Tourism Review International, Vol. 13, pp. 31–49 1544-2721/09 $60.00 + .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright  2009 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com

LIFE-CYCLE STAGES IN WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT:

A COMPARISON OF WINE REGIONS IN CROATIA

RENATA TOMLJENOVIĆ* and DONALD GETZ†‡§

*Institute for Tourism, Zagreb, Croatia

†School of Tourism, The University of Queensland, Australia
‡Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada
§Centre for Tourism, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Wine tourism has emerged as a strategic development option for many destinations, including two
regions in Croatia. It requires the emergence of a tourism and hospitality orientation, significant
private and public capital investment, and a willingness on the part of winery owners to adapt to
visitor needs and demands. The aim of this article is to critically examine the emergence of wine
tourism in two Croatian wine regions and assess related life-cycle implications. Winery owners’
perceptions of and attitudes toward wine tourism are specifically examined, employing interviews
and a questionnaire. Recommendations are made for developing the potential of the Croatian wine
regions, and for advancement of the wine tourism destination life-cycle concept.

Key words: Wine tourism development; Destination life cycle; Croatia

Introduction tourism has emerged in many regions as one of the

Faced with economic stagnation and a desire
to prevent out-migration, tourism development has
become popular among rural policy makers. The
European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy
highly recommended the introduction of alterna-
tive and/or complementary activities in the ag-
ricultural sector (Commission of the European
Union, 1985, 1988). The EU’s “Objective 5b” and
LEADER programs pointed out the crucial role of
tourism in agricultural policy, either by creation of
tourism products based on rural resources or by
encouraging leisure-oriented production. Wine
important rural tourism products in both contexts
(Marques, 2006).
Development of wine tourism brings a number
of benefits to rural destinations at individual and
collective levels, including increased cellar door
sales for wineries, an enhanced destination image,
and increased numbers of tourists (Brunori & Rossi,
2000; Getz, 2000; Hall, Sharples, Cambourne, &
Macionis, 2000). However, it also entails signifi-
cant costs not only for individual wineries embark-
ing on tourism development but also for develop-
ment of supporting infrastructure and appropriate
marketing actions. Accordingly, wine tourism de-

Address correspondence to Renata Tomljenović, Institute for Tourism, Vrhovec 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Tel: 385 1 3909 666; Fax:
385 1 3909 667; E-mail: renata.tomljenovic@iztzg.hr

