Content uploaded by Catherine R. Curtis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine R. Curtis on Jan 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Abhijeet R. Shirsat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abhijeet R. Shirsat on Dec 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Factors in tourists’food decision
processes: a US-based case study
Angel F. González
College of Business, California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside,
California, USA
Catherine Curtis
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Oklahoma State University System, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA
Isaac J. Washburn
Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University System,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA, and
Abhijeet R. Shirsat
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Administration, California State University,
Sacramento, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to empirically test an existing conceptual model from Mak et al.
(2012a, 2012b) to discern which factors have the most influence on food choices when travelers visit
destinations with different options, i.e. local foods, other than those available in their home
environments.
Design/methodology/approach –The quantitative study surveyed 330 travelers and used
descriptive analyses of all the variables involved. A hierarchical linear regression was calculated to
predict for the dependent variable of local cuisine consumption, based on the independent variables of
culture and religion, socio-demographic factors, motivational factors, food trait personality and
exposure effect/past experience.
Findings –Culture, motivational factors and food-related personality traits were consistently significant
predictors of local food consumption.
Research limitations/implications –Limitations include using an English-only online questionnaire
and self-reported bias. The impacting delimitation relates to data collection from US travelers and thus
limiting generalizability findings.
Practical implications –The study explained factors involved in travelers’decision to consume
local foods at a destination. Government, tourism-related organizations, producers and service
providers gain information to improve products, increase interest, create additional employment
opportunities, increase tax revenues that assist local communities and increase consumption of local
foods, products and services.
Originality/value –The limited availability of research on this topic prompted the interest of the
researchers. Mak et al. (2012b) provide a conceptual model that was first tested empirically in this study. It
© Angel F. González, Catherine Curtis, Isaac J. Washburn and Abhijeet R. Shirsat. Published in
Journal of Tourism Analysis: Revista de Análisis Turístico. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Food decision
processes
Received 26 January2019
Revised 5 July 2019
4 September 2019
Accepted 21 October2019
Journal of Tourism Analysis:
Revista de Análisis Turístico
Emerald Publishing Limited
2254-0644
DOI 10.1108/JTA-01-2019-0002
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2254-0644.htm
presents a five factors impacting tourist food consumption at a destination. Local food consumption of
tourists was tested using the aforementioned conceptual model.
Keywords Tourist decision-making, Food-related personality traits, Travel behavior, Food choices
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Tourism serves as a mode for people to experience new things and get away from everyday
patterns and routines encountered in their lives. For many, food is a central aspect of the
tourist experience (Quan and Wang, 2004;Richards, 2002). Food has substantial influence, it
plays an important role for millions of tourists worldwide. Food can be a support factor
when the main reason for travel is something other than a gastronomic focus, although it
plays an important role in the satisfaction that travelers sense at the end of their trip (Mak
et al., 2012b). For many, food becomes an important aspect of the memories brought back
from travel experiences (Fields, 2002); also capable of providing an instant approach to
gaining access to another culture (Croce and Perri, 2010).
Food is then widely recognized as an important factor in tourism, but its specific role is
not always clearly defined (Tsai, 2013). Relevant published works such as Gurbaskan
Akyuz (2019) and Zhang et al. (2019) have tested similar models for explaining local food
consumption, making this a recent area of focus in travel and tourism. An additional study
provided empirical application of the consumption value theory to tourists’local food
consumption (Choe and Kim, 2018). However, this study seeks to specifically test the food
consumption model developed by Mak et al. (2012b) because of the complexity and inclusion
of variables believed to measure propensity or lack thereof for consumption of local foods at
destinations. The research study further adds to the model developed by Mak et al., after an
extensive literature search focusing on factors involved. By using hierarchical linear
regression, the study controls for the variables involved, by building on. Therefore, the
purpose of this research is to empirically test the model developed by Mak et al. (2012b), to
determine the factors involved in a traveler’s food consumption choices while away from
home, while improving the understanding of the role that food has on travelers’experiences.
By increasing the understanding of travelers’food-related choices and factors involved, the
study seeks to increase knowledge in the field, as it provides operators with practical
information helpful in better catering to visitors. The limited availability of research on the
topic prompted the interest of the researchers to search and develop an improved
understanding of the said relationship. The model presented in Figure 1 presents five factors
having an impact on tourist food consumption at a destination. The following research
question was developed for this study: Can the propensity for local food consumption of
tourists be empirically tested using the conceptual model proposed by Mak et al. (2012b)?
Literature review
Studies by social psychologists illustrate human behavior to be goal-oriented (Heider, 1958;
Lewin, 1951); hence, people make decisions to travel to a particular destination based on
their goals or motivational factors. Motivational factors associated with traveling could be
excitement to travel to a new destination, exploring tourist spots, experiencing culture and
tradition of the region, tasting different foods and cuisine available in the area and
experiencing adventures that are particular to the destination. These preferences are
influenced by various components which include religious and cultural beliefs, socio-
economic background, motivations to travel and past experiences. The factors
interconnected are believed to have a significant impact on travelers’food choices. The
JTA
factors are divided into three sections: environmental, individual and food-related (Randall
and Sanjur, 1981). This adds depth to the limited travelers’food-related behavior literature,
and beyond Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior which focuses on intentions
influencing behavior.
Numerous researchers have studied the different factors of food choices based on the
attributes they encountered in their studies. Some characteristics of travelers include
spending time during their journey to find food from the local region, visiting local farmers’
markets for the typical local foods, spending on buying services and experiences of local
foods for the novelty and culture, visiting gourmet schools or learning from local chefs
(Boyne et al.,2003). These characteristics provide clarity into the fact that people travel to
different destinations with a purpose; however, they fail to provide insight on how these
characteristics are developed within travelers.
