exploring consumer values in agri-tourism and the
TRANSCRIPT
EXPLORING CONSUMER VALUES IN AGRI-TOURISM
AND THE ORGANIZATION OF BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
By
Patrick John O’Connor
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems
2011
ABSTRACT
EXPLORING CONSUMER VALUES IN AGRI-TOURISM
AND THE ORGANIZATION OF BRAND RELATIONSHIPS
By
Patrick John O’Connor
Agri-tourism, which includes on-farm market destinations, community farmers’ markets,
wineries, and other enterprises, appears to be growing as an opportunity for small to medium-
size family farm and food entrepreneurs to increase profits. In addition, this specialized tourism
industry offers the opportunity to diversify and strengthen rural economies.
Academic literature supports the need to explore consumers’ values as they relate to both
place and tourism marketing and the marketing of experiences. This project investigates
consumer values as they relate to agri-tourism. Consumer values emerged through the use of
laddering interviews, a tool of means-end chain theory. Secondarily, how consumers
hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences was
determined.
This project supports the idea that there are underlying values which motivate consumers
to engage in agri-tourism experiences. The evidence of this is presented in the hierarchical value
maps (HVM) for each agri-tourism consumer segment, where attributes are linked to
consequences and values. A review of HVMs confirms that for all segments considered the
essence of the agri-tourism experience is truly insightful and rewarding. A key discovery of this
project is that consumers engage in agri-tourism experiences to seek, at the value level, self-
satisfaction and improvement. In addition to underscoring the importance of the self-satisfaction
and improvement value, the responses reflect strong emotional values related to the desire to
protect the environment, concern about mass marketed food, and the importance of protecting
3
the local economy while feeling profound civic pride. Emotional connections to the farmers and
vintners involved in agri-tourism also appeared in the values statements. These themes were
reflected in the HVMs for the agri-tourism consumers across three key segments of agri-tourism
destination visitors.
The results also present an overview of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. Four key categories, The Local Products,
The Region, The Destination, and The People, emerged. These categories provide the basis for a
new Agri-Tourism Experience Model that could be used in subsequent marketing and branding
research.
4
Copyright by
PATRICK JOHN O’CONNOR
2011
v
DEDICATION
“To my babies… and to the angels who watch over us.”
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to my mother, Margaret, who along with my late father, Dr. Gerald “Doc”
O’Connor, taught me through actions and examples the importance of perseverance in any task
undertaken.
Thank you to Lisa, Madison and Cooper for the support and patience as I worked the
many weekends and nights in the MSU Business Library, at the lake house, and in the basement.
Thank you to Dr. Kirk Heinze, my committee chair, advisor, All-Star, and friend, for his
patience and encouragement as he guided me along this amazing journey.
Thank you to Dr. Keith Adler, my dissertation topic advisor, committee member and
friend, who supplied me with ideas, direction, and the enthusiasm which kept me focused.
Thank you to Dr. Christopher Peterson and Dr. Murari Suvedi, committee members, who
challenged me, encouraged me, and guided me toward a meaningful dissertation.
Thank you to Janie Pott, Ben Meehan, Trevor Logan, Diane Davis, Dr. Richard
Brandenburg, Dr. David Wright, Dr. Ashvani Dass, Dr. Don Ricks, Dr. Gail Vander Stoep, Dr.
Matt Helm, Dan Wyant, Timothy Connors, Nick Bellows, Dr. Eben Weitzman, Dr. David
Morgan, Betsy King, Richard Friske, the faculty of the University of Michigan Institute for
Social Research, the vintners, fruit growers and “foodies” of Northwest Michigan, Horizon
Books, Mark Arney, Herb Teichman, Mike Beck, Steve Tennes, Jim Koan, Richard Koziski, Dr.
Doug Buhler, Dr. Gary Lemme, Dr. Janice Harte, Dr. Michael Hamm, Linda Jones and Karel
Bush of the Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council, Bob Tritten, Dr. Ron Goldy, Jim Parker,
the Michigan Farm Marketing & Agri-Tourism Association, the Solowczuk family, the Mason
Bulldogs (U10) baseball team, Charlotte the dog, and the bed-headed chicken rancher punk.
