Inventory and evaluation of the wine tourism offer in European wine-growing regions

Transcription

1 Inventory and evaluation of the wine tourism offer in European wine-growing regions Commissioned by: Assemblée des Régions Européennes Viticoles (AREV) c/o Conseil Régional Champagne-Ardenne 5, rue de Jéricho F Châlons-en-Champagne General Management: Dipl.-Volksw. Andreas Lorenz Dipl.-Kfm. Cornelius Obier Scientific Management: Prof. Dr. Edgar Kreilkamp Prof. Dr. Heinz-Dieter Quack Berlin Office Tempelhofer Ufer 23/24 D Berlin Lüneburg Office Vor dem Roten Tore 1 D Lüneburg Memmingen Office Allgäuer Straße 12 D Memmingen Trier Office Am Wissenschaftspark 25/27 D Trier Contact: Tel. +49 (0) Fax +49 (0) info@eti-institut.de Prof. Dr. Heinz-Dieter Quack Bureau Trier hdquack@eti-institut.de

2 Executive Summary Preamble Tourism and wine-growing are two activity sectors that are closely linked. On the one hand, wine-growing constitutes the basis for the development of wine tourism offers; on the other, the demand for these offers contributes to maintaining the wine-growing cultural landscape, as well as revenue opportunities, increasing and stabilising the prospects for the wine produced. This study commissioned by the AREV (assembly of European wine-growing regions) is the first analysis of the wine tourism offer at a European level. Among the important factors we find the degree of development of wine tourism in the different regions, the strong and weak points of these regions, the hindrances to wine tourism, but also the opportunities for its future development. The resulting systematic inventory and evaluation are instruments that will enable the participating regions to determine their position on the market compared to other European wine-growing regions. Results Framework conditions: The demographic structure, buying power, accessibility and the characteristics of the natural environment are primordial framework conditions for the development of tourism in general. Although the age structure does not allow us to form any conclusions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of any given wine-growing region, we can nevertheless observe important differences in other factors. Regions presenting a high population density (theoretical potential to accommodate overnight and short-stay tourism) with good or very good accessibility and above-average purchasing power (e.g. Luxembourg, Alsace, Rheinland-Pfalz, Hessen, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'azur) are more favourably predisposed to developing wine tourism than regions that score less well according to these same evaluation criteria (e.g. La Rioja, Açores, Baranya, Arad, Alba). We can nevertheless present a positive evaluation for most of the regions analysed in terms of these framework conditions. In addition, favourable climatic factors and other characteristics of the natural environment also play a role, with certain regions being slightly more fortunate than others (e.g. Provence-Alpes-Côte d'azur, Languedoc-Roussillon, Galicia, Aquitaine). Analysis of the inventory: In terms of analysing the figures specific to wine-growing and tourism, it is important not to confuse the AREV member regions with the wine-growing regions situated on the territory of these member regions. Here we are talking about administrative units that are not identical with the corresponding vineyards situated in the same region. When interpreting the data we must therefore bear in mind the importance of wine-growing for each region, which can be measured by evaluating the vineyards as a percentage of the whole surface area of the region.

3 In terms of developing the quantity produced and the average yield (hl/ha) there are obviously great disparities between the different regions. With regard to changes in the tourist demand however, we cannot detect any causal relationship from the data provided. The same can be said for the relationship between the development of arable land areas and the wine tourism demand. It nevertheless seems reasonable to formulate the hypothesis that a considerable reduction in arable areas leading to (disadvantageous) modifications of the landscape generates the elimination of an elementary pillar in the wine tourism offer in the long term. Because of the variable sizes, the number of wine-growing concerns in the regions naturally varies considerably. The degree to which the wine-growing economy is open to (overnight) tourism is indicated by the percentage of wine-growing concerns offering the possibility of accommodation and/or which are accessible to the general public. Here again, we find considerable differences: while regions like the Südtirol, Arad and Rheinland-Pfalz have the highest percentages, between 8% and 13%, the majority of the other regions have less than 3%. When we compare the quality criteria (number of AOP/IGP, areas cultivated for quality wines) with the aforementioned criteria, we find a positive relation between the number of wine-growing enterprises accessible to the public and the number of enterprises providing accommodation, compared to the areas cultivated for quality wines (a correlation coefficient of 0.86 compared to 0.77). Moreover, we can observe a slight positive correlation between the number of wine routes and the number of quality wines. Communication campaigns and regional products related to the terroir and viticulture can maintain a favourable image and reputation for wine-growing regions, over and above the wine, which continues to be a flagship quality product. In most regions, similar measures/initiatives have obviously been installed already. Apart from the market niche occupied by wine tourism, we consider the overall volume of the tourism demand to be an indicator of a region's ability to attract tourism. From this we can conclude that regions with a strong potential to attract tourism have all the more market conditions favourable to exploiting target groups in relation to wine. An evaluation of the tourism intensity indicator (number of nights per resident) shows that we can identify aggravating disparities between the different regions: while regions in Eastern Europe are situated in values of less than 1, the Mediterranean regions Languedoc-Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'azur reach values of between 10 and 13. The Südtirol leads the pack with a maximum value of 56.8 nights per resident. The global average result for all the regions nevertheless reaches 5.3 nights per resident. In terms of the offer, the presence of classified hotels is considered to indicate the level of a region's tourism development. The average ranking of classified establishments for the largest town per region is 2.8 stars with a density of 5.8 (corresponding to one classified