This research intends to understand the factors that have the most significant influence
on food choices made by travelers when visiting destinations with different food choices, i.e.
local foods, other than those available in their home environments using the existing Mak
et al.’s(2012b) conceptual model to explore the topic further and to understand the
motivations for food choices of travelers. It is important to further research the traveler’s
past experiences, demographic information, culture, socio-economic background and other
factors associated with their food decision-making process.
Figure 1
Conceptual
framework for the
factors influencing
travelers’food
consumption
Food decision
processes
Over the past few decades, scholarly articles and literature have increased rapidly in the
field of food and travelers’consumption; however, there are definitional gray areas. The
current study introduces an up-to-date rationale for different types of factors associated with
motivations of people making food-related choices at travel destinations relevant to twenty-
first century travelers. Travelers today make decisions based on internet-based tools that
include social media, travel blogs and vlogs and websites (Frías et al.,2008). Vast amounts
of available information are broadly tailored to the needs of travelers. This information
helps make their decisions before leaving for a trip (Hwang et al., 2005). The desire to taste
foods at a travel destination is ignited by the use of the internet, and motivations to travel to
the destination are also factored to the information they conceived before leaving (Frías
et al.,2008). These definitions are used to explain the impact on the decisions of food
consumption at the traveling destinations that could help in further discussions.
Factors influencing travelers’food consumption away from home
Individual appreciation for food varies with each person, as well as the circumstances.
Eating out is a way to acquire convenient meal options, it also becomes an opportunity to
enjoy something new, to share with others and learn about the items they have never tried
(Köster, 2009), depending on the individual. Apart from the satisfaction of the biological
need for eating, restaurant establishments provide an environment where people can spend
time enjoying food and beverage items with friends and/or family (Warde and Martens,
2000). Individuals differ in preferences for elements such as where food is prepared and
provided, from simple service of basic foods to upscale environments where luxury items
are served.
Food researchers coincide in understanding that factors impacting food consumption
while away from home can be grouped into three general classifications: the characteristics
of the environment, the individual and the food itself (Randall and Sanjur, 1981). The food
items contribute to sensory attributes such as flavor, aroma, texture and appearance. The
environment provides cultural and religious influences. Individuals are influenced by
factors that include socio-demographic, motivational and personal traits. Among the
categories, factors relating to the individual are widely accepted to be crucial in explaining
variations in food consumption (Rozin, 2006), becoming the focus of the current research.
Environmental
Environmental factors were previously studied and described by several researchers who
added to the literature of how food is consumed by travelers (Randall and Sanjur, 1981;Shin
et al., 2017); however, very few studies add to the literature of environmental factors
associated with food consumption. Randall and Sanjur (1981) illustrate that environmental
factors include season, employment, mobility, degree of urbanization, size of household and
stage of family. This study adds to the notion of cultural and religious influences, which is
also considered as an environmental factor for the purpose of this study. Culture and
religion have an indisputable impact on travelers’decision-making ability.
Cultural and religious influences
Understanding the role of culture and religion on food consumption is an important aspect
of learning the decision-making process of travelers. The role of culture and religion on food
consumption of travelers is a complex issue. The food choices vary by individual and the
culture. Various religious practices and beliefs also restrict followers from consuming food
that does not resonate with the values of their religion.
JTA
Generally, it is assumed that travelers are more curious about local food at tourist
destinations. These curiosities could be satisfied with the consumption of local food while
traveling. However, Saroglou and Cohen (2011) assert that the culture and religion of the
traveler have a significant amount of impact on the overall food consumption while they
travel. Religion and culture are socially accepted and sustained systems designed to
transmit values, norms, beliefs, symbols and practices (Cohen, 2009). Hence for the purpose
of this study, culture and religion are both combined as one variable.
Cleveland and Laroche (2007) express that culture is related to consumers’attitudes and
behaviors, and their actions of acquisitions of the goods and services are influenced by their
background. Goodenough (1981) adds that culture is a system of shared cognitions which
enables people to choose what to do and their approach, sharing a set of characteristics,
attitudes, behaviors and values. Rossi and O’Higgins (1980) explain that culture is a system
of knowledge and beliefs, set by human minds, based on unconscious logic. In food-related
matters, culture is a major determinant affecting types of ingredients considered appropriate
to eat (Atkins and Bowler, 2001;Logue, 2004). It defines how food is classified as acceptable
or unacceptable, good or bad within a particular group (Mäkelä, 2000). Basic foods, cooking
techniques and flavor principles are the three key factors differentiating a cuisine (Rozin and
Rozin, 1981). Flavor principles and profiles refer to distinctive seasoning combinations
characterizing different cuisines.
Similar to culture, religious upbringing plays a crucial role in food choices made by
tourists (Khan, 1981;Mynttinen et al., 2015). Religious beliefs have a strong influence on
food consumption when certain foods are prohibited as in the example of Islam and Judaism,
particular preparation methods are mandated (e.g. halal and kosher), or fasting or feasting
practices are observed (e.g. Ramadan) (Packard and McWilliams, 1993). These practices and
restrictions can result in stable and rigid food habits (Khan, 1981) and, thus, affect food
consumption not just in a person’s home environment but also while traveling.
H1A. A person’s culture predicts his/her propensity for local food consumption while
traveling away from home.
H1B. A person’s religion predicts his/her propensity for local food consumption while
traveling away from home.
Individual
Scholars previously studied personal (individual) factors affecting the food choices of
travelers. Wolf (2002) defines gastronomic tourism as travel in search of food and drink
which provides a unique and memorable experience. Johns and Clarke (2001) note that the
traveling experience has a huge impact on tourists and their overall experience of tourist
destinations. Finkelstein (1989) illustrated that individuals’food experience also has a
negative impact, calling them “manufactured images.”These include word of mouth or a
review from someone with preconceived notions before reaching the destination (Zhang
et al.,2010). With the internet, it is common to see reviews on social media websites where
one could find every small detail about tourist destinations. These preconceived notions
could diminish the real experience for the individual. Nevertheless, tourist destinations are
rapidly becoming popular for their food and beverages (Hjalager, 2002). It is important for
researchers to study the individual effects on food choices. In this study, we consider socio-
demographic, motivational and personality trait factors, further discussed in this section.