Thank you to all other faculty, friends, neighbors and family who offered encouraging words.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………. xi
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………... xiii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..... 1
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………. 3
Importance of Agri-Tourism……………………………………………………….. 3
Justification and Contribution……………………………………………………… 5
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………7
Project Limitations…………………………………………………………………. 7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………. 9
The Scope of Agri-Tourism………………………………………………………... 9
Consumer Experiences……………………………………………………………...10
Experiential Marketing…………………………………………………………….. 11
Tourism Experiences………………………………………………………. 12
Experiential Marketing (Marketing an Experience)……………………….. 12
Research Opportunities – Understanding Consumer Experiences in Agri-Tourism. 14
Determining Values – Means-End Chain Theory and Laddering Interviews……… 17
Means-End Chain Theory………………………………………………….. 17
Laddering Interviews………………………………………………………. 18
Brand Marketing…………………………………………………………………… 23
Brand Typologies…………………………………………………………………... 25
Experiencing a Brand………………………………………………………………. 28
Brands and Emotional Connections………………………………………………... 29
Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 33
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS………………………………………………………………….. 35
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………….. 35
Parallel Tracks – Exploring Values and Brand Issues in Agri-Tourism…… 35
The Need to Understand Values…………………………………………… 37
Literature Support………………………………………………………….. 37
Methodology……………………………………………………………….. 39
Data Collection…………………………………………………………….. 39
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. 40
Open Coding……………………………………………………….. 40
Concept Generation Through Hierarchical Selective Coding……... 41
Formation of Categories………………………………………….... 41
viii
Theory Development………………………………………………. 41
Research Questions………………………………………………………………… 42
The Qualitative Paradigm………………………………………………………….. 43
Qualitative Methods………………………………………………………………... 45
Means-End Chain Theory………………………………………………….. 45
Grounded Theory Method…………………………………………………..46
The Researcher’s Role……………………………………………………………... 49
Assumptions………………………………………………………………………... 49
Data Sources……………………………………………………………………….. 50
Respondents/Participants…………………………………………………………... 50
Geographic Location………………………………………………………………. 52
Data Gathering Timeframe………………………………………………………… 52
Informed Consent and Confidentiality……………………………………………...52
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………….. 53
Laddering Interviews………………………………………………………. 54
Soft Laddering…………………………………………………………….. 56
Nvivo Software…………………………………………………………….. 57
Units of Analysis…………………………………………………………... 57
Data Analysis Process……………………………………………………… 57
Memoing…………………………………………………………………… 58
Sorting……………………………………………………………………... 59
Verification of Results…………………………………………………………….. 59
Reliability and Validity……………………………………………………. 60
Methodological Coherence………………………………………… 62
Appropriate Sampling……………………………………………… 62
Collecting and Analyzing Data Concurrently……………………… 63
Thinking Theoretically……………………………………………...63
Theory Development………………………………………………. 63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………….. 64
Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 64
Laddering Interviews………………………………………………………………. 64
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………. 66
Laddering Interview Responses: Open Coding Stage…………………………….. 67
Open Coding Results: All Coded Categories……………………………... 69
Open Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories……………………. 70
Open Coding Results: Attributes………………………………………….. 71
Open Coding Results: Consequences……………………………………... 71
Open Coding Results: Values……………………………………………... 72
Open Coding Results: Brand and Other Agri-Tourism Related Categories. 73
Open Coding Results: People Connections……………………………….. 74
Open Coding Results: Reason for Visit…………………………………… 74
Open Coding Results: Advertisement…………………………………….. 75
Open Coding Results: Brand Elements…………………………………… 75
Open Coding Results: Share with Others…………………………………. 76
ix
Open Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings………………………………… 77
Laddering Interviews: Selective Coding Stage…………………………………… 77
Open Coding and Selective Coding Results Comparison…………………. 78
Selective Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories………………... 78
Selective Coding Results: Attributes……………………………………… 79
Selective Coding Results: Consequences…………………………………. 81
Selective Coding Results: Values…………………………………………. 84
Selective Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories for Each
Consumer Segment (Winery, On-Farm Market, Community
Farmers’ Market)………………………………………………...… 89
Selective Coding Results: Attributes for Winery, On-Farm Market,
and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers…….………………. 89
Selective Coding Results: Consequences for Winery, On-Farm Market,
and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers……………………... 90
