subject of food tourists and food tourists’
consumption of local cuisine. Important practical and theoretical implica-
tions can also be extracted from the current study’s findings.
The first purpose of this study, relating to customer segmentation, serves
as a unique contribution to the literature as previous studies have segmented
food tourists based on either food involvement or motivation, but not both.
Furthermore, this clustering process allowed researchers to have greater
insight into the demographic and psychographic characteristics of these
groups (Haaijer et al., 1998; Rogers, 2005; Wedel & Kamakura, 2012).
Cluster 1 had the largest percentage of females, contained the youngest
group of respondents, and was the most educated group. In relation to house-
hold income, Cluster 1 had the proportion of respondents coming from
households with incomes over US$75,000. These individuals have a lifestyle
that is highly involved with food and food-related activities. They are also the
group of people to which food has a high level of significance on their daily
life. Based on previous literature related to food involvement, individuals in
Cluster 1 are likely to often think about food, have food-related discussions,
purchase food, prepare ingredients, and cook (Goody, 1982; Robinson & Getz,
2016). Individuals in Cluster 1 are also the most highly motivated to attend
food-related activities while traveling. This suggests, based on previous litera-

ture related to food tourist motivation, that individuals in Cluster 1 have
higher desires for entertainment, socialization, novelty, and escape from a
daily routine (Nicholson & Pearce, 2001; Park et al., 2008).
When compared with Cluster 1, Cluster 2 had a lower percentage of
females, contained a larger group of respondents over the age of 45, and had
a higher proportion of respondents who did not have four-year college degrees.
Yet, overall this cluster was still predominantly female, under the age of 35, in
possession of at least a four-year college degree and earning over US$75,000.
With regard to lifestyle, Cluster 2 had comparatively moderate levels of
food involvement and motivation. Given these findings, it is possible that
these potential food tourists represent the individuals that participate in food
tourism in an ancillary nature in which their primary purpose of travel is not

food or cuisine (McKercher et al., 2008). Yet, of the three clusters, Cluster 2
is the largest. This would suggest that the greatest proportion of potential
food tourists have moderate levels of food involvement and motivation.
Based on this finding, as well as the fact that, on the whole, food tourists
spend more on travel than general tourists, it is essential that this cluster be
courted by marketers and practitioners (Mandala Research, 2013).
Cluster 3, which is comprised of a comparatively large percentage of older,
male tourists with lower education levels and lower income, has a lifestyle with
the lowest levels of food involvement and motivation among the three clusters.
Given these findings, it is likely that this group, when they participate in food
tourism, behaves similarly to Mitchell and Hall’s (2004) “tourist” food tourist
cluster or Hjalager’s (2003) “recreational” food tourism cluster, which partici-
pate in food tourism when a destination’s cuisine has been familiarized. This is
to say that given their limited motivation and food involvement levels, they are
likely to participate in food tourist activities deemed less adventurous.
Regarding this study’s second purpose related to determining if food
tourist segments differ in terms of attitude and intentions to consume local
cuisine, results from the MANOVA test determined that the three clusters
differ significantly in terms of both attitude and intentions. A MANOVA
post hoc analysis further determined that Cluster 1 has the strongest levels of
attitude and intention towards consuming local cuisine. This suggests that
individuals in Cluster 1 are most likely to consume local cuisine while
traveling and are the most likely to consider themselves food tourists. On
the other hand, Cluster 3 has the weakest attitude and are the least likely to
consume local cuisine while traveling and consider themselves to be food
tourists. The findings from the MANOVA contributes to the literature by
observing positive relationships between both food involvement and motiva-
tion with attitudes, intentions and travel planning behavior in the context of
food tourism. This is especially important for the relationship between
motivation and intention as few prior food tourism studies have empirically
tested this relationship (Smith et al., 2010).
In continuing to address the second purpose of this study, via the assess-
ment of the relationship between this study’s three clusters and food tourist
travel planning behavior, some further notable results were observed.
Individuals in the first cluster were most likely to be deliberate food tourists
who plan their food-related activities earlier in the travel planning process
and use food related activities as a means of selecting a destination. This
finding suggests positive relationships between food involvement and travel
planning behavior as well as motivation and travel planning behavior; results
which both support corroborate research (Clarke & Belk, 1979; Gursoy &
McCleary, 2004; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999; Mandala Research, 2013).
The findings regarding food tourist planning behavior help researchers