Food decision
processes
Socio-demographic factors and food consumption
Several scholars illustrate that socio-demographic factors influence tourist preferences
toward local food at tourist destinations (Kim et al.,2009;Khan, 1981). Scholars have
indicated that gender, age, education, income, marital status and country are amongst the
significant factors that influence the socio-demographic preferences of the tourists.
Gender:Kim et al. (2009) explain that females are more interested and excited about
food choices when traveling, as compared to male respondents. In addition, studies
suggest that females are more price-sensitive, while being more open to unusual
fruits and vegetables, as compared to their counterparts (Ignatov and Smith, 2006;
Mitchell and Hall, 2003).
Age:Tse and Crotts (2005) indicate that older generation’s consumption and
selection of food at tourist destinations is narrow, while Kim et al. (2009) suggest
that the consumption selection of food is based on healthy choices available at
destinations. Khan (1981) explains that elderly people prefer different foods as
compared to younger people simply because of changes in their taste and olfactory
sensitivity.
Education: Similar to the age variable, travelers with higher education prefer
healthy choices of food, while their preference is for local selections (Kim et al.,
2009). While travelers with a primary level of education have a neutral perception of
local foods available at a destination (Wadolowska et al., 2008).
Income: Travelers with higher income prefer a wider range of food selection and
have higher levels of demand for variety and local food, compared to travelers with
lower income (Wadolowska et al., 2008). Mak et al. (2012b) illustrate that the
consumption of food by individuals is a reflection of their social status and self-
identity. The social class of travelers determine the food preferences of individuals,
for example, middle-class and rich travelers tend to maintain distinctiveness in their
class by being open-minded to international and exotic food (Bourdieu, 1984).
In previous food consumption research, socio-demographic factors are documented as being
important variables in clarifying variations in food consumption in different contexts (Furst
et al.,1996;Khan, 1981;Randall and Sanjur, 1981). Therefore, in this study, gender, age,
education, income and occupation are examined.
Heldke (2003) assures that a cultivated taste in foreign cuisines can enhance an
individual’s sophistication level, important for fostering stature in other social situations.
H2A. The propensity for local food consumption while traveling away from home will
be predicted by a person’s (a) age, (b) education level, (c) income, (d) gender and (e)
marital status.
Food choice motivational factors
Multiple studies illustrate that travelers’food consumption is affected by their motivational
factors, in particular, Hall and Mitchell (2001) suggest that food is a major motivational
factor for some travelers. Food was discovered to play an important role in overall tourist
experiences of travelers and their intention to revisit a destination (Kivela and Crotts, 2006).
In a separate study, food motivations varied and their choices had significant impact on
their activities at the destination (Ignatov and Smith, 2006). Travelers desire to experience a
change or novelty from daily routines. Food choice is an important motivational factor, as it
JTA
leverages the tourist to experience the newness which is away from said daily routine
experienced at their home location.
Hjalager and Richards (2003) classified food choice motivations into five factors:
symbolic, obligatory, contrast, extension and pleasure. The theoretical foundation behind
this classification is that food is a part of the attraction for tourists who travel to different
destinations. However, food can also be seen as an obstacle for travelers who refrain from
eating certain varieties of food served at tourist destinations (Cohen and Avieli, 2004). The
two different theoretical foundations are based on twodifferent dimensions of symbolic food
consumption by tourists and obligatory food consumption by tourists.
Mak et al. (2012a) illustrate that tourists’food consumption is based on symbolic dimensions
including cultural theories. Often, cultural norms are designed for certain symbolic reasons, for
example, dining out in general is symbolic for some cultures and has a certain esthetic value
symbolizing pride and richness. However, local food consumption can seem obligatory by the
tourist willing to travel to different destinations (Richards, 2002). Quan and Wang (2004,p.302)
state “a large portion of food consumption in tourism can be seen as the supporting experience
for tourists to complete or realize their main purpose of travel.”Food consumption experiences
can be classified into supporting tourist experience and peak tourist experience. Food can add,
contrast or extend the experience of the traveler. Finally, tourism and gastronomy are often
regarded as hedonic products (Kemperman et al., 2000;Kivela and Crotts, 2006), for which fun,
pleasure or enjoyment is a primary benefit(Carroll and Aaron, 2006). Therefore, the pleasure
dimension can be an inherent dimension in food consumption.
H3. Food choice motivational factors predict a person’s propensity for local food
consumption while traveling away from home.
Food-related personality traits
Travelers’personality traits influence a variety of food-related behaviors and Mak et al.
(2012b) identified the most common traits which include food neophobia and variety
seeking. According to Pliner and Salvy (2006), a traveler’s unwillingness to try a new variety
of cuisine (food neophobia) is one of the root causes guiding travelers when making food
choices. Also, food neophobia can be described as a personality trait that involves a relative
predilection for familiar food items over new ones (Pliner and Salvy, 2006). As omnivores,
humans will try various food sources, although they will be cautious not to consume
harmful foods. Food neophobia is described as a “natural biological correlate of omnivorous
exploratory behavior”(Köster et al.,2007, p. 99).
It is a general human tendency to find variety of foods to consume, resembling travelers’
behavior during their journeys. Travelers seek variety in the services and goods and are
constantly motivated to diversify their food choices for improved traveling experiences
(Khan, 1981). This trait can be measured using the VARSEEK scale developed by van Trijp
and Steenkamp (1992).Mak et al. (2012b) illustrate that the concept of variety-seeking is
commonly adopted by scholars who study food consumption by travelers. The study
proposes that consumers are more likely to seek a variety of sensory attributes than non-
sensory attributes. The sensory attributes of variety-seeking behavior are examined by the
indication of their optimum stimulation level (Mak et al., 2012b). When the optimum
stimulation level decreases, the individual seeks variety or additional stimulation which is
the contrast to the fact that travelers avoid new stimuli or variety (van Trijp, 1995). To avoid
boredom, travelers choose variety of goods and services to maintain or obtain optimum
stimulation level (Ratner et al., 1999;van Trijp, 1995).