Selective Coding Results: Values for Winery, On-Farm Market, and
Community Farmers’ Market Consumers…………………………. 92
Selective Coding Results: Brand Related Categories for Winery, On-
Farm Market, and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers……… 93
Selective Coding Results: People Connections for Winery, On-Farm
Market, and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers……………. 95
Selective Coding Results: Reason for Visit for Winery, On-Farm Market,
and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers…………………….. 96
Selective Coding Results: Advertisement for Winery, On-Farm Market,
and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers……………………... 97
Selective Coding Results: Brand Elements for Winery, On-Farm Market,
and Community Farmers’ Market Consumers…………………….. 98
Selective Coding Results: Share with Others for Winery, On-Farm
Market, and Community Farmers’ Market………………………… 99
Selective Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings for Winery, On-Farm
Market, and Community Farmers’ Market………………………… 100
Means-End Chain Analysis Results: Attributes, Consequences, and Values.……... 101
Construction of Ladders…………………………………………………… 103
Content Analysis of Ladders and Development of Content Codes………... 103
Implication Matrices for Agri-Tourism Consumer Segments……………………... 105
Hierarchical Value Maps for Agri-Tourism Consumer Segments………………… 113
Dominant Perceptual Pathways…………………………………………………… 115
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS……………………………………….. 124
Discussion of Attributes, Consequences, and Values Revealed Through
Selective Coding…………………………………………………………… 124
Attributes Revealed Through Selective Coding…………………………… 125
Consequences Revealed Through Selective Coding………………………. 126
Values Revealed Through Selective Coding………………………………. 127
Discussion of Values Revealed Through Hierarchical Value Maps………………. 128
Review of Values Coding Logic…………………………………………… 129
x
Agri-Tourism Visitors Segments’ Values………………………………….. 129
Discussion of Values for Agri-Tourism Visitors…………………………... 131
Discussion of Research Questions…………………………………………………. 132
Research Question #1: Why do consumers visit agri-tourism destinations?............ 132
Reasons Why Community Farmers’ Market Consumers Visit
Agri-Tourism Destinations………………………………………… 133
Reasons Why On-Farm Market Consumers Visit Agri-Tourism
Destinations……………………………………………………….. 134
Reasons Why Winery Consumers Visit Agri-Tourism Destinations……... 135
Research Question #2: What are the relationships between values, brands, and
agri-tourism experiences?.............................................................................. 135
Research Question #3: Are there important similarities and differences between
agri-tourism consumers at different agri-tourism venues?............................ 141
Similarities and Differences Between Agri-Tourism Consumers at
Different Venues…………………………………………………… 141
Research Question #4: What role do agri-tourism brands play in consumer
decision making and consumer cognitive organization of agri-tourism
experiences? For example, do consumers anchor their values around
brands or are brand incidental to the consumer experience?......................... 143
The Agri-Tourism Experience Model……………………………………………… 147
New Conceptual Framework………………………………………………. 148
Recommendations for Agri-Tourism Industry…………………………………….. 148
Segmentation Opportunities………………………………………………...149
Brand and Products Assessment…………………………………………… 150
Development of Promotional Strategies…………………………………… 150
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………………. 151
Summary………………..………………………………………………………….. 152
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Laddering Interview Questions…………………………………….. 155
Appendix B – A Representative Sample Interview with Attributes, Consequences,
Values Responses…………………………………………………………...158
Appendix C – Abbreviation Key for Tables 20, 21, and 22……………………….. 165
REFERENCES….………………………………………………………………………… 167
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Open Coding: All Coded Categories…………………………………………… 69
Table 2 – Open Coding: MEC Theory Categories…………………………………………71
Table 3 – Open Coding: Other Categories………………………………………………… 73
Table 4 – Open Coded and Selective Coded References …………….……………………. 78
Table 5 – Selective Coding of MEC Theory Categories ………………….………………. 79
Table 6 – Selective Coding: Attributes for All Interview Respondents…………….…….. 80
Table 7 – Selective Coding: Consequences for All Interview Respondents……………… 81
Table 8 – Selective Coding: Values for All Interview Respondents……………………… 84
Table 9 – Selective Coding Results: Attributes…………………………………………… 90
Table 10 – Selective Coding Results: Consequences……………………….…………….. 91
Table 11 – Selective Coding Results: Values…………………………………………….. 92
Table 12 – Other Agri-Tourism Branding Issues Categories……………………………… 94
Table 13 – Selective Coding Results: People Connections………………………….……. 95
Table 14 – Selective Coding Results: Reason for Visit………………………………….... 96
Table 15 – Selective Coding Results: Advertisement…………………………….………. 97