and practitioners to better understand the behavior of their different custo-
mer groups. Research suggests individuals planning further in advance are
more likely to be travelling for longer periods of time, but may be on
relatively tighter budgets or more sensitive to the value provided by different
activities (Laesser & Dolnicar, 2012; Schott, 2007). This means, that although
individuals in Cluster 1 plan their food-related activities at an earlier stage of
the food tourism experience (stage one or two), they may be more likely to
shop around for the best deal (Laesser & Dolnicar, 2012; Mitchell & Hall,
2004; Schott, 2007). Therefore it is essential that practitioners provide strong
value propositions, such as memorable experiences at competitive prices, to
members of Cluster 1 (Voss, Roth, & Chase, 2008). It also means that
individuals in Clusters 2 and 3, who are more likely to be opportunist and
accidental food tourists, should not be ignored by marketers. They are more
likely to consider food-related activities at a later stage in the food tourism
experience (likely during stages three or four), but may be more impulsive
shoppers than individuals in Cluster 1 (Mitchell & Hall, 2004). Ultimately,
further research will need to be conducted to examine whether individuals in
Cluster 1 have elevated levels of price and value sensitivity and a greater
propensity to shop around.
Marketers should also carefully consider the different channels used to
reach out to food tourists. To attract food tourists in Cluster 1, who plan
during Stage 1 or 2, it would be advisable for marketers to promote them-
selves via social media, user-generated content, and electronic word-of-
mouth (eWOM) websites as they are often used early in the travel planning
process to shop around (Tsai, Huang, & Lin, 2005; Xiang & Gretzel, 2010).
Furthermore, these types of websites have been shown to be heavily featured
in search engine results during the travel search process, which suggests that
they will provide significant exposure for practitioners (Xiang & Gretzel,
2010). The use of social media, user-generated content, and eWOM may
also address potential issues relating to price and value sensitivity for Cluster
1 as there tends to but high levels of trust from the traveling public in these
platforms (Luca, 2011; Parikh, Behnke, Vorvoreanu, Almanza, & Nelson,
2014). Therefore businesses which are well received or have strong reviews
may have a competitive advantage and offer a strong value proposition to
members of Cluster 1. Outside of electronic means of attracting Cluster 1,
destinations could also partner with restaurants in potential food tourists
home towns (Mitchell & Hall, 2004).
To attract food tourists in Cluster 2, who are proportionally more likely to
be opportunist food tourists and traveling for purposes beyond food tourism, it
would be advisable for practitioners and marketers to partner with local hotels
as the hotel reception desk has been found to be an effective location for up-
selling to take place. More specifically, reservation agents often sell goods and
services, such as tours, when individuals check in (Lui & Piccoli, 2010;
McKercher et al., 2008). This would serve to approach this group during
stage three or four of the food tourism experience (Hall & Mitchell, 2001).
Although individuals in Cluster 3 may have relatively low levels of food
involvement, motivation, attitudes, and involvement, there are ways in which
practitioners can reach out to this group. Individuals in Cluster 3 are more
likely to be accidental food tourists who impulsively partake in food-related
activities when they chance upon them (Mandala Research, 2013). Related
research suggests that there are several steps that can be taken by practi-
tioners to increase chanced upon or impulse purchases (Mattila & Wirtz,
2008; Peck & Childers, 2006). Notably, they should curate certain aspects of
their atmosphere. In particular, they should ensure there is a welcoming staff,
pleasant music playing, warm colors displayed, pleasant fragrances emitted,
and food that is somewhat familiar in a bid to help stimulate impulse
purchases (Hall & Mitchell, 2001; Mattila & Wirtz, 2008). Furthermore,
practitioners should develop clear and prominent promotional signage in
and around their businesses as it has also been found to also be an effective
tool in driving impulse purchases (Peck & Childers, 2006).
The key theoretical contribution to be highlighted here is the notion that
lifestyle segmentation does in fact have an influence on food tourist categor-
ization. More specifically, the current study, in uncovering three food tourist
consumer segments, confirmed that an individual’s lifestyle influences the
consumer groups to which they belong (Frank & Massy, 1965; Holt, 1997;
Scott & Parfitt, 2005). This is to say that participation in food tourism and
the consumption of local cuisine while traveling is a lifestyle choice. For
individuals who interact with food on a day to day basis and have strong
interest in participating in food-related activities, they are more likely to do
so while traveling.
By segmenting via motivation and food involvement, the current study
confirmed that key attributes of one’s lifestyle including his or her daily
activities, interests, personal opinions, and values influences whether an
individual is a high motivation and involvement food tourist, moderate