Food decision
processes
H4. Food-related personality traits predict a person’s propensity for local food
consumption while traveling away from home.
The role of food in the tourist experience
Food plays a significant role in the experience of the tourist during their travel (Wolf, 2002).
As previously mentioned, a traveler’s motivation to travel is generated by their curiosities,
while their notions about the visiting destination are build based on the information they
conceive from various mediums (Finkelstein, 1989). Travelers at a destination with primary
motivations of food (gastronomic tourism) travel with an intention to eat and experience the
food of the destination (Guzel and Apaydin, 2016). However, people whose primary
motivation is travel, and experiencing food is secondary or tertiary, are not fully committed
to the food experience at a travel destination (Guzel and Apaydin, 2016). The food exposure
effect varies according to exposure to the food variety from different parts of the world.
Previous work has shown that past food experience, (good or bad) at a destination, can affect
the future decisions of travelers (Boyne et al.,2003). Therefore, in this study, an analysis of
the effect of the factors of food exposure on travelers was conducted.
Food exposure effect and past experience
As previously mentioned, food neophobia is when travelers are unwilling to try unfamiliar
foods (Mak et al., 2012b). However, scholars find that the relationship between food and its
selection depends upon the amount of exposure to the food. The increase in exposure to a
particular type of food also increases the possibility of travelers to consume the food (Birch
et al., 1987;Luckow et al.,2006;Pliner, 1982;Stein et al., 2003). However, it is also equally
true that a traveler’s past experience with a particular type of food considerably impacts the
food choices they make throughout their lives. Travelers make food memories when they
consume food and they constantly make a known or unknown note of the quality, type and
personal liking. This memory stays with them in future travels, and the decisions they make
to consume any food are then based upon positive or negative memories of the food
consumed (Barker, 1982).
Obermiller (1985) asserts that the exposure effect is a “positive repetition-effect
relationship that results from exposure alone”(p. 18). Travel exposes people to a broad
variety of foods, which increases their familiarity with the consumable products. Hence, this
repeated exposure to the food type and variety is the basic reason for the increased
preferences toward a particular type of food by the travelers (Birch et al.,1987;Luckow et al.,
2006;Pliner, 1982;Stein et al., 2003). Travelers can have additional exposure to foreign
cuisines through the increased globalization effect (Mak et al., 2012b). Considering the rising
influence of globalization, travelers have become more mobile; therefore, the food they
consume also becomes more global (Hall and Mitchell, 2002;Richards, 2002).
H5. Food exposure and past experience with different foods predict a person’s
propensity for localfood consumption while traveling away from home.
Methods
Sample. The sample for this study comprised 330 US-based travelers who participated in a
Qualtrics online survey via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were US residents, at
least 18 years of age and have traveled to a destination offering food choices different from
their home offerings. The participants volunteered for the study and were paid $1.50.
JTA
Measures. The questionnaire consisted of six sections. The first section having several
limiting items to make sure that the participants qualified for the purpose of this study. The
second section consisted of seven items measuring respondents’cultural and religious
influences in their food item selection at the destination (Cleveland and Laroche, 2007;
Honkanen et al.,2006). The third section included 30 items measuring participants’
motivational factors involved in such decision (Cleveland and LaRoche, 2007;Quan and Wang,
2004;Steptoe et al., 1995). The fourth section’s 24 items measuring participants’food-related
personality traits (Pliner and Hobden, 1992;van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1992). The fifth section
focused on seven items measuring the exposure effect/past experiences with food (Cleveland
and LaRoche, 2007). Finally, the last section gathered the demographic and socio-economic
status of the participants. The majority of the questionnaire comprised five-point Likert-type
scales, with the exception of the demographics section which used interval and nominal scales.
In the Likert-type sections, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The aforementioned scales were chosen
because they measure the constructs within the Mak et al. (2012b) model used in the study.
Data collection and analysis. Data collection began after the Institutional Review Board’s
approval of the survey instrument. The data collection was within the context of individuals
who have traveled to destinations away from their home setting, representative of the
study’s population, employing the appropriate qualification settings in Amazon Mechanical
Turk (it has the capability to limit respondents by geographic locations of choice) and
qualifying questions administered to eliminate non-representing individuals. After an initial
pilot study, where the survey was found to be appropriate for the study, an online survey
was used, starting on September 15, 2015, via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The Qualtrics
online survey instrument availability window was a one-week period. Participants were
only allowed to participate one time.
The data were collected and entered into SPSS 21.0 for analysis. To determine that
data was appropriate for analysis, it went through a screening procedure. Descriptive
analyses of all the variables in the study were performed. The data were checked for
accuracy of data entry, missing values and detection of univariate and multivariate
outliers. The data was checked for fit between the distributions of all the variables and
to verify if the data met the assumptions of multivariate analysis. Next, Cronbach’s
alpha was tested to determine the internal consistency of the scale items. The
Cronbach’s alpha values range between zero and one, with higher values indicating
better reliability of the construct (Hair et al., 1995). To confirm whether the
measurement scales used to operationalize the independent variables showed similar
underlying dimensions as the original scales, factor analysis with maximum likelihood
estimation was used. Based on the following results, all initial factors were used in the
study. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) reported at 0.665 for local food
consumption, 0.0641 for culture and religion, 0.782 for food choice motivational factors,
0.942 for food related personality traits and 0.831 for exposure effect/past experience.