31
32 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ
velopment is generally dependent on policies and
programs by governmental agencies, marketing by
destination or tourism organizations, and indepen-
dent actions by many entrepreneurs. In some coun-
tries, especially Canada and the United States,
most wine tourism development has been gener-
ated by independent, entrepreneurial decisions (Getz,
2000).
Although there is a growing body of literature
relating to wine tourism, few studies have com-
pared wine destinations for purposes of bench-
marking or developing life-cycle theory. The ex-
amination of wine tourism development in the
Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, Canada, by
Getz and Brown (2006a) provided a starting point,
and many of their questions were replicated in
Croatia. This enabled a degree of cross-case analy-
sis that is not possible without directly comparable
data. The Okanagan Valley is also at a more ad-
vanced stage of development for tourism in gen-
eral and wine tourism in particular, so it offers a
broader base for theoretical development of the
life-cycle model.
Supply-side research is hampered by the great
differences in location between New and Old
World wine growing regions and, within these re-
gions, destinations that vary greatly in terms of
winery size and proximity to major tourism gen-
erators or routes. The stage of wine tourism de-
velopment is influenced by a variety of factors,
including government policy, changing economic
paradigms (i.e., from communism to capitalism)
and supply–demand interactions. Furthermore,
this growing body of research has mainly been
conducted in the New World wine regions, so its
applicability is somewhat limited (Charters & Ali-
Knight, 2002).
The overall purpose of this article to fill several
gaps in the literature by means of a comparison
within Croatia of two wine regions that are similar
in terms of being in the early stage of wine tour-
ism development but different in terms of location.
Research first established the context of wine tour-
ism development in the two Croatian regions, then
employed a questionnaire to profile wineries.
Overall conclusions are drawn on the life-cycle
model as applied to wine tourism destinations, and
specific measures are recommended to increase
competitiveness in the Croatian regions. Specific
attention is given to cooperative actions that could
be taken by Croatian wineries in terms of sharing
investment, resources, and knowledge to improve
wine tourism development in the two destinations
that can be characterized as being in the incipient
stage of development.
Wine Tourism
Definitions
Most early definitions of wine tourism concen-
trated on visitor motives, such as that by Hall et al.
(2000) who defined it as “visitation to vineyards,
wineries, wine-festivals and wine shows for which
grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attri-
butes of a grape wine growing region are the
prime motivating factors for visitors” (p. 3). It ap-
pears, as in other forms of special-interest tourism,
that visitors to wine regions differ in the extent to
which wine and winery visits are central to their
travel decision (Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002;
Gatti & Maroni, 2004). Research on a sample of
wine consumers in Canada led Getz and Brown
(2006b) to conclude that they are cultural tourists,
strongly motivated and very experienced in visit-
ing wine regions. The essential elements in the
wine tourism experience as revealed in that re-
search are an amalgam of core wine products (vis-
itor-friendly wineries, knowledgeable winery staff,
familiar wineries, wine festivals), core destination
appeal (attractive scenery and climate, moderately
priced accommodations, easy to obtain informa-
tion, well-marked wine trails), and cultural prod-
uct (unique accommodation with regional charac-
ter, fine dining and gourmet restaurants, traditional
wine villages).
A prerequisite to development is the existence
of a wine industry, including wineries to visit, but
development of wine tourism also necessitates ac-
tion by tourism organizations and communities.
Accordingly, we have a combined demand and
supply-side definition offered by Getz (2000):
“Wine tourism is travel related to the appeal of
wineries and wine country, a form of niche mar-
keting and destination development, and an oppor-
tunity for direct sales and marketing on the part of
the wine industry” (p. 5)
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
Development and Benefits of Wine Tourism
Although there is not a universally accepted
definition of wine tourism, opinion comes closer
to consensus regarding the benefits of wine tour-
ism for all its stakeholders (starting with the re-
search of Dodd, 1995). Wineries can achieve
higher and more profitable cellar door sales and
build brand loyalty in increasingly competitive
wine markets. For example, it has been reported
that wineries in France sell 19% to 23% of their
total yearly wine production at the cellar door,
whereas in South Africa it is about 20% (Bruwer,
2003); this proportion raises to 35% in Australia,
and a large number of wineries in North America
rely almost completely on cellar door sales (Wil-
liams & Dossa, 2003). For newly emerging wine
regions, where a reputation for quality wines is yet
to be made, wine tourism is both an opportunity to
initiate sales in the absence of a wider distribution
system and create destination (or appellation) loy-
alty by offering unique experiences, such as meet-
ing face to face with consumers (Lockshin & Hall,
2003). An improved destination image and spin-
off benefits to hospitality services and agriculture
are likely to follow.
Brunori and Rossi (2000), investigating one of
the Tuscany’s wine routes, found benefits at both
individual and regional levels. At the level of indi-
vidual enterprises, farmers were able to diversify
products offered to visitors and achieve higher
price ranges while they improved quality of their
service and facilities. At the regional level, apart
from increased numbers of tourists, improved con-
sumer awareness and reputation enabled regional
differentiation and resulted in the increased de-
mand for local produce and services.
The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia with
the Commonwealth of Australia Department of In-
dustry, Tourism and Resources (n.d.) prepared an
advisory document for wineries called “Wine Tour-
ism Uncorked: A Guide to making Wine Tourism
Work for You.” Based on a considerable amount
of Australian and global benchmarking, this docu-
ment provides advice on doing research, creating
attractive experiences, staffing and customer ser-
vice, special events, merchandising, accommoda-
tion, networking and alliances, and marketing.
When evaluating the development and structure
33
of wine tourism destinations, factors of location,
accessibility, and market potential should be con-
sidered. Tefler (2001) outlined wine tourism de-
velopment in the Niagara region, specifically fo-
cusing on the strategic alliances formed by winery
owners and compatible products and services, con-
cluding that even better awareness should be cre-
ated of the potential benefits of partnership and
alliances while individual winery owners have to
start considering their unique market positioning
to deal more effectively with the increased compe-
tition.
Wineries and wine routes of South Africa were
at the focus of Bruwer’s (2003) study, which ex-
amined the structure of winery products and ef-
fects generated from tourist demand. He con-
cluded that the wine routes offer a well-developed
range of wine-related products resulting in about
8 million visitors or, on average, about 14,000 vis-
its per winery per year. Most of the wineries are
located within a 45-minute drive of Cape Town,
which has a large population interested in wine
tourism and is itself the main tourist gateway to
South Africa.
A study of interest in the context of this re-
search, as it deals with an emerging wine tourism
destination, was by Aloysius and Lee (2001) who
surveyed winery owners in the emerging region
called Geographe, in Western Australia, where
they found that a lack of capital and marketing
knowledge prevented many winery owners from
becoming serious about tourism.
Life Cycles
The basic concept of the life cycle in tourism
studies, attributed to Butler (1980), is that resorts
and destinations typically display an evolutionary
path in stages defined as exploration, involvement,
development, consolidation, stagnation, and either
decline or rejuvenation. The tourism area life cy-
cle (TALC) model is not a predictive or explana-
tory theory; it is a generalization based on obser-
vation that holds value for strategic tourism planning.
When applying the TALC model to wine tour-
ism, a wine tourism destination can be said to be
dependent on the attractiveness of wine, vine-
yards, wineries, and related attractions or events,
so that as these elements evolve, so will the desti-
34 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ
nation. It is conceivable, however, that other at-
tractions not related to wine will also affect the
destination’s evolution.
As argued by Butler (2006a), there are a num-
ber of reasons the model remains popular and use-
ful in both theoretical and practical terms. First, it
is clear that specific touristic areas are dynamic.
Change is usually induced by a combination of
triggers, either externalities (especially competi-
tion or chaos) or deliberate entrepreneurial and
policy initiatives. We can conclude from the perti-
nent literature (e.g., Carlsen & Charters, 2006;
Getz, 2000; Hall et al., 2000) that wine tourism
regions are being strategically branded and pro-
moted by destination and country-level tourist or-
ganizations, yet it is usually private, entrepreneur-
ial action that initiates and sustains the development
process.
There are often readily discernible stages in a
destination’s change process, so that wine tourism
destinations such as those being studied in Croatia
can be seen to have a recent start-up, whereas oth-
ers (for example, Napa Valley) can be observed to
be in a mature state. According to Butler (2006b),
the ultimate capacity of a tourist area must be con-
sidered, especially within a sustainable develop-
ment context, and therefore natural and/or imposed
limits on growth must be assessed. Although little
attention has been given to the capacity of wine
regions to absorb tourism, it has been noted how
the Napa Valley developed to the point where de-
marketing efforts were required (Carlsen & Ali-
Knight, 2004). Sustainable wine tourism has also
been addressed in the context of issues arising in
Canada’s Okanagan Valley (Poitras & Getz, 2006).
Decline, however, is only inevitable if planning
and management are absent (Butler, 2006a).
The spatial components of the TALC model
have not been studied in any depth, but Butler ar-
gued that tourism spreads geographically over
time. Within a wine tourism region, this could re-
late directly to winery and vineyard expansion, the
influence of designated wine routes on tourist traf-
fic, and the location of services to visitors—such
as those found in traditional or created wine vil-
lages. Also, as studied in this Croatian research,
location relative to the origin of wine tourists is a
vital consideration.
Two measurement issues that have to be con-
sidered in any application of a life-cycle model are
temporal metrics (i.e., what is it that changes over
time—is it tourist volumes, number of wineries,
wine sales?) and the spatial dimension (are we
talking about a political region or one defined by
its grape and wine production?). A wine region
might be clearly demarcated to the producers (es-
pecially if it has an official appellation status) but
not perceived to be a destination by wine consum-
ers and tourists in general.
The life-cycle concept has been both used and
critiqued frequently in the tourism literature. In-
deed, two volumes of papers concerning the tour-
ism area life cycle have been published in book
form (Butler, 2006a, 2006b). There was no men-
tion of wine tourism or wine regions in these vol-
umes, including Lagiewski’s (2006) review of the
related literature (up to 2002), which records ap-
plications to countries, regions, counties, islands,
resorts, protected natural areas, cities, and even
travel by individuals.
In wine tourism destinations, the winery is the
core attraction (Getz, 2000). Though wine tourism
can exist without vineyards and wineries—for ex-
ample, in response to wine-themed festivals and
events—a wine tourism destination must certainly
possess them. In this context, a theoretical frame-
work for comparing wine tourism destinations was
provided by Dodd and Beverland (2001), who
used empirical evidence to argue that wineries go
through several stages. In the first stage, “winery
establishment,” the focus is on production and
sales, initially locally and to passersby. Visitor
facilities are rather basic, such as reception at the
cellar, tastings, and sales; there is little networking
between wineries and tourism-related business
(who often do not understand benefits of partner-
ship with wineries), and community leaders do not
consider wineries as part of the tourism attraction
system.
The second stage, “winery growth,” is charac-
terized by more sophisticated reception of visitors
and attention paid to interpretation and presenta-
tion of the wine-making process. This is accompa-
nied by greater attention given to the region’s
wines in wine and tourism publications and other
media, which helps create desire to visit the re-
gion. Tasting rooms are added or redecorated with
style, wine is sold through retail shops and restau-