motivation and involvement food tourist, or a low motivation and involve-
ment food tourist as well as whether those individuals have deliberate,
opportunist, or accidental travel planning behavior (Frank et al., 1972;
Scott & Parfitt, 2005).
It is also important to note that food tourist behavior has been closely
linked to consumer behavior in other tourism activities relating to ingestible
items, such as beer tourism, wine tourism or agritourism (Plummer, Telfer,
Hashimoto, & Summers, 2005; Tikkanen, 2007; Wargenau & Che, 2006).
That is, that beer tourists, wine tourists, and agritourists behave in a manner
that is similar to food tourists. Therefore, it is possible that the theoretical
implications derived in the current study of food tourists can be carried over
to tourists participating in these related activities and that these tourists can
also be segmented based on an assessment of their lifestyle. It can be further
implied, based on the findings in the current study, that segmentation based
on involvement and motivation may uncover segments of tourists who are
high motivation and involvement, moderate motivation and involvement, or
low motivation and involvement.
Overall, the findings of this study are beneficial to food tourism research-
ers as well as destination marketers and restaurant owners who are targeting
food tourists. Notably, findings suggest that individuals in Cluster 1, which
comprised approximately one third of respondents, are most likely to have
positive attitudes and intentions to consume local cuisine. They are also more
likely to be deliberate food tourists. Individuals in this cluster are likely to be
primary targets of practitioners and markets, but they also may carefully
consider the price and value of different food tourism experiences. Cluster 2
is the largest cluster, has moderate attitudes and intentions to consume local
cuisine, and members are more likely to be opportunist food tourists. Lastly,
Cluster 3 has a comparatively large percentage of older, male tourists with
lower education levels and lower incomes. These individuals maintain the
lowest levels of attitude and intention among the three clusters. The current
study also expands the literature of lifestyle segmentation into the context of
food tourism and these findings, relating to lifestyle segmentation, may also
be relevant to activities that are similar to food tourism such as beer tourism,
wine tourism, or agritourism.
Conclusions
Although previous studies have segmented food tourists by motivation or
involvement, there is a paucity of research that has combined the two. In
addition, attitudes and behavioral intentions could lead to more positive
behaviors, but little previous research had been conducted on the resultant
attitudes or behavioral intentions of food tourist segments. This study was
designed to fill this gap in the tourism literature. This study’s findings
support the viability of a three-cluster solution with individuals in Cluster
1 having the highest levels of involvement and motivation. Individuals in
Cluster 1 also have the strongest attitudes towards food tourism and inten-
tions to consume local cuisine on their next trip. Further, they are more
likely to be deliberate food tourists than individuals in Clusters 2 and 3.
Despite the findings of the current study, there are limitations. This study’s
questionnaire was distributed in only the Southeastern region of the United
States and the demographics surveyed may not be representative of all food
tourists therefore limiting the generalizability of the study results.
Furthermore, this study may have a level of cultural bias as the gross majority
of respondents were Caucasian. Irrespective of this study’s limitations, it adds
to the body of research focusing on food tourist segments and a similar