The coefficients show the variables not to be composed of multiple factors or
components. Hierarchical regression was performed using the variables in the study to
control the variables in the study, with the intent to determine whether added variables
show a significant improvement. The process of building on with the addition of each
variable in the study was accomplished with blocks in the nested regression.
Results
Prior to the analysis of the data set, certain checks were performed to avoid statistical
difficulties in the results. The data was downloaded from Qualtrics and checked for
Food decision
processes
accuracy and missing values. The total number of surveys started was 354, of those, 335
were completed. Five were deleted because of large sectionsof incomplete responses, leaving
330 cases for analysis. In the resulting data set, there were no significant missing values.
The highest incidence of missing values for the variables studied was within the
demographics variables, with the largest missing value being 0.9 per cent for age, followed
by 0.6 per cent for the level of education and by marital status at 0.3 per cent.
Normality and linearity were tested with no collinearity found. In preparation for the
hypothesis testing, the data was prepared further by calculating the averages for each scale
within the mechanism. To facilitate the hierarchical regression analysis, dummy variables
were created for the demographic variables of gender, ethnicity and marital status. The
analysis differs in its order from the questionnaire, as the survey instrument was
constructed with demographics questions in the last section to maintain respondents
engaged first in the topic at hand.
Demographic profile of the participants. Approximately 52.6 per cent of the travelers in
the study were male and 47.4 per cent were female. The majority of travelers were Caucasian
at 73.0 per cent. The majority of travelers in the study were single, with 44.7 per cent of
respondents. The largest share of travelers in the study had a four-year college degree with
38.7 per cent. The prevalent group in terms of household income was found between $25,001
and $49,999 with 31.2 per cent of respondents.
Table I presents the travel behavior of questionnaire respondents, as it relates to the
current study. The majority of travelers or 83.0 per cent had traveled more than five times to
another city within the USA. The larger group of travelers, 42.4 per cent, has been abroad.
The prevalent length of stay was four to six nights with 40.3 per cent. A large percentage of
the participants agree and strongly agree, 76.4 per cent combined, that they consume local
cuisine when traveling, being the dependent variable (DV) in the study.
Results of the hierarchical regression. Hierarchical linear regression was calculated to
predict for DV of local cuisine consumption, based on the independent variables of culture
and religion, socio-demographic factors, motivational factors, food trait personality and
exposure effect/past experience. Table II contains the R
2
and significance of each block of
the hierarchical regression tested. For the first block, a significant regression equation was
found (F(2.322) = 37.12, p<0.001), with an R
2
of 0.187. Participants’predicted local food
consumption is equal to 3.90 þ0.05 religion þ0.28 culture, where religion and culture are
coded or measured as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4
= agree, 5 = strongly agree. Participants’propensity for local cuisine increased 0.05 in the
level of preference for each unit increase in the religion scale and 0.279 for each unit increase
in the culture scale. When studied individually Block 1 revealed religion was not a
significant predictor of the propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.370); culture was found to be a
significant predictorfor the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001).
In Block 2, a significant regression equation was found (F(3.321) = 34.96, p<0.001), with
an R
2
of 0.246. Participants’propensity for local cuisine increased by 0.03 in the level of
preference for each unit increase in the religion scale, 0.21 for each unit increase in the
culture scale and 0.18 for each unit in the motivational factor scale. In Block 2, when studied
individually, religion was not a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p=
0.370), culture was found to be a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine,
(p<0.001), and motivational factors were found to be a significant predictor for the
propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001).
In Block 3, its regression equation was found to be significant (F(4.320) = 42.96,
p<0.001), with an R
2
of 0.349. Participants’propensity for local cuisine increased by
0.01 in the level of preference for each unit increase in the religion scale, 0.07 for each
JTA
unit increase in the culture scale, 0.17 for each unit in the motivational factor scale
and 0.26 for each unit in the food-related personality traits scale. When Block 3 was
studied individually, religion was not a significant predictor for the propensity for
local cuisine, (p= 0.862), culture was not a significant predictor for the propensity for
Table I.
Demographic profile
of the respondents
Profile n(%)
Gender
Male 173 52.6
Female 156 47.4
Age category
18-24 39 11.9
25-34 136 41.6
35-44 75 22.9
45-54 41 12.5
55-64 25 7.6
65 and above 11 3.4
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 241 73.0
African American 22 6.7
Hispanic 35 10.6
Asian 31 9.4
Other 1 0.3
Citizenship
US citizen by birth 307 93.0
US citizen by naturalization 20 6.1
Non-US citizen 3 0.9
Marital status
Single 147 44.7
Live-in partner 49 14.9
Married 105 31.9
Separated 5 1.5
Divorced 19 5.8
Widowed 4 1.2
Education level
Less than high school 1 0.3
High school/GED 33 10.1
Some college 70 21.3
Two-year college degree 40 12.2
Four-year college degree 127 38.7
Master’s degree 40 12.2
Doctoral degree 8 2.4
Professional degree (JD, MD) 9 2.7
Household income
Under $25,000 65 19.7
$25,001-$49,999 103 31.2
$50,000-$74,999 82 24.8
$75,000-$99,999 33 10.0
$100,000-$149,999 34 10.3
$150,000-$199,999 8 2.4
$200,000-$249,999 3 0.9
$250,000 and over 2 0.6
Food decision
processes
local cuisine, (p= 0.078), motivational factors were found to be a significant predictor
for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001), and food-related personality traits
were found to be a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<
0.001).
In Block 4, the regression equation was found to be significant (F(5.319) = 34.74, p<
0.001), with an R
2
of 0.353. When studied individually, religion was not a significant
predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.836), culture was not a significant
predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.081), motivational factors were found to
be a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001), food-related
personality traits were found to be a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine,
(p<0.001), and exposure effect/past experience was not a significant predictor for the
propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.212).