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
rants, and more wine is sold at the cellar door.
Travel agents show some interest for the region,
and the first organized guided groups visit selected
wineries.
In the next stage of “gaining regional promi-
nence,” the wine destination has built a favorable
reputation and the number of visitors is increasing,
prompting more investment in tourism attractions
and facilities. The number of wineries is increas-
ing, and they are attracting a wide spectrum of
wine-motivated visitors for which they offer a
range of merchandise, accommodation, and func-
tional facilities. As wineries become more profes-
sionally managed, there is a risk of generating a
more sterile visitor environment. Finally, Dodd
and Beverland hypothesized the stages of “matu-
rity” and potentially “decline.”
This life-cycle model shares problems faced by
other evolutionary theories. First, it is difficult to
test empirically. Second, there are no clear indica-
tors that would mark transition from one stage to
the next. Also, strategic interventions could move
a winery into an advanced stage (i.e., wine tasting
facilities) while it remains at an earlier stage in
other respects. Nevertheless, this model is useful
in conceptualizing development as a growth pro-
cess, especially if development is demand-driven,
and in warning of potential decline.
In increasingly competitive economic and tour-
ism environments, it is nowadays more often the
case that tourism, especially special-interest tour-
ism, is product rather then demand driven. Drivers
can be either entrepreneurs or development agen-
cies. In both cases, destinations where wine tour-
ism initiatives are tourism-driven need to ensure
that wineries are willing and prepared to become
a part of destination tourism product and thus need
to identify those able to grow and invest in visitor
facilities. In the regions where winery owners are
driving wine tourism initiatives, the tourism and
public sector have the responsibility to assist in
these endeavors. To ascertain the feasibility of this
investment, they need quality information on win-
eries and their tourism-related activities. In both
cases, the needs of winery owners in terms of as-
sistance with product development and marketing
are crucial inputs for strategic programs and activ-
ities. Furthermore, in cases where wine regions are
35
relatively small, owners might have similar needs
that could be addressed through joint actions.
Methods
Multiple methods were employed to undertake
the Croatian research. Profiles of the two Croatian
wine regions immediately follow this section,
based on in-depth document reviews, field visits,
interviews with key informants, and questionnaires
administered to winery owners/operators. To ob-
tain a valid picture a winery survey alone would
probably have been inadequate, given the undevel-
oped nature of the industry.
Cross-case analysis is a means of grouping to-
gether common responses to interviews as well as
analyzing different perspectives on central issues
(Patton, 1990). By directly comparing two incipi-
ent wine tourism regions with somewhat different
locational and developmental profiles, a cross-case
analysis was enabled. In addition, comparison
with the Okanagan Valley in Canada was facili-
tated by using a similar set of questions for winery
operators. This approach added strength to the
analysis by revealing similarities and differences
within and between nations.
As noted by Eisenhardt (1989), the case study
method has two major theory-building functions
that are present in this research. The first is to test
for congruence with a priori constructs and hypoth-
eses that have been derived from existing the-
ory—in particular, to determine if the case study
refutes existing theory or stands as an anomaly.
To do this we have the generic TALC model and
the Dodd and Beverland (2001) winery-specific
model as starting points.
Case studies and cross-case comparisons are
also valuable to generate new hypotheses or mod-
els. This is inductive theory-building, as in the tra-
dition of grounded theory, and there is always the
prospect of learning something completely new—
especially in fields like wine tourism where there
has been a paucity of theoretically-oriented re-
search. Subsequent and comparative case studies
can determine if the results of early studies (which
develop an archetype) are generalizable. In this
way, we use the Croatian cases and comparison
with the Okanagan Valley to develop our hypo-
36 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ
thetical wine tourism destination life-cycle stages
in the conclusions.
Profile of Two Croatian Wine Regions
In Croatia, tourism is an important economic
activity, although the bulk of supply and demand
is concentrated along the long and narrow Adriatic
coastal strip. With tourist numbers exceeding
those of the late 1990s along the coast, the chal-
lenge is now to extend the summer season by di-
versifying the product and spreading demand into
the rural, continental regions. Faced with serious
economic difficulties, policy makers and local en-
trepreneurs increasingly consider tourism to be an
attractive development option. Rural wine-grow-
ing regions are, in particular, keen to embrace pro-
tourism policies.
In terms of wine production, Croatia has a long
tradition of wine making, but only with its recent
independence and full adoption of market eco-
nomics had the production of quality wines been
stressed. In the post–World War II period, wine
production was concentrated in a few corporate
wineries producing large quantities of table wine,
and farmers were customarily producing small
quantities mostly for their own use. With gradual
introduction of the market-led economy since the
early 1980s, a number of small, family-owned
commercial wineries started to grow, and this
trend accelerated after the major political and eco-
nomic changes of the 1990s. Currently, Croatian
wineries produce about 1,768,000 hl of wine (Cro-
atian Bureau of Statistics, 2004) of which 91.7% is
produced in the small, privately owned wineries,
which usually focus on high-quality wine.
Privately owned wineries simultaneously re-
quire several capital investments—land to expand
vineyards, planting new vineyards, winery equip-
ment, and, more recently, the introduction of visi-
tor facilities. The extent to which they are able to
invest adequately to capitalize on tourism’s poten-
tial is critical.
Croatia is divided into two main wine re-
gions—coastal and continental—with a total of 13
official wine appellations. The most developed
and best promoted wine region is Istria, a penin-
sula at the north end of the Adriatic, where wine
tourism development is driven by the Association
of Winegrowers and Winemakers. It currently has
109 members and, in cooperation with the regional
tourism development agencies, has set up four
wine routes (Bojnec, Jurinc̆ić, & Tomljenović,
2006). The proximity of Istria to the affluent mar-
kets of north Italy and southern parts of Austria
ensures year-around, short-trip demand, as well as
longer holidays in the coastal resorts.
Other parts of Croatia are at the incipient stage
of tourism development in general, and here tour-
ism initiatives are mostly driven by local entrepre-
neurs and local/regional tourism boards. With few
exceptions, tourism in the continental part of
Croatia has received a low priority from national,
regional, and local policy makers. But there are
two exceptions, namely, the regions of Medimurje
at the north end of Croatia, and Ples̆ivica, just 30
km west of the capital city of Zagreb.
Medimurje and Ples̆ivica Wine Regions
These two inland wine regions are at slightly
different stages of tourism development. The re-
gion of Medimurje occupies the north corner of
Croatia, bordering on Slovenia, Austria, and Hun-
gary. It is about a 2-hour drive from Zagreb, the
nation’s capital and major population center (ap-
proximately 1 million inhabitants) and the major
source of domestic tourism. Across the border, in
Austria, there are well-developed wine routes, and
in neighboring Slovenia, wine routes complement
five thermal spa resorts. Although hampered by its
location and strong competitors close by, Medi-
murje has a reputation for entrepreneurial resi-
dents and is one of the Croatian counties with a
strong economy, high per capita income, and a
well-educated young population. Traditionally an
agricultural county, this region is recognized for
its beautiful scenery of rolling hills covered by
vineyards and its thermal waters.
Medimurje was not traditionally regarded as a
tourism destination. In 2005, it recorded just over
10,000 overnight visits in 800 registered beds, and
its regional government had not considered tour-
ism to be a development priority. However, several
factors were critical turning points in this respect.
First, the wine-making tradition of Medimurje was
revived by mid-1990 in small, family-owned en-
terprises, and soon wine makers set up an associa-
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
tion to improve the market recognition of Medi-
murje wines and promote wineries as places to
visit. Second, following these early private ven-
tures, the regional government finally recognized
the potential of tourism as an additional source of
income for its farming population (specifically a
market for their produce). Accordingly, they draf-
ted a regional tourism development plan, which
was followed by creation of a formal regional
tourism board. This new organization was given
the task of coordinating marketing activities and
improving regional tourism product.
Third, capitalizing on the thermal waters, a new
spa resort was built with 255 beds in four-star
apartments. This privately financed resort attracts
visitors from neighboring Hungary and Austria;
recently a number of smaller private accommoda-
tion establishments were built in response to de-
mand by spa visitors who want cheaper or more
friendly accommodation. Fourth, to make wineries
as well as other tertiary tourism attractions of the
region more accessible, the region implemented an
ambitious tourism signage policy (Institute for
Tourism, 2003b). As an outcome of these activi-
ties, a wine road was established with clearly
marked entrance points, consistent signage of win-
eries, and associated attractions accompanied by
a map of the route. The wine route now has 22
members.
Some of the wineries along the route are very
ambitious regarding tourism. One winery con-
verted an old manor house into a historical hotel
with 40 rooms, a restaurant, a cellar, and a tasting
room (where all wines from the region can be pur-
chased), plus small conference facilities in con-
verted stables. A number of other winery owners
have built tasting rooms and accommodation facil-
ities. However, these are of questionable quality,
consisting of small rooms without much character,
as they aimed to accommodate bus tour groups
(about 40 rooms).
In contrast, the region of Ples̆ivica is only about
30 km west of Zagreb, and it is primarily an excur-
sion spot for the nearby urban population. Re-
sponding to this demand, the region has developed
an array of small attractions, especially after the
1990s when private entrepreneurship was encour-
aged. A tradition of visiting Ples̆ivica goes back to
the 19th century, when hiking trails were first
37
marked and mountain lodges built. Now there are
four mountain lodges, about seven registered rural
tourism operators offering food and some rooms,
a number of interesting religious heritage sites,
and a couple of restaurants with good reputations.
In contrast to Medimurje, where tourism is a more
recent initiative, the region of Ples̆ivica has a de-
veloped rural tourism product, albeit mostly as a
day-trip destination.
The county of Zagreb was for a long time very
active in creating and supporting environment for
rural entrepreneurs, which helped the growth of
wineries. Strategic development plans for agricul-
ture stimulated grape growing, orchards, and
strawberry farms, followed by financial assistance
to wine makers to plant new vineyards and expand
wine-making capacities. A strategic tourism devel-
opment plan was drafted (Institute for Tourism,
1997) and implemented by the county’s tourism
board; similar to Medimurje, a wine road was cre-
ated (featuring 25 wineries) and a tourism signage
policy was developed and implemented in 2003
(Institute for Tourism, 2003a). The Tourism Board
aggressively markets this region utilizing mostly a
public relations strategy, relying on tourism fairs
and trips by journalists to reach foreign markets.
However, the exact number of visitors is difficult
to ascertain because Ples̆ivica is part of several ad-
ministrative regions and, furthermore, official sta-
tistics do not record day visitors.
In terms of wine production and tourism devel-
opment, these two regions are similar. In both,
wine making was encouraged through legislation
and financial assistance, wine makers are orga-
nized to create brand image and market their wines,
and tourism is strategically developed. However,
the two regions differ in terms of proximity to
sources of demand, with Ples̆ivica being close to
Zagreb and, in response to day trippers, having a
longer tradition of tourism and hospitality (albeit
with less demand for accommodation, given its
proximity to Zagreb). In contrast, being away from
the major residential centers that would create ini-
tial tourism demand and surrounded by strong
competitors across the border in Slovenia and
Austria, tourism in the region of Medimurje is
mostly product-driven, and the challenge now is
how to attract more visitors.
38 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ

The Winery Survey Because these numbers are relatively small, results
have to be used with caution. To strengthen the
Results reported here are derived from a com-
research, therefore, interviews and study trips
prehensive survey of all Croatian wineries. The
were conducted in both regions. During these ex-
three main aims were to ascertain attitudes of win-
cursions, selected winemakers were asked to com-
ery owners/managers toward wine tourism devel-
ment on the results obtained from the survey,
opment; determine the kinds of assistance and
thereby shedding more light on the state of wine
support they need to get involved in tourism; and
tourism development and related issues.
obtain a profile of wineries in terms of their pro-
duction, tourism operation, number of visitors, ex-
Winery Profile
penditures, services offered, and promotions used.
The mail-back questionnaire was largely a rep- The long tradition of winemaking in Croatia is
lication of one previously used in Canada (Getz & reflected in the fact that two wineries were estab-
Brown, 2006a) in the Okanagan Valley of British lished before World War II (Table 1). The more
Columbia. It consisted of a combination of closed entrepreneurial spirit of Medimurje resulted in
and open-ended questions divided into four sec- seven wineries (41.2%) being set up over the 35
tions: (1) about the winery (location, tradition, years of the socialist era, in spite of the restriction
number of employees, number of visitors, propor- on private wine production during that time (al-
tion of cellar door sales); (2) the winery’s involve- though these were mostly producing wine for per-
ment in tourism (opening hours, linkages with sonal consumption). In contrast, this activity was
other tourism operators, products and services of- almost halted in Ples̆ivica region over that same
fered, promotions); (3) reasons for the winery’s period. Rapid growth in winery numbers has been
involvement in tourism and plans relating to tour- occurring in both regions over the past 15 years,
ism development; and (4) basic sociodemograph- since Croatia fully embraced a market-driven
ics of winery owners. economy; a new winery has been established, on
The survey was conducted over December average, every 2 years.
2005 and January 2006, the time of year when However, production is relatively small with a
Croatian wine makers are least busy in the cellar large majority (83%) of participating wineries pro-
and vineyard. However, it was the holiday season, ducing less then 50,000 L per year, and most of
and that probably affected the response rate. Ques-
tionnaires were mailed to every one of the 490
registered wineries in Croatia, using the official Table 1
winery registry. In total, 115 surveys were re- Profile of Responding Medimurje and Ples̆ivica Wineries
turned, of which 107 provided useful responses,
and 30 were returned as undelivered. The response % %
Winery Profile Medximurje Ples̆ivica
rate is considered satisfactory given that the topic
of the survey was very novel to winery owners Year established
and that wine tourism is, at best, at the incipient Before 1945 5.9 37.5
1945–1980 41.2 6.3
stage of development in Croatia. Also, the winery 1981–1990 17.6 12.5
register might have contained some enterprises 1991– 35.3 43.7
that are not fully involved in wine making, and Production in liters
0–9,999 22.2 37.5
contact details were not given. 10,000–24,999 27.8 50.0
25,000–49,999 33.3 12.5
Nonresponse Bias 50,000–99,999 11.1 0.0
100,000 and more 5.6 0.0
Of 80 registered wineries in Ples̆ivica, 17 use- Ownership type
Sole ownership 11.1 23.5
ful responses were obtained, of which 10 wineries Family ownership 77.8 76.5
were along the official wine route. From Medi- Partnership with extended family 5.6 0.0
murje, of 79 wineries, 18 completed the survey, Partnership with others 5.6 0.0
N 18 17
of which 16 were located along their wine route.
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
these (77%) are family owned. Both regions have
one large corporate winery left over from the so-
cialist era, and since being privatized they are now
striving to improve the quality of their wines and
build brand image. Their existence in the post–
World War II period, regardless of quality and
reputation, has helped create awareness of Medi-
murje and Ples̆ivica as wine regions. Examining
the visitor facilities at the formerly state-owned
winery in Medimurje (the one in Ples̆ivica did not
respond), one can be see that its tourism orienta-
tion, promotional strategies, and visitor experience
are not very different from the smaller, family-
owned wineries.
Tourism Orientation
The benefits of attracting tourists were recog-
nized relatively late in both Ples̆ivica and Medi-
murje, as most responding wineries started to re-
ceive visitors only after 2001, at about the time
when tourism and wine production gained promi-
nence among the regional policy makers. It can
be expected that new wineries will enter the wine
tourism market given that 15 out of 18 the winer-
ies in Medimurje were open for visitors and a fur-
ther 3 were planning to open within the next 2 or
3 years. Similarly in Ples̆ivica, 12 out of 17 winer-
ies were already open to visitors, and 4 planned to
do it within the next 5 years.
There was no extreme seasonality in demand
reported by the wineries of both regions, so most
are open to visitors all year. Four slow months
were identified, however—the two summer months
when tourism demand is diverted toward the coast,
and the two winter months of January and Febru-
ary when, typically, snow and cold halt most
travel to the countryside.
With only one winery keeping an official re-
cord in Medimurje, visitor numbers are only esti-
mates. Visitation numbers are low in both regions
(Table 2), but proximity to urban areas plays an
important role in attracting visitors, as revealed by
the fact that wineries in Ples̆ivica recorded larger
volumes. Regardless of location, wine tourism is
growing: both regions reported about a 40% in-
crease in visitor numbers over 4 years. In Ples̆ivica
this increase was mostly due to one winery setting
up a restaurant, resulting in a fourfold increase.
39
Table 2
Estimated Number of Winery Visitors
Medimurje Ples̆ivica
Number of visitors 2004 2005 2004 2005
Mean 358 614 525 865
Minimum 15 50 50 50
Maximum 1,000 2,000 1,000 4,000
Number of reporting
wineries 12 11 11 12
Growth in Medimurje can be attributed to the offi-
cial opening of the spa resort and the wine road.
Winery owners reported an increase in the number
of individual visitors following opening of the spa.
Judging by their opening hours for visitors,
wineries participating in the survey are rather
poorly prepared for individual visits (Table 3).
Most wineries are opening on request only, mean-
ing that potential customers are required to ar-
range their visit in advance, by phone. More win-
eries in Medimurje practice this procedure over
weekends, with only two of the responding winer-
ies being open all day. One winery reported that
they are open every day, all day, if someone is at
home. The situation is slightly better in Ples̆ivica,
where more wineries open on weekends than
weekdays, even if in the afternoon only. Compari-
son with the officially published wine route leaflet
shows that this pattern is dominant for all wineries
on this route. They are responding to weekend de-
mand, but a large number of wineries still have
not adjusted their opening hours to suit individual
weekend visitors.
Furthermore, none of the wineries employ staff
to deal with tourists. Visitors are received by a
person who is available at the moment they arrive,
or by the winemaker when a group is announced.
More recently the younger generation in family-
owned wineries, typically students in secondary
school or university, are given the job to care for
visitors. Through interviews it was detected that
some wine tourism operations are in fact set up to
provide employment for children.
Products and services offered by wineries are
rather basic (Table 4). Most wineries of Medi-
murje have a tasting room (72%), followed by in-
formation brochure (39%), and sales of locally
40 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ

Table 3
Wineries’ Opening Hours

Medimurje (%) Ples̆ivica (%)

Opening Hours Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday

Closed 6.66 8.33 27.27 0 0 0

Whole day 53.33 25.00 18.18 25.0 36.4 36.4
Morning only 0.00 8.33 9.09 0 0 0
Afternoon only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 9.1 9.1
Only on request 40.00 58.33 45.45 75.0 54.5 54.5
Total N 15 12 11 11 11 12

produced food (27.8%). Accommodation is of- commodation facilities in Medimurje, winery

fered by four wineries, although apart from one owners consider accommodation to be a lucrative
already mentioned, these are rather cheaply deco- business option, whereas this is of a lower priority
rated rooms in modern houses aimed to accommo- in Ples̆ivica, given its proximity to Zagreb. Also,
date a group of 40 to 45 visitors; their match with in Medimurje there appears to be greater synergy
the rural and/or wine country ambience is rather with other producers, as a larger proportion sell
poor. Four wineries are planning to expand their local food in an attempt to add value. This is not
tourism products: two plan to add wine-tasting of crucial importance to those in Ples̆ivica, given
rooms, one accommodation, and another is plan- its existing array of activities and attractions.
ning to organize grape-picking events. By compar-
ison, wineries of the Ples̆ivica region have margin- Cellar Door Sales
ally better product, with a larger proportion having The proportion of wine sold within the re-
tasting rooms, restaurants, and some functional sponding wineries is relatively low, reflecting the
facilities, picnic areas, and printed information; 10 small number of visitors. In Medimurje, 64% of
stated that they plan to introduce new products, wineries sell between 10% and 20% directly to
including their own farm food, accommodation, visitors, and the rest reported less than 10%. A
and sport facilities. higher proportion of wine is sold directly to visi-
Products offered by the wineries of the two re- tors in Ples̆ivica, reflecting both the higher number
gions reflect the different nature of their tourism of visitors, a larger local population purchasing
development. Due to the distance and lack of ac- wine directly from winemakers, and more restau-
rants selling their own wines. Half of the partici-
pating wineries in Ples̆ivica reported about 50% in
Table 4
cellar door sales, and a further third reported about
Products and Services Offered at Wineries
30%. As the number of visitors increases, the
Medimurje Ples̆ivica trend is clearly upward. Over the past 3 years, half
the wineries reported a gradual increase in cellar
Products/Service N % N %
door sales, whereas about 80% in both regions ex-
Information brochure 7 38.90 6 50.0 pect this proportion to increase over the next 3
Restaurant 1 5.60 3 25.0 years.
Picnic area 3 16.70 4 33.3
Workshops 1 5.60 1 8.3 Respondents were asked to estimate the aver-
Tasting room 13 72.20 11 91.7 age expenditure per visitor for the most common
Functions 1 5.60 2 16.7 services/goods offered. Because most were reluc-
Wine museum/collection 1 5.60 0 0
Special events 0 0.00 0 0 tant or unable to give detailed information, these
Sales of locally produced food 5 27.80 2 16.7 figures (Table 5) have to be used with caution.
Sales of locally produced arts/crafts 2 11.10 1 8.3 Wine-tasting fees for groups were nominal, with
Accommodation 4 22.20 2 16.7
most wineries charging about 10 kuna ( 1 = 7.3
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 41

Table 5 These owners ignore the fact that entrance signs

Structure of Winery Visitors’ Expenditures are also positioning statements, signify a welcom-
(Mean in Euros) ing attitude, and potentially communicate some-
Expenditure per Visit Medimurje Ples̆ivica thing of the likely experiences available to visi-
tors. Certainly this oversight reflects their relative
Cask wine purchases 3.79 1.87 inexperience with wine tourism.
Bottled wine purchases 5.48 6.66
Wine tasting fees 1.26 1.37 In other respects, marketing differs between the
Food/meals 1.53 3.98 two regions, again indicating their different mar-
Souveniers 0.00 0.25 ket orientations. In Medimurje, winery participa-
Other 0.00 0.37
N 13 11 tion in tourism fairs is much higher, and for this
they need their own brochures. They need the
travel trade to bring visitors to their more remote
locations. However, in Ples̆ivica they rely less on
kuna) per visitor when visits are organized through
group tours and therefore employ a wider range of
travel agents. In terms of individual visits, winer-
promotional methods, including paid advertise-
ies do not have a clear policy on tasting fees, and
ments in specialty magazines and their own In-
it appears that a decision to charge for tasting is
ternet sites.
made on an ad hoc basis. If the reported expendi-
In terms of linkages with the travel trade, nine
tures on bottled wine sales is correct, it would
wineries in Medimurje and seven in Ples̆ivica re-
mean that visitors leave the wineries with one or,
ported being part of a travel package, most often
at most, two bottles of wine (given that, on aver-
partnering with travel agents and regional hotels.
age, the wine is sold at about 4 to 5 per bottle).
Wineries in Ples̆ivica, more often then their Medi-
murje counterparts, reported partnering with wine,
Tourism Marketing
food, cultural, and sport events.
In terms of marketing wineries to individual
visitors and the travel trade, the majority of re- Goals
sponding wineries indicated that the rely on road
and entrance signs. Surprisingly, not all of those When asked why their winery got involved in
receiving visitors even had an entrance and road wine tourism, the most important reasons in both
sign, because when they primarily cater to orga- regions were to increase brand recognition of their
nized tour groups they reason that bus drivers and/ region’s wines and of Croatia’s wines abroad
or guides will know how to reach them (Table 6). (mean value 4.65, on a scale from 1–5, with 5

Table 6
Promotion Methods Employed by Wineries

Medimurje Ples̆ivica

Promotion Method N % N %

Road sign 12 66.70 8 66.7

Entrance sign 11 61.70 8 66.7
Tourism fairs/exhibitions 11 73.30 5 41.7
Own brochures/leaflets 9 60.00 4 33.3
Ads in tourism-association publications 4 26.70 5 41.7
Ads in wine publications 4 26.70 3 25.0
Own Web site 3 16.70 5 41.7
Ads in wine association publications 3 16.70 6 50.0
Ads on the Web site of tourism board 2 11.10 4 33.3
Ads in travel guides 2 11.10 2 16.7
Ads in daily newspapers 0 0.00 1 8.3
Ads in tourism/hospitality publications 0 0.00 3 25.0
42 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ

being “very important”). This was followed by im-
proving the status of wineries in Croatia (4.60).
Respondents also aimed to improve brand aware-
ness of their own wines (4.56), improve cellar
door sales (4.50), and create a customer mailing
list (4.06).
The different nature of wine tourism in these
two regions is also reflected in their preferred type
of visitors (Table 7). Wineries in Medimurje
showed clear preference to organized tour groups
and, given the small population base, visitors from
nearby counties and neighboring countries; in
principle, all markets were considered very impor-
tant to important. In Ples̆ivica, they were aware of
the value of area residents, with organized visitors
ranking second in terms of importance.
These results indicate a rather unsophisticated
view of marketing, at least for Medimurje. It pos-
sesses few major attractions and is remote from
major tourist generating regions. Accordingly,
rather than concentrate on group tours, regional
visitors will be much more easily targeted and po-
tentially will provide year-round demand. The re-
gional market does not have much experience with
winery visits and thus might be less demanding.
In contrast, nearby regions in Austria have a long
tradition of wine tourism, with well-developed
wineries and related wine tourism products, mak-
ing it difficult for Medimurje to compete. Also,
with foreign visitors there is often a language bar-
rier that may influence the quality of presentation
and interpretation. Wineries wishing to reach in-
ternational markets have to ensure that a knowl-
edgeable person with good foreign-language skills
is available when guests arrive.
Critical Success Factors for Wine Tourism
In terms of actions desired at the destination
level that would support their tourism develop-
ment plans, most respondents agreed that their ar-
eas need more tourism attractions and accommo-
dation facilities (Table 8). Among the least important
success factors were camping, sport facilities, and
things to do for children. Apparently, these are not
thought to be desired by the type of visitors at-
tracted by wineries.
Again, remoteness and the overall level of tour-
ism development play a part. Winery owners in
Medimurje have focused on accommodation, com-
plemented by conference facilities, and count on
organized tour groups that can be steered to their
wineries. Fine restaurants, arts and crafts shops,
and specialty shops selling local goods and pro-
duce were considered to be of medium impor-
tance, although these products are highly compati-
ble with winery experiences. However, they might
also see these businesses as being their competi-
tors. In contrast, Ples̆ivica’s wineries considered
wine and special events to be of slightly greater
importance, reflecting their orientation to regional
visitors who, without events, might have little in-
centive for return visits. In this respect, they also
put slightly more emphasis on gourmet dining and
specialty shops.
Table 9 indicates a preference for destination-
wide promotional activities that would support the
tourism plans of wineries. Notice that Medimurje’s
winery owners strongly supported investment in
promotion, improvement of the legislative envi-
ronment, as well as financial incentives. However,