4 hotel for 5,800 residents). Here the capitals of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of Niederröstereich, the Açores and Baranya stand out not only for having an above-average intensity but also for an above-average star category. However, it must be said that for reasons linked to conducting the census, an exhaustive inventory of the hotel offer in the regions was not conducted and it is therefore preferable to water down the impact of this indicator. On the other hand, the density of the offer in terms of wine houses and oenotheques seems to be more indicative from a wine tourism point of view. Here the regions Franche-Comté, Navarra, Rheinland-Pfalz, Alba and Alsace got the highest scores. Alongside the gastronomy and accommodation offers, the leisure offer is an important pillar in the regional tourism product. Depending on the geographical situation, the climatic and topographical conditions, the demographic potential, etc., the corresponding offer structures naturally display differences from one region to another. The same hold true for divergences in terms of mutual influence and the relation of these different leisure offers with the theme of wine on a regional level. For example, while cultural offers correspond very well with the subject of wine, it is rather difficult to demonstrate a link to activities like skiing or canoeing. Here the regions obviously display different gravitational forces and features that are characteristic of their regional identity. For this reason, a conclusion or global expression of competitive (dis)advantages hardly seems relevant. A powerful product like wine, accommodation or a combination of both, will not necessarily attract customers. It must have communication and sales techniques and structures adapted to the market. Based on this assumption, we conducted an inventory of, on the one hand, regional marketing organizations for tourism and wine and, on the other, winegrowing institutes/specialized training schools and tourism promotion programmes. With the exception of the region of Alba, there are regional tourism organizations in all regions, sometimes even with sub-regions having their own tourism promotion systems. The number of local tourism offices obviously varies with the size of the region. In terms of the "density of information" (number of local tourism offices related to overnight stays per km² of winegrowing area) and in relation to the specific wine tourism services of organizations, we can say that the regions Galicia, Région Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Rhône-Alpes, Alsace, Rheinland-Pfalz, Aquitaine, Navarra and Burgenland have a system that deserves to be ranked good or very good. In terms of the existing theoretical potential for cooperation between tourism marketing organizations and organizations specializing in commercialising wine and specialized training institutes and tourism promotion programmes, the regions Rheinland- Pfalz, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'azur, Aquitaine, Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, Pays de la Loire and Norte have the most favourable predisposing conditions for a powerful development of wine tourism.

5 Recommendations Tested and reliable incentives for developing wine tourism cannot be formulated and elaborated based solely on intra- and inter-regional figures. This study concludes the first of several stages. In order to generate the necessary desired results, the rest of the additional stages are essential prior to engaging the actual development work. The different players are particularly urged to engage a qualitative analysis of the regional offer in terms of wine tourism. Moreover, the players in question are urged to: update the data gathered and analysed in this report in order to have a recent and reliable database at their disposal, install a follow-up system with regular surveys of a selection of wine-growing concerns having accommodation facilities (ideally with representatives from all regions), in order to maintain a certain ongoing exchange of experiences, intensify the internal exchange of experiences based on the follow-up system and to enrol the appointed representatives for this report's type-a regions as experts, elaborate a quality guide or manual entitled "Marketing Wine & Tourism" (with checklists) in collaboration with and on behalf of the regions, while elaborating and implementing stages two and three: reflect on how to set up a specialized quality label for wine tourism, comprising quality standards that are recognized at a European level, and finally in relation to stage four, to elaborate a wine tourism management tool with the AREV head office. The enormous potential in terms of the economy and the cultural landscape behind the combination of wine-growing and tourism could be exploited even better by the regions and the AREV with its member regions if the pathway engaged with this first small step is continued and the additional necessary measures are engaged.