methodology may be utilized in other regions of the United States and the
world.
ORCID
Jamie A. Levitt http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1231-793X
References
Assael, H. (1984). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Pub.
Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in behavioral research:
Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40(3), 235–244. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)
00009-6
Clark, P. P. (1975). Thoughts for food, I: French cuisine and French culture. French Review,
39(1), 32–41.
Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on
anticipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 313–318.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201.
doi:10.1177/003803857901300203
Cohen, S. A. (2011). Lifestyle travellers: Backpacking as a way of life. Annals of Tourism
Research, 38(4), 1535–1555. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.002
Dann, G. M. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187–
219. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(81)90082-7
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude, structure and function. In D. Gilbert, S. Fisk, & G.
Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 269–322). New York, NY: McGowan-Hill.
Everett, S., & Aitchison, C. (2008). The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: A
case study of Cornwall, South West England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 150–
167. doi:10.2167/jost696.0
Fields, K. (2002). Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: Motivational factors. In A.
Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and gastronomy (pp. 36–50). London, UK: Routledge.
Frank, R. E., & Massy, W. F. (1965). Market segmentation and the effectiveness of a brand’s price
and dealing policies. The Journal of Business, 38(2), 186–200. doi:10.1086/jb.1965.38.issue-2
Frank, R. E., Massy, W. F., & Wind, Y. (1972). Market segmentation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Getz, D., Robinson, R., Andersson, T., & Vujicic, S. (2014). Foodies and food tourism. Oxford,
UK: Goodfellow Publishers.
Getz, D., & Robinson, R. N. (2014). Foodies and food events. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 14(3), 315–330. doi:10.1080/15022250.2014.946227
Gonzalez, A. M., & Bello, L. (2002). The construct “lifestyle” in market segmentation: The
behaviour of tourist consumers. European Journal of Marketing, 36(1/2), 51–85.
doi:10.1108/03090560210412700
Goody, J. (1982). Cooking, cuisine and class: A study in comparative sociology. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, M. J., & Brown, G. (2008). An empirical structural model of tourists and places:
Progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism. Tourism Management, 29(6),
1141–1151. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.009
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information search
behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353–373. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.004
Haaijer, R., Wedel, M., Vriens, M., & Wansbeek, T. (1998). Utility covariances and context
effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science, 17(3), 236–252. doi:10.1287/
mksc.17.3.236
Hall, M., & Mitchell, R. (2001). Wine and food tourism. In N. Douglas & R. Derrett (Eds.),
Special interest tourism (pp. 307–325). Sydney, Australia: John Wiley.
Hassan, S. H., Zainal, S. R. M., & Mohamed, O. (2015). Determinants of destination knowl-
edge acquisition in religious tourism: Perspective of Umrah travelers. International Journal
of Marketing Studies, 7(3), 84. doi:10.5539/ijms.v7n3p84
Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited: Drive properties and
paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 122.
Hjalager, A. M. (2003). What do tourists eat and why? Towards a sociology of gastronomy
and tourism. In J. Collen & G. Richards (Eds.), Gastronomy and tourism (pp. 54–74).
Gravenwezel, Belgium: Academie Voor de Streekgebonden Gastronomie.
Holt, D. B. (1997). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of
consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 326–350.
doi:10.1086/jcr.1997.23.issue-4
Hsu, C. H., & Huang, S. S. (2012). An extension of the theory of planned behavior model for
tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(3), 390–417. doi:10.1177/
1096348010390817
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory
statistics using generalized linear models. London, UK: Sage.
Ignatov, E., & Smith, S. (2006). Segmenting Canadian culinary tourists. Current Issues in
Tourism, 9(3), 235–255. doi:10.2167/cit/229.0
Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2010). The relationships between food-related personality
traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2009.10.015
Kim, Y. H., Goh, B. K., & Yuan, J. (2010). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for
measuring food tourist motivations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism,
11(1), 56–71. doi:10.1080/15280080903520568
Kim, Y. H., Kim, M., Goh, B. K., & Antun, J. M. (2011). The role of money: The impact on
food tourists’ satisfaction and intention to revisit food events. Journal of Culinary Science &
Technology, 9(2), 85–98. doi:10.1080/15428052.2011.580708
Kline, C. S., Greenwood, J., & Joyner, L. (2015). Exploring foodie segmentation. Journal of
Tourism Insights, 6(1), 3. doi:10.9707/2328-0824.1049
Laesser, C., & Dolnicar, S. (2012). Impulse purchasing in tourism—learnings from a study in
a matured market. Anatolia, 23(2), 268–286. doi:10.1080/13032917.2012.688409
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination.
Tourism Management, 27(4), 589–599. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.003
Lee, K. H., Packer, J., & Scott, N. (2015). Travel lifestyle preferences and destination activity
choices of slow food members and non-members. Tourism Management, 46, 1–10.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.008
Lee, S., Bruwer, J., & Song, H. (2015). Experiential and involvement effects on the Korean
wine tourist’s decision-making process. Current Issues in Tourism, 18, 1–17.
Long, L. M. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Long, L. M. (2006). Food pilgrimages: Seeking the sacred and the authentic in food. Appetite,
47(3), 393. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.08.035