Table 7
Desired Market Orientation of Wineries

Medimurje Ples̆ivica

Winery Goal N Mean* N Mean*

Increase number of organized tour groups 17 3.00 16 2.69

Increased number of visitors from nearby counties 16 2.81 15 2.53
Increase number of visitors from neighboring countries 14 2.71 15 2.27
Increase number of visitors from rest of Croatia 15 2.67 14 2.43
Increase number of regional (county) visitors 16 2.63 15 2.80
Increase number of visitors from other countries 14 2.43 15 2.33
Increase number of individual visitors 14 2.36 16 2.56
Increase number of local visitors 16 2.19 16 2.06

*Scale from 1 (no importance) to 3 (major importance).

 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 43

Table 8
The Importance of Destination-Wide Actions to Support Tourism-Related
Plans of Wineries

Medimurje Ples̆ivica

Destination Activities to Support Winery N Mean* N Mean*

Tourism attractions near the winery 16 2.81 14 2.79

Private accommodation facilities 15 2.60 14 2.36
Accommodation reflecting region’s character 15 2.60 13 2.62
Wine festival 17 2.59 14 2.79
Conference facilities 13 2.54 13 2.08
Specialty shops for local produce 14 2.50 14 2.36
Arts and crafts shops 12 2.50 12 2.08
Hotels 15 2.47 12 2.25
Fine dining/gourmet restaurants 15 2.47 14 2.36
Sport facilities 13 2.46 14 2.21
Special events 13 2.38 12 2.67
Things for children to see and do 13 2.31 13 2.15
Camping grounds 11 1.73 13 1.69

*Scale from 1 (no importance) to 3 (major importance).

the lowest rankings were given to provision of ed-
ucation related to tourism and promotion of their
own wineries, as these are activities in which they
have to be active participants.
It seems obvious that wine tourism is impossi-
ble to develop without wineries offering quality
and unique visitor experiences. If owners are re-
luctant to participate in activities that would im-
prove their abilities to deliver such experiences,
and to better promote their individual wineries, it
calls into doubt the feasibility of destination-wide
partnerships and marketing initiatives. Winery
owners in Ples̆ivica, who have better wine-tourism
products and are more active in self-promotion,
thought they would benefit more if the region is
specifically promoted as a wine-tourism destina-
tion and their own winery is better promoted to
visitors. Importantly, they also recognised the
need for better education on a winery’s operation
as a tourism attraction.
Comparison With the Okanagan Research
There are some obvious and important differ-
ences between the two Croatian wine regions and
the previously studied Okanagan Valley in Canada
(Table 10). Ples̆ivica is a traditional, near-urban
excursion destination, while the Okanagan is re-

Table 9
The Importance of Promotional Activities to Support Wineries’ Tourism-Related Goals

Medimurje Ples̆ivica

Promotional Activities to Support Winery N Mean* N Mean*

Better promotion of the region as tourism destination 18 2.94 15 2.73

Legislation supportive of business development 16 2.94 15 2.67
Better promotion of wineries as tourism attraction 17 2.88 15 2.67
Financial incentives that support business development 16 2.88 15 2.81
Better promotion of the region as wine tourism destination 18 2.83 15 3.00
Education about tourism and tourism marketing 16 2.81 15 2.73
Education about winery as tourism attraction 16 2.81 14 2.86
Better community cooperation and support 16 2.75 15 2.60
Better promotion of your winery 17 2.71 15 2.87

*Scale from 1 (no importance) to 3 (major importance).

44 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ

Table 10
Comparison of the Okanagan Valley and Two Croatian Wine Regions

Points of
Comparison Okanagan Ples̆ivica Medimurje

Location Remote from large cities; tradi-
tional summer resort area
Number of wineries Approximately 50
Ownership 70% sole or family owned; 1
large corporate
Winery age Mostly new: 77% opened since
1990
Winery production Many small; some medium and
large; 65% produced under
100,000 L
Opening to visitors, Most opened 7 days, when
seasonality open, but 56% were not open
all year
Cellar door sales Substantial: over half sold at
least 50% at cellar door
Tourism products 61% offered guided tours
and services at Tasting: 100%
wineries Restaurant or café: 22%
Special events: 44%
Accommodation: 2%
Retail shop: 74%
Staffing 65% employed staff for visitors
Marketing Most had Web sites; 78% pack-
aged with wine festivals; few
packaged with tour compa-
nies; substantial use of paid
ads; oriented mostly to inde-
pendent travelers
Visitor numbers and Half did not know: ranged from
origins under 10,000 to over 30,000
visitors
30 km from Zagreb; traditional
excursion zone
80 registered
89% sole or family owned
A mix of old and new: 56%
founded since 1980
Very small: 100% produced un-
der 50,000 L
75% open only on request
(weekdays); low-visit months:
2 in summer and 2 in winter
Low %
No tours
Tasting room: 72%
Restaurant: 25%
Special events: 0
Accommodation: 22%
Retail shop: 8%
None for visitors
Used a wider range of promo-
tions, but little paid adverti-
sing
Very few: 865 visitors (mean)
Remote from large cities; not a
traditional destination
79 registered
100% sole or family owned
A mix of old and new: 53%
founded since 1980
Very small: 83% produced un-
der 50,000 L
40% open only on request
(weekdays); low-visit months:
2 in summer and 2 in winter
Very low %
No tours
Tasting room: 92%
Restaurant: 6%
Special events: 0
Accommodation: 17%
Retail shop: 6%
None for visitors
Clear preference for organized
tour groups
Very few: 614 visitors (mean)