Block 4’s regression equation was found to be significant (F(18.306) = 10.69, p<0.001),
with an R
2
of 0.386. When reviewed individually, religion was not a significant predictor for
the propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.604), culture was found to be a significant predictor
for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.05), motivational factors were found to be a
significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001), food-related personality
traits were found to be a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p<0.001),
and exposure effect/past experience was not a significant predictor for the propensity for
local cuisine, (p= 0.539).
Looking at socio-demographic factors, gender was not a significant predictor for the
propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.491), in ethnicity, Hispanic, (p=0.05)was
significant, while the rest of ethnicities were not significant predictors: African
American (p= 0.198), Asians (p= 0.127), and (p= 0.421) for other ethnicities. When
studying marital status as a combined variable, it was not a significant predictor for the
Table II.
Hierarchical
regression results
Regression block R
2
R
2
change FSig. Fchange p
Block 1 0.187 37.12 <0.001 <0.001
Culture and religion
Block 2 0.246 0.059 34.96 <0.001 <0.001
Culture and religion
Motivational factors
Block 3 0.349 0.103 42.96 <0.001 <0.001
Culture and religion
Motivational factors
Food-related personality traits
Block 4 0.353 0.003 34.74 0.212 <0.001
Culture and religion
Motivational factors
Food-related personality traits
Exposure effect/past experience
Block 5 0.386 0.033 10.69 0.221 <0.001
Culture and religion
Motivational factors
Food-related personality traits
Exposure effect/past experience
Socio-demographic factors
JTA
propensity for local cuisine, participants living with their partner (p= 0.408), married
(p= 0.383), separated (p= 0.702), divorced (p= 0.629), and widowed participants (p=
0.581). The age range scale was not a significant predictor for the propensity for local
cuisine, (p= 0.749). The level of education scale was found to be a marginally
significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine, (p= 0.06). Finally, an increase
in household income was not a significant predictor for the propensity for local cuisine,
participants living with their partner (p= 0.458).
Discussion, conclusion, and implications
The purpose of the study was to empirically test a conceptual model of the relationship
between the factors that influence travelers’food-related decisions while away from home,
with a particular interest in the consumption of local food items, while gaining an
understanding of travelers’decision process. Testing of the constructs was performed,
deriving from the literature review. The objectives for the study were to examine the
relationships between the five main factors themselves, and with the dependent variable.
The findings of this study revealed the relationship between the factors influencing
travelers’food decisions and their propensity to consume local foods at the tourist
destination. Of the study’sfive main predicting factors, culture within the culture and
religion variable, motivational factors, and food-related personality traits were consistently
significant predictors of local food consumption. Within socio-demographic factors,
specifically being of Hispanic ethnicity was found to be a significant factor attributing to a
tendency for local foods. In addition, it was explored if and to what degree the factors impact
each other within the group of predicting variables. In this case, it was found that by adding
food-related personality traits on Block 3, culture ceased to be a significant predictor.
However, in Block 5, socio-demographic factors were added, and culture became a
significant predictor again, increasing the propensity to consume local foods. Education
level became a marginally significant predictor. Motivational factors and food-related
personality traits were consistently significant predictors of local food consumption,
throughout all blocks tested.
The findings of the study contribute to the body of knowledge related to the theory
introduced by Mak et al. (2012b) for a variety of reasons. The findings, primarily, identified
and explained the main factors involved in the travelers’decision to consume local foods at a
destination. Second, the study tested the proposed theoretical model to explain travelers’
food-related behaviors at the destination. Third, the results of the study can be used to
theoretically compare to travelers’consumption of other local products or services. In
conclusion, the findings of the study have theoretical implications in terms of developing a
framework for identifying the factors involved in travelers’decisions related to local
consumption. From a practical standpoint, the study provides a better understanding of the
travelers’influencing factors in local food consumption. For producers and service
providers, this is of assistance to their marketing efforts, to improve their products and to
increase interest from potential consumers for their products. An example of practical
impact includes the offering of a sample or tasting of menu items so that those travelers
averse to purchasing an unknown item can experience before ordering. Thus, providing
items of increased interest, perceived value, overall satisfaction and positive consumer
behavioral consequences for the local businesses. Destination shareholders and operators
would benefit from an increase in consumption of their local foods, products and services.
This understanding can motivate menu developers to include local items as a manner to
attract sales while assisting in the economic development of the region (Sharma et al., 2014;
Kumar and Smith, 2018).
Food decision
processes
With empirically based information regarding travelers’interests in local foods,
businesses can partner and educate government, tourism-related organizations and their
employees to maximize the exchange of their products. The findings of the study have
theoretical implications in terms of developing a framework for identifying the factors
involved in travelers’decisions related to local consumption.
Limitation and delimitations of the study
There are limitations to this study that may plausibly affect the findings. Several were
unavoidably inherent with a study’s online instrument. The first limitation is an only
English language questionnaire used as the survey instrument for the study. Although from
the demographic section of the survey, it is assumed that the majority of the respondents
read and understand English; some respondents may have not clearly understood the
questions because of English not being their native language. The second limitation is self-
reported bias. It is important to consider that the analyses conducted in this study were
primarily based on self-reported data. Under or over-reporting, favorable or unfavorable
experiences because of lack of or poor memory recall may introduce bias. Additionally, the
collected responses may not represent the characteristics and perceptions of those who did
not participate in the survey.
Food consumption behavior is impacted by a wide range of factors (Köster, 2009), the
framework used in this study, a necessary step in the right direction, does not incorporate all
possible factors affecting travelers’food consumption. Additionally, several marketing
studies have demonstrated that the travelers’market is not homogeneous. Interestingly,
analysis of segment-based satisfaction has attracted only limited attention from researchers
Yüksel and Yüksel (2003), creating an opportunity for future research on the area.