Luca, M. (2011). Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp.com (Working Paper No.
12-016). Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1928601
Lui, T. W., & Piccoli, G. (2010). Integrating self-service kiosks in a customer-service system.
Cornell Hospitality Report, 10(6), 4–20.
Mandala Research. (2013). The American culinary traveler. Retrieved from https://tourism.az.
gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/The%20American%20Culinary%20Traveler%20-%
20Summary%20by%20AOT.pdf
Mason, R., & O’Mahony, B. (2007). On the trail of food and wine: The tourist search for
meaningful experience. Annals of Leisure Research, 10(3/4), 498–517. doi:10.1080/
11745398.2007.9686778
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2008). The role of store environmental stimulation and social
factors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(7), 562–567. doi:10.1108/
08876040810909686
McKercher, B., Okumus, F., & Okumus, B. (2008). Food tourism as a viable market segment:
It’s all how you cook the numbers! Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 137–148.
doi:10.1080/10548400802402404
Middleton, V. T., & Clarke, J. R. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mitchell, R., & Hall, C. (2004). Food tourism around the world. In C. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell,
N. Maclonis, & B. Cambourne (Eds.), Food tourism (pp. 60–80). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nicholson, R. E., & Pearce, D. G. (2001). Why do people attend events: A comparative
analysis of visitor motivations at four South Island events. Journal of Travel Research, 39
(4), 449–460. doi:10.1177/004728750103900412
Nie, C., & Zepeda, L. (2011). Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic
and local food consumption. Appetite, 57(1), 28–37. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.03.012
Norusis, M. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ontario Ministry of Tourism. (2007). A market segment analysis based on a travel activities
and motivations survey (TAMS 2006). Retrieved from http://www.tourism.gov.on.ca/
research/travel_activities/cdn_wine_cuisine.htm
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture. (2011). Ontario’s four-year culinary tourism strategy and
action plan 2011–2015. Retrieved from www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/culinary_web.pdf
Ottenbacher, M., & Harrington, R. (2010). Culinary tourism: A case study of the gastronomic
capital. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 8(1), 14–32. doi:10.1080/15428052.2010.490765
Parikh, A., Behnke, C., Vorvoreanu, M., Almanza, B., & Nelson, D. (2014). Motives for
reading and articulating user-generated restaurant reviews on Yelp. com. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 5(2), 160–176. doi:10.1108/JHTT-04-2013-0011
Park, K. S., Reisinger, Y., & Kang, H. J. (2008). Visitors’ motivation for attending the South
Beach wine and food festival, Miami Beach, Florida. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 25(2), 161–181. doi:10.1080/10548400802402883
Pearce, P. (1982). The social psychology of tourist behaviour. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental
influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 765–769.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. The
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 79–98. doi:10.1348/014466601164704
Plummer, R., Telfer, D., Hashimoto, A., & Summers, R. (2005). Beer tourism in Canada along
the Waterloo–Wellington Ale Trail. Tourism Management, 26(3), 447–458. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2003.12.002
Richards, G. (1996). The scope and significance of cultural tourism. In G. Richards (Ed.),
Cultural tourism in Europe (pp. 19–45). Wallingford, England: CAB International.
Robinson, R., & Getz, D. (2014). Profiling potential food tourists: An Australian study. British
Food Journal, 116(4), 690–706. doi:10.1108/BFJ-02-2012-0030
Robinson, R., & Getz, D. (2016). Food enthusiasts and tourism: Exploring food involvement
dimensions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(4), 432–455. doi:10.1177/
1096348013503994
Rogers, M. (2005). Customer strategy: Observations from the trenches. Journal of Marketing,
69(4), 262–263. doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.262
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Predicting tourists’ intention to try local cuisine using a modified
theory of reasoned action: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 27(5), 491–506. doi:10.1080/10548408.2010.499061
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destination: The
modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(4), 507–
516. doi:10.1177/1096348006287163
Schott, C. (2007). Selling adventure tourism: A distribution channels perspective.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 257–274. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1522-1970
Scott, N., & Parfitt, N. (2005). Lifestyle segmentation in tourism and leisure: Imposing order
or finding it? Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 5(2/4), 121–139.
doi:10.1300/J162v05n02_07
Smith, S., Costello, C., & Muenchen, R. (2010). Influence of push and pull motivations on
satisfaction and behavioral intentions within a culinary tourism event. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 11(1), 17–35. doi:10.1080/15280080903520584
Smith, S., & Xiao, H. (2008). Culinary tourism supply chains: A preliminary examination.
Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 289–299. doi:10.1177/0047287506303981
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Norman, W. C., & Han, H. (2011). The role of responsible gambling
strategy in forming behavioral intention: An application of a model of goal-directed
behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 512–523. doi:10.1177/0047287511418365
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist
behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1180–1192. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2006.11.003
Tikkanen, I. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy and food tourism in Finland: Five cases. British Food
Journal, 109(9), 721–734. doi:10.1108/00070700710780698
Tsai, H. T., Huang, L., & Lin, C. G. (2005). Emerging e-commerce development model for
Taiwanese travel agencies. Tourism Management, 26(5), 787–796. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2004.04.009
Tuppen, J. (2000). The restructuring of winter sports resorts in the French Alps: Problems,
processes and policies. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(5), 327–344.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1522-1970
Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. (1993). Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism. In M. Khan, M.
Olsen, T. Car (Eds.), VNR’s Encyclopedia of Hospitality and Tourism. (pp. 798–810). New
York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application
of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 44(1), 67–82. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006
Voss, C., Roth, A. V., & Chase, R. B. (2008). Experience, service operations strategy, and
services as destinations: Foundations and exploratory investigation. Production and
Operations Management, 17(3), 247–266. doi:10.3401/poms.1080.0030