mote from large cities but has a well-established
summer holiday season—and recently has experi-
enced a fast-growing urban population of its own.
Medimurje is a remote, rural region with no tradi-
tion of attracting tourists. From their basic geogra-
phy alone, one would expect divergence in wine
tourism evolution. But the main difference be-
tween the Canadian and Croatian wine industry,
and hence wine tourism, is the relative newness
of private-sector winery initiatives in Croatia. In
contrast, most of the Okanagan wineries were con-
structed with tourism in mind.
Although sole and family-owned wineries are
predominant in all three regions, the Okanagan
wineries had, on average, much larger wine pro-
duction. Furthermore, with limited land availabil-
ity, the Croatian wineries are not likely to substan-
tially increase their yearly production. This limits
the income that wineries can generate; conse-
quently, the financial capital that could be invested
in tourism-related developments is also fairly
scarce. This issue is especially critical for the re-
gion of Medimurje, where it is locally hoped that
wine tourism will be one of the important drivers
of tourism demand.
A number of corporate wineries with well-
known brands exist in the Okanagan, and several
landmark wineries had been constructed that act
as key tourist attractions. Both Croatian regions
might hope that their large, corporate wine estates
will create landmark wineries, as that could cer-
tainly assist in generating overall regional demand.
The Okanagan had a more acute seasonality
problem, being a summer destination, but as wine
tourism develops, including seasonal festivals, and
as the local population and resort infrastructure in-
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
creases, it is likely that wineries will see a better
spread of demand. Existing wine tourism numbers
in Croatia are so small that it remains to be seen
whether seasonality of demand will be different
from mainstream tourism.
The Okanagan Valley was also much further
advanced in wine tourism development in terms
of investment in services for visitors at wineries
and related staffing. Cellar door sales were sub-
stantial in the Okanagan but are low in Croatia. In
terms of accommodation provision, however, Cro-
atian entrepreneurs have recognized a supply gap
and are providing accommodation at the winery,
whereas there was a well-established accommoda-
tion sector in the Okanagan Valley and only a few
wineries had ventured into accommodation provi-
sion.
A relatively unexplored area of wine tourism is
that of packaging and cooperative marketing. The
Okanagan wineries were spending more on paid
advertising, and there are well-established wine
festivals that promote both the entire wine region
and specific towns like Oliver. Most wineries in
the Okanagan Valley prefer individual travelers,
whereas in Medimurje there was a clear preference
for organized group tours.
Conclusions
This research adds to a growing body of re-
search on the development, or supply side, of wine
tourism, especially to the understanding of wine
tourism in an evolutionary context. Direct destina-
tion comparisons are very useful, with the caveats
that differences between destinations can be great,
and comparable information very difficult to ob-
tain. Specifically, this article compares the devel-
opment and evolution of two wine tourism regions
in Croatia, with reference to the Okanagan Valley
in Canada. It also fills a gap in the existing re-
search by focusing on an Old World country
where, in spite of a long tradition of wine grow-
ing, wine tourism is relatively new and little re-
search has been conducted.
The Croatian regions were found to be similar
to each other in the extent that wine-tourism is still
in its infancy and characterized by a low number
of visitors, restricted range of visitor facilities and
services, and limited marketing—especially in
45
terms of paid advertising. Differences between the
two Croatian regions primarily relate to their loca-
tion and level of overall tourism development. The
region of Ples̆ivica has a favorable location close
to the capital city and a long tradition of catering
to weekend excursionists. Medimurje is at the in-
cipient stage of tourism development where wine
tourism is not responding to existing demand but
is supply driven. It is hoped by the industry that
wine tourism in Medimurje will become a main
attraction of the region in addition to the spa re-
sort.
Development and Marketing Implications
Potential to grow wine tourism in the two Cro-
atian regions might be limited by land and capital
resources. One indicator was the fact that very few
of the responding wineries were planning to ex-
pand their visitor services and facilities (although
they were a little more ambitious in Ples̆ivica).
Likewise, their preference for organized tour groups,
especially in Medimurje, coupled with the preva-
lence of wineries opening on request only and a
reluctance to dedicate staff to deal with visitors,
indicate that wine tourism is being viewed mostly
as a side business. Owners felt they can adjust for
prearranged groups but were less flexible when it
comes to hosting individual visitors.
Winery owners preferred to direct their energy
toward production and improvement of the quality
of their wines, and this is typical of the early stage
of wine tourism development (Aloysius & Lee,
2001; Macionis, 1996). Clearly, few winery own-
ers had knowledge of tourism, and winery owners
in Ples̆ivica considered education about how win-
eries can be tourism attractions to be one of the
three most important destination-wide actions.
However, in Medimurje education was not consid-
ered important; they focused on legislation and fi-
nancial incentives that would support their tourism
operations.
The growth and sophistication of wine tourism
is also in part a function of market potential. With
a small population base, and remoteness from Zag-
reb or other large cities and resorts, wineries in
Medimurje recorded very low visitor numbers. At
the same time, being closer to the capital city, pos-
sessing a well-organized tourism board, and being
46 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ
in a county where agriculture is supported by vari-
ous incentives, the wineries of Ples̆ivica were per-
forming better. However, the number of visitors
was not nearly as high as one would expect given
the location and taking into consideration that a
certain level of tourism activity existed well be-
fore wine tourism was introduced.
In the more remote Medimurje region, the chal-
lenge is how to achieve tourism growth through
wine tourism development. Potential appears to be
limited by the predominance of small-capacity,
sole and family-owned wineries, with limited visi-
tor infrastructure and few plans to make improve-
ments. The owners were severely restricted by
their focus on wine production and a lack of capi-
tal. Wineries could become supplementary attrac-
tions to the spa experience. In the Ples̆ivica region,
which is close to Zagreb and is traditionally a day-
trip destination, wine tourism might not be desired
by the existing markets segments, so it will have
to build demand from new segments.
Life-Cycle Implications
Dodd and Beverland (2001) proposed a 5-stage
model (winery establishment, winery recognition,
regional prominence, maturity, and tourism decline)
and 11 factors to be considered for each stage. It
is a winery-focused framework, derived from stud-
ies of winery evolution rather than destination
evolution, with the logical implication that winer-
ies within the same region can be in different
stages of development. Overall destination factors
will always affect individual business units, but it
is also likely that the cumulative strategies and ac-
tions of many wineries will shape the evolution of
the destination—assuming that wine tourism is an
important element in its attractiveness.
The two Croatian regions are at the incipient
stage of wine tourism development. Although they
both show potential for growth, there are obvious
constraints. It is critical for the regional tourism
boards to release the entrepreneurial potential of
winery owners and give support to those that are
able to grow and prosper. Although owners are
optimistic when forecasting increases in the num-
ber of visitors and the volume of cellar door sales,
this growth might not be realized without substan-
tial investment in both services and facilities, as
well as enhanced accessibility. Instead of encour-
aging all wineries to enter wine tourism, destina-
tion development agencies might be wiser to iden-
tify and lend support to those owners who are
most able to invest and provide high-quality visi-
tor services.
A hypothetical wine tourism destination model
with four stages is offered in Table 11. Individual
wineries might find themselves at different stages
than the destination as a whole, which makes the
Dodd and Beverland model equally applicable for
the industry. The incipient stage, typified by the
two Croatian regions profiled in this article, pre-
sents both opportunities and challenges. Without
many individual entrepreneurial decisions and the
capital necessary for development, little can hap-
pen. Policies to foster tourism are needed, and po-
litical complacency will be detrimental to wine
tourism.
In the development and maturity stages, repre-
sented by Okanagan (it shows elements of both),
the scale and importance of wine tourism will be
apparent, including wineries that are dependent on
cellar door sales and landmark wineries that are
built as tourist attractions and/or brand symbols.
A mix of visitor types will likely be apparent, but
the many small wineries prefer to cater to individ-
ual, dedicated wine tourists rather than mass tour-
ism. Policy, planning, and marketing initiatives
are being taken to develop and sustain the sector.
There could be seasonal and subregional varia-
tions in development and visitor flows, resulting
in the need to spread demand. Some of the costs
and problems associated with tourism and wine
tourism in particular are likely to become political
issues. Any threat of mass tourism supplanting
niche markets should be resisted, following the ex-
ample of Napa Valley (Carlsen & Ali-Knight, 2004).
Conflicts among stakeholders have to be resolved.
Decline is not inevitable, but in a state of matu-
rity a destination can experience both growth in
decline in different sectors. Signs of decline could
include overdevelopment that generates extremely
high levels of competition; declining numbers of
tourists, or at least of dedicated wine tourists; and
declining cellar door sales among the wineries
most dependent on this distribution mode. Higher
dependence on other distribution modes (e.g., ex-
ports) could indicate that the wine industry has
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 47

Table 11
Hypothetical Wine Tourism Destination Life Cycle

Characteristics 1: Incipient 2: Developing 3: Maturity 4: Declining

Scale of wine Wineries were mostly Growth in wine tourist High levels of wine Decline in volume of
tourism established without volume; new winer- tourism development visitors; some winer-
regard for tourism; ies designed for tour- and competition ies might become un-
very few wine tour- ism; landmark winer- profitable and disap-
ists ies established pear
Types of tourism None, or the established Growth in dedicated A broad mix of visitor Loss of dedicated wine
visitor segments are wine tourists; some segments; tensions tourists; lower yield
not interested in wine mass tourism at land- between niche seg- per visitor
mark wineries ments and mass
tourism
Importance of wine Tourism is strictly a A mix of tourist-ori- Almost all wineries are Declining cellar door
tourism to win- sideline to most; ented and export-ori- involved; some are and other retail sales;
eries many are not in- ented wineries heavily dependent on higher dependence
volved cellar door sales on other distribution
modes
Importance of wine Perceived to be minor; Recognition of poten- Employment and eco- Declining economic im-
tourism to the re- some visionaries see tial, based on visible nomic impact of portance of wine
gion the potential trends; general desire wine tourism is rec- tourism might be
to grow wine tourism ognized and might be seen as a regional
the dominant activity crisis
Strategies Encourage and aid en- Branding of the wine Focus on sustainability; Repositioning is
trepreneurship; at- tourism destination; possibly demarket- needed; create new
tract investment; set focus on high-yield ing to reduce mass selling proposition
a vision wine tourists; inte- tourism (uniqueness stressed);
grate wine and other quality of wines
policy domains stressed
Political issues Complacency might im- Policy is required, and Growing costs of tour- Can the causes be recti-
pede or kill wine resolution of conflict- ism present ongoing fied? At what cost?
tourism development ing interests will be a political challenges
challenge