A major delimitation that affects the study is that the data collected was limited to
travelers from the USA, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings to travelers from
other countries. The study was limited by time constraints, therefore restrainingthe ability to
obtain responses from individuals from different geographic regions outside the USA.
Future research recommendations
Through testing the hypotheses in the study, empirical evidence of the exposure effect/past
experience variable was not a significant predictor of the travelers’consumption of local
foods. Further studies may include revision of the scale or the exclusion of the variable after
further analysis of the concepts involved. Another recommendation based on the results of
this study is to delve deeper into the division of the culture and religion variable, as the
results of the study show a disparity within the two factors of the variable. Culture showed
an inverse reaction to the addition of food-related personality traits from one block of the
hierarchical regression to the next, as expressed in the previous sections of the study,
requiring further study, not viable in the present one. The areas showed to be distinct in the
factor analysis even though in the model, they are grouped as one variable, and they can
coexist one without the other. Further research is recommended in the two areas in the
variable, as they relate with each other and how the two work independently. Based on the
nature and limitations of the case study, it is recommended to expand on the scope of
the study with a broader sample. Another recommended area for future research is impact of
price and perceived value on food purchase decisions while traveling. A focus of interest for
local foods, as price has been studied at length in other general aspects.
JTA
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.179-211.
Atkins, P. and Bowler, I. (2001), Food in Society: economy, Culture, Geography, Arnold, London.
Barker, L.M. (1982), “Building memories for foods”,The Psychobiology of Human Food Selection, AVI
Publishing Company, Westport, CT, Choice and the Consumer: 292-310, pp. 85-99.
Birch, L.L., McPhee, L., Shoba, B., Pirok, E. and Steinberg, L. (1987), “What kind of exposure reduces
children’s food neophobia? Looking vs tasting”,Appetite, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 171-178.
Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Boyne, S., Hall, D. and Williams, F. (2003), “Policy, support, and promotion for food-related tourism
initiatives: a marketing approach to regional development”,Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 131-154.
Carroll, B.A. and Aaron, C.A. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”,Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Choe, J.Y.J. and Kim, S.S. (2018), “Effects of tourists’local food consumption value on attitude, food
destination image, and behavioral intention”,International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 71, pp. 1-10.
Cleveland, M. and Laroche, M. (2007), “Acculturation to the global consumer culture: scale development
and research paradigm”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 249-259.
Cohen, A.B. (2009), “Many forms of culture”,American Psychologist, Vol. 64 No. 3, p. 194.
Cohen, E. and Avieli, N. (2004), “Food in tourism: attraction and impediment”,Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 755-778.
Croce, E. and Perri, G. (2010), Food and Wine Tourism: Integrating Food, Travel, and Territory, Oxford,
Cambridge, MA.
Fields, K. (2002), “Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: motivational factors”, in Hjalager A.
and Richards G. (Eds), Tourism and Gastronomy, Routledge, London, pp. 36-50.
Finkelstein, J. (1989), Dining out: A Sociology of Modern Manners, Polity, Cambridge.
Frías, D.M., Rodriguez, M.A. and Castaneda, J.A. (2008), “Internet vs travel agencies on pre-visit
destination image formation: an information processing view”,Tourism Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 163-179.
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C.A., Sobal,J. andFalk, L.W. (1996), “Food choice: a conceptual model of
the process”,Appetite, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 247-266.
Goodenough, W.H. (1981), Culture, Language, and Society, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
Gurbaskan Akyuz, B. (2019), “Factors that influence local food consumption motivation and its effects
on travel intentions”,Anatolia, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1-10.
Guzel, B. and Apaydin, M. (2016), “Gastronomy tourism: Motivations and destinations”,Global Issues
and Trends in Tourism, St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, Cambridge, p. 394.
Hall, C. and Mitchell, R.D. (2001), “Wine and food tourism”, in Douglas N. and Derrett R. (Eds), Special
Interest Tourism: Context and Cases, John Wiley, Brisbane, pp. 307-329.
Hall, M. and Mitchell, R. (2002), “Tourism as a force for gastronomic globalization and
localization”, in Hjalager A. and Richards G. (Eds), Tourism and Gastronomy,Routledge,
London, pp. 71-90.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings,Prentice,Englewood Cliff, NJ.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Heldke, L.M. (2003), Exotic Appetites: Ruminations of a Food Adventurer, Routledge, New York, NY.
Food decision
processes
Hjalager, A.-M. (2002), “A typology of gastronomy tourism”, in Hjalager A.M. and Richards G. (Eds),
Tourism and Gastronomy, Routledge, London, pp. 21-35.
Hjalager, A.-M. and Richards, G. (2003), Tourism and Gastronomy, Routledge, London.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B. and Olsen, S.O. (2006), “Ethical values and motives driving organic food
choice”,Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 420-430.
Hwang, S.N., Lee, C. and Chen, H.J. (2005), “The relationship among tourists’involvement, place
attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks”,Tourism Management,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 143-156.
Ignatov, E. and Smith, S. (2006), “Segmenting Canadian culinary tourists”,Current Issues in Tourism,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-255.
Johns, N. and Clarke, V. (2001), “Mythological analysis of boating tourism”,Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 334-359.
Kemperman, A.D.A.M., Borgers, A.W.J., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2000), “Consumer
choice of theme parks: a conjoint choice model of seasonality effects and variety-seeking
behavior”,Leisure Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Khan, M.A. (1981), “Evaluation of food selection patterns and preferences”,C R C Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 129.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A. and Scarles, C. (2009), “Building a model of local food consumption on trips and
holidays: a grounded theory approach”,International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 423-431.
Kivela,J.andCrotts,J.C.(2006),“Tourism and gastronomy: Gastronomy’sinfluence on how tourists
experience a destination”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 354-377.
Köster, E.P. (2009), “Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a psychological perspective”,Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 70-82.