Table 16 – Selective Coding Results: Brand Hierarchy…………………………….…….. 99
Table 17 – Selective Coding Results: Share With Others………………………………… 100
Table 18 – Selective Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings………………………………… 101
Table 19a – Community Farmers’ Market Visitors……………………………………....... 107
Table 19b – On-Farm Market Visitors…………………………………………………….. 108
Table 19c – Winery Visitors……………………………………………………………….. 109
xii
Table 20 – Implications Matrix – Community Farmers’ Market Visitors……….………… 110
Table 21 – Implications Matrix – On-Farm Market Visitors………………………………. 111
Table 22 – Implications Matrix – Winery Visitors………………………………………… 112
Table 23 – Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships for Each Element –
Community Farmers’ Market……………………………………………… 120
Table 24 –Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships for Each Element –
On-Farm Market…………………………………………………………… 121
Table 25 –Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships for Each Element –
Winery………………………………………………………………………122
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Conceptual Framework Map………………………………………………….... 36
Figure 2 – Self-Satisfaction & Improvement Chain……………………………………….. 114
Figure 3 – Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food Chain…………………………….. 115
Figure 4 – Hierarchical Values Map – Community Farmers’ Market Visitors...…………. 116
Figure 5 – Hierarchical Values Map – On-Farm Market Visitors…………………………. 117
Figure 6 – Hierarchical Values Map – Winery Visitors…………………………………… 118
Figure 7 – Values Logic Coding…………………………………………………………... 130
Figure 8 – Values Categories in HMV Maps……………………………………………… 131
Figure 9 – Summary of How Consumers Hierarchically Organize the Brands
Encountered When Engaging in Agri-Tourism Experiences……………………….141
Figure 10 – The Agri-Tourism Experience Model………………………………………… 149
1
INTRODUCTION
Agri-tourism, which includes on-farm market destinations, community farmers’ markets,
wineries, and other enterprises, appears to be growing as an opportunity for small to medium-
size family farm and food entrepreneurs to increase profits. In addition, this rising sector of the
tourism industry offers the opportunity to diversify and strengthen rural economies.
Academic literature supports the need to explore consumers’ values (and associated
emotions) as they relate to place and tourism marketing and the marketing of experiences.
The primary focus of this project is to explore consumer values as they relate to engaging
in agri-tourism experiences. This is done through the use of means-end chain theory laddering
interviews, with the purpose of uncovering consumers’ core values as they move from the
identification of attributes and consequences, to a deeper level of emotional connection with
elements of agri-tourism experiences.
The data sources for this project were transcripts from interviews with 36 consumers who
had recently visited Northwest Michigan agri-tourism destinations. These included 12 winery
visitors, 12 community farmers’ market visitors, and 12 on-farm markets visitors.
This project also seeks to better understand how consumers consider the brands
encountered in agri-tourism experiences. More specifically, how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
The project builds upon academic research in the areas of tourism, destination branding,
product and services branding, and other areas. In addition, the research supports a multi-
disciplinary approach, as it uses means-end chain theory and laddering interviews (which have
2
roots in clinical psychology), and the Grounded Theory approach, and applies these theories to
marketing and branding research in the agriculture and tourism academic fields.
3
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Using the agri-tourism destination experience as the forum, this research project explores
consumer values across three key categories of agri-tourism experiences (winery tours,
community farmers’ market visits, and on-farm market destination visits) and it investigates
whether the values among consumers of these experiences are similar or different, thus
addressing the question of whether these agri-tourism choices originate from similar or different
value constructs. The project also works to identify how consumers hierarchically organize the
brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. Though a marketing segmentation
study is not a major focus of this research project, in order to make comparisons the differences
in consumers across the three key categories of agri-tourism experiences were considered.
This research project explores the following: 1) consumers’ values as the motivator for
visiting destinations, e.g., the winery, community farmers’ market, or on-farm market, 2)
emotional attachments of consumers as they relate to their values across the three segments of
agri-tourism destination visitors, 3) the relevance of brands in consumers’ agri-tourism
experiences, 4) how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging
agri-tourism experiences, and 5) what role brands play in the perceptions and