less need for and interest in tourism, although this
has to be weighed against branding and position-
ing considerations (i.e., the winery as brand sym-
bol). If decline is viewed as a crisis, then a major
issue will be to determine the root problems and
how to rectify them.
More comparisons across many regions will be
required to advance this model and determine how
it can be applied to wine tourism development and
sustainability.
Comparisons and benchmarking need standard-
ized measures and data collection, shared publicly
and systematically evaluated. Debate is also needed
on the relevance of life-cycle models applied to
wineries, wine tourism, and wine destinations.
The life-cycle model is not intended to be pre-
dictive or prescriptive, and there is no particular
reason that the Croatian wine regions should want
to become more like the Okanagan or Napa Val-
leys. Incipient wine tourism destinations have to
set their own course, and might not even be able to
achieve success, but benchmarking against more
developed regions and consideration of the life cy-
cle will help them formulate vision and strategic
planning.
Research Priorities
There has been a great deal of published re-
search and debate concerning the TALC, so one
priority for wine tourism researchers is to deter-
mine any wine-specific factors that shape a desti-
nation’s evolution. For example, as noted by Be-
verland and Dodd (2001), the ways in which
wineries develop and decide to promote them-
selves as tourist attractions (or not) have crucial
implications for tourism. Accordingly, it is neces-
sary to constantly examine the value of direct cel-
lar door sales to tourists and how tourist visits
shape future consumption and brand-related deci-
48 TOMLJENOVIĆ AND GETZ
sions to predict how winery strategies might affect
the overall destination. It might also become nec-
essary in certain places to determine if destination
marketing organizations can successfully promote
or sustain wine tourism without the active cooper-
ation of the grape and wine sectors.
Another priority is to encourage systematic
benchmarking between wine tourism regions, as
advocated by Getz and Brown (2006a). This is a
process that requires some level of standardized
measurement and data collection to make compar-
isons accurate and meaningful. When researchers
describe wine regions, both the demand and sup-
ply sides of wine tourism have to be consistently
measured. Both industries, wine and tourism, will
have to support formal benchmarking or it will not
happen. Within the life-cycle construct, we want
to determine if there are evolutionary similarities
between wine tourism destinations and what fac-
tors result in differences.
Longitudinal research is also necessary to eval-
uate evolutionary processes. Looking back, as with
the two Croatian cases in this article, we can iden-
tify changes up to a point in time, but this can only
lead to speculation about the future. In particular,
researchers should monitor and evaluate the im-
pacts of various strategies and actions by wine and
tourism organizations as well as by individual
businesses. Ongoing consumer research is a neces-
sary complementary activity, so that changes in
preferences and demand forecasts can be factored
into the evaluation of destination change.
References
Aloysius, L., & Lee, D. (2001). Strategic management of
the Geographe wine region. Tourism Recreation Re-
search, 26(2), 77–80.
Bojnec, S̆., Jurinc̆ić, I., & Tomljenović, R. (2006). Wine
growing areas and wine tourism in Slovenia and Croa-
tia. In 18th Biennial International Congress, Opatija,
3–5 May, pp. 52–60.
Brunori, G., & Rossi, A. (2000). Synergy and coherence
through collective action: Some insights from wine
routes in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 409–423.
Bruwer, J. (2003). South African wine routes: Some per-
spectives on the wine tourism industry’s structural di-
mension and wine tourism product. Tourism Manage-
ment, 24(4), 423–435.
Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist are cycle of evo-
lution: Implciations for management of resources. Ca-
nadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.
Butler, R. (ed.). (2006a). The tourism area life cycle, vol.
1: Applications and modifications. Clevedon, UK:
Channel View Publications.
Butler, R. (ed.). (2006b). The tourism area life cycle, vol.
2: Conceptual and theoretical issues. Clevedon, UK:
Channel View Publications.
Carlsen , J., & Ali-Knight, J. (2004). Managing wine tour-
ism through demarketing: The case of Napa Valley,
California. In International Wine Tourism Research,
2004, Proceedings of the Margaret River, Australia, In-
ternational Wine Tourism Conferece. CD produced by
Vineyard Publishing, Guildford, Western Australia.
Carlsen, J., & Charters, S. (2006). Global wine tourism:
Research, management and marketing. Wallingford,
UK: CABI.
Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tour-
ist? Tourism Management, 23, 311–319.
Commission of the European Union. (1985). Tourism in the
European Community. European file 11/85. Brussels:
Commission of the EU.
Commission of the European Union. (1988). The future of
the rural society. Document COM 7957788. Brussels:
Commission of the EU.
Croatian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Statistical yearbook
of the Republic of Croatia. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of
Statitistics.
Dodd, T. (1995). Opportunites and pitfalls of tourism in a
developing wine industry. International Journal of
Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5–16.
Dodd, T., & Beverland, M. (2001). Winery tourism life-
cycle development: A proposed model. Tourism Recre-
ation Research, 26(2), 77–80.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study
research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 522–
550.
Gatti, S., & Maroni, F. (2004). A profile of wine tourists
in some Italian region vineyards: An application of the
multiple correspondence analysis. Colloque Econome-
trie XI, 21–22 May, Dijon.
Getz, D. (2000). Explore Wine Tourism: Management, De-
velopment, Destinations. New York: Cognizant Com-
munication Corporation.
Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006a). Benchmarking wine tour-
ism development: The case of the Okanagan Valley,
British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of
Wine Marketing, 18(2), 78–97.
Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006b). Critical success factors for
wine tourism destinations. Tourism Management, 27(1),
146–158.
Hall, M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B., & Macionis, N.
(eds.). (2000). Wine tourism around the world: Devel-
opment, management and markets. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Institute for Tourism. (1997). Strategic tourism develop-
ment plan for the county of Zagreb. Zagreb: Institute for
Tourism.
Institute for Tourism. (2003a). Brown signage and inter-
 WINE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
pretation of attractions in the county of Zagreb. Zagreb:
Institute for Tourism.
Institute for Tourism. (2003b). Brown signage and inter-
pretation of attractions in the county of Medimurje. Za-
greb: Institute for Tourism.
Lagiewski, R. (2006). The appplication of the TALC
model: A literature review. In R. Butler (ed.), The tour-
ism area life cycle, vol. 1: Applications and modifica-
tions, pp. 27–50. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publi-
cations.
Lockshin, L., & Hall, J. (2003). Consumer purchasing be-
haviour for wine: What we know and where we are go-
ing. International Wine Marketing Colloquium, Ade-
laide, July, CD-ROM.
Macionis, N. (1996). Wine tourism in Australia. In G.
Kearlsey (ed.), Tourism down under 2, conference pro-
ceedings, pp. 264–286. Dunedin: University of Otago.
Marques, H. (2006). Searching for complementarities be-
tween agriculture and tourism—the demarcated wine-
49
producing regions of northern Portugal. Tourism Eco-
nomics, 12(1), 147–155.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. London: Sage.
Poitras, L., & Getz, D. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism:
The host community perspective. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 14(5), 425–448.
Tefler, D. (2001). Strategic alliances along the Niagara
Wine Route. Tourism Management, 22(1), 21–30.
Williams, P., & Dossa, K. (2003). Non-resident wine tour-
ist markets: Implications for British Columbia’s emerg-
ing wine tourism industry. In M. Hall (ed.), Wine, food
and tourism marketing. New York: Haworth Hospitality
Press.
Winemakers’ Federation of Australia and Australian Gov-
ernment Department of Industry, Tourism and Re-
sources. (n.d.). Wine tourism uncorked: A guide to mak-
ing wine tourism work for you.