Wargenau, A., & Che, D. (2006). Wine tourism development and marketing strategies in
Southwest Michigan. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(1), 45–60. doi:10.1108/
09547540610657678
Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2012). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological
foundations. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Wolf, E. (2014). Have fork will travel: A practical handbook for food & drink tourism
professionals. Portland, OR: World Food Travel Association.
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.
Tourism Management, 31(2), 179–188. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Østli, J. (2013). Cognitive, emotional, and sociocultural processes in
consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 30(1), 12–25. doi:10.1002/mar.20585
Yeoh, P. L. (2005). A conceptual framework of antecedents of information search in export-
ing: Importance of ability and motivation. International Marketing Review, 22(2), 165–198.
doi:10.1108/02651330510593269
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–352. doi:10.1086/jcr.1985.12.issue-3

Food Tourist Segmentation Attitude, Behavioral Intentions and Travel Planning Behaviour Based On Food Involvement and Motivation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Tourist Segmentation Attitude, Behavioral Intentions and Travel Planning Behaviour Based On Food Involvement and Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: 1525-6480 (Print) 1525-6499 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20

Food tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral

Jamie A. Levitt, Pei Zhang, Robin B. DiPietro & Fang Meng

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1359731

Published online: 19 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

Food tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral intentions

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

homogeneous group with standardized demographics, psychographic

attempted to profile the demographics of food tourist segments (Kline,

tourist segments differ in terms of attitude, intentions to consume local

The Food Tourists

marketing, products, services, and customer relations to meet a diverse set of

Segmentation by Food Involvement

associated with a deeper understanding of cooking techniques and recipe

experiences, which contains segmentation categories associated with food

comprehensive survey that collected descriptive data on the motivations,

Attitude and Behavioral Intention

Food Tourist Travel Planning Behavior

different service providers.

tourism observed a positive relationship between one’s purpose of travel

Materials and Methods

destination”; (b) “For most of those trips, I researched food-related activities

gender, age, ethnicity, family income, education, and marital status.

those who completed a questionnaire would be entered into a drawing for a

Principal Component Analyses

I am willing to experience local cuisine during my next vacation. 0.91

of motivation and involvement with food. In turn, they have moderate

Demographic Characteristics by Clusters

Table 2. Cluster Analysis Results.

Table 3. Demographic Profiles of Clusters.

Caucasian 81.3 83.0 81.1

a comparatively younger group. Cluster 3, on the other hand, has a higher

On the other hand, the number of people below US$75,000 is lowest in

Table 4. Multiple Comparisons.

nificantly different attitude and intention toward consuming local cuisine in

Food Tourist Travel Planning Behavior

identified themselves as being most likely to select a destination based on its

food-related activities while traveling. This suggests, based on previous litera-

tourism in an ancillary nature in which their primary purpose of travel is not

The findings regarding food tourist planning behavior help researchers

individual is a high motivation and involvement food tourist, moderate

to the body of research focusing on food tourist segments and a similar

47(3), 393. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.08.035

Operations Management, 17(3), 247–266. doi:10.3401/poms.1080.0030

You might also like