Köster, E., Mojet, J. and MacFie, H. (2007), “Boredomand the reasons why some new food products fail”,
in MacFie H. (Ed), Consumer-Led Food Product Development, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston,
pp. 262-280.
Kumar, A. and Smith, S. (2018), “Understanding local food consumers: Theory of planned
behavior and segmentation approach”,Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 196-215.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper, New York, NY.
Logue, A.W. (2004), The Psychology of Eating and Drinking, 3rded., Routledge, New York,NY.
Luckow, T., Sheehan, V., Fitzgerald, G. and Delahunty, C. (2006), “Exposure, health information and
flavour-masking strategies for improving the sensory quality of probiotic juice”,Appetite,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 315-323.
Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M. and Eves, A. (2012a), “Globalisation and food consumption in tourism”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 171-196.
Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M., Eves, A. and Chang, R.C.Y. (2012b), “Factors influencing tourist food
consumption”,International Journal of Hospitality Management,Vol.31No.3,
pp. 928-936.
MäKelä, J. (2000), “Cultural definitions of the meal”, in Meiselman H. L. (Ed), Dimensions of the Meal:
The Science, Culture, Business, and Art of Eating, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, MD,
pp. 7-18.
Mitchell, R.D. and Hall, C.M. (2003), “Seasonality in New Zealand winery visitation: an issue of demand
and supply”,Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 155-173.
Mynttinen, S., Logren, J., Särkkä-Tirkkonen, M. and Rautiainen, T. (2015), “Perceptions of food and its
locality among Russian tourists in the South Savo region of Finland”,Tourism Management,
Vol. 48, pp. 455-466.
JTA
Obermiller, C. (1985), “Varieties of mere exposure: the effects of processing style and repetition on
affective response”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Packard, D.P. and McWilliams, M. (1993), “Cultural foods heritage of Middle Eastern immigrants”,
Nutrition Today:, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 6-12.
Pliner, P. (1982), “The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances”,Appetite, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 283-290.
Pliner, P. and Hobden, K. (1992), “Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in
humans”,Appetite, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 105-120.
Pliner, P. and Salvy, S.J. (2006), “Food neophobia in humans”, in Shepherd R. and Raats M. (Eds), The
Psychology of Food Choice, CABI, Wallingford, pp. 75-92.
Quan, S. and Wang, N. (2004), “Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: an illustration
from food experiences in tourism”,Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 297-305.
Randall, E. and Sanjur, D. (1981), “Food preferences –their conceptualization and relationship to
consumption”,Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 151-161.
Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E. and Kahneman, D. (1999), “Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of
variety”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Richards, G. (2002), “Gastronomy: an essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption”,in
Hjalager, A. and Richards, G. (Eds), Tourism and Gastronomy, Vol. 11, Routledge, London,
pp. 3-20.
Rossi, I. and O’Higgins, E. (1980), “Theories of culture and anthropological methods”,People in Culture:
A Survey of Cultural Anthropology, JF Bergin, New York, NY.
Rozin, P. (2006), “The integration of biological, social, cultural and psychological influences on food
choice”, in Shepherd R. and Raats M. (Eds), The Psychology of Food Choice, Vol. 3, CABI,
Wallingford, pp. 19-39.
Rozin, E. and Rozin, P. (1981), Culinary themes and variations, Natural History Magazine, Vol. 90,
New York, NY, p. 6.
Saroglou, V. and Cohen, A.B. (2011), “Psychology of culture and religion introduction to the JCCP
special issue”,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1309-1319.
Sharma, A., Moon, J. and Strohbehn, C. (2014), “Restaurant’s decision to purchase local foods: influence
of value chain activities”,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 39, pp. 130-143.
Shin, Y.H., Im, J., Jung, S.E. and Severt, K. (2017), “Consumers’willingness to patronize locally sourced
restaurants: the impact of environmental concern, environmental knowledge, and ecological
behavior”,Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 644-658.
Stein, L.J., Nagai, H., Nakagawa, M. and Beauchamp, G.K. (2003), “Effects of repeated exposure and
health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter beverage”,Appetite,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 119-129.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M. and Wardle, J. (1995), “Development of a measure of the motives underlying
the selection of food:the food choice questionnaire”,Appetite, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 267-284.
Tsai, C.-T.L. (2013), “Culinary tourism and night markets in Taiwan”,International Journal of Business
and Information, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 247-266.
Tse, P. and Crotts, J.C. (2005), “Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors’propensity to
experiment across Hong Kong’s culinary traditions”,Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 965-968.
van Trijp, H.C.M. (1995), Variety-Seeking in Product Choice Behavior: Theory with Applications in the
Food Domain, Wageningen, Amsterdam.
van Trijp, H.C.M. and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M. (1992), “Consumers’variety seeking tendency with respect
to foods: measurement and managerial implications”,European Review of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 181-195.
Food decision
processes
Wadolowska, L., Babicz-Zielinska, E. and Czarnocinska, J. (2008), “Food choice models and their
relation with food preferences and eating frequency in the polish population”,Food Policy,
Vol. 33, pp. 122-134.
Warde, A. and Martens, L. (2000), Eating out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure,
University Press, Cambridge.
Wolf, E. (2002), “Culinary tourism: a tasty economic proposition”, available at: www.culinarytourism.
org (accessed 12 July 2004).
Yüksel, A. and Yüksel, F. (2003), “Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: a
segment-based approach”,Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 52-68.
Zhang, P., Levitt, J.A.,DiPietro, R.B. and Meng, F. (2019), “An analysis of food tourists’behavior among
unobserved heterogeneous groups”,Tourism Analysis, Vol. 24 No.2, pp. 177-192.
Zhang, Z., Ye, Q., Law, R. and Li, Y. (2010), “The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the online popularity of
restaurants: a comparison of consumer reviews and editor reviews”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 694-700.
Corresponding author
Angel F. González can be contacted at: angelgonzalez2@csumb.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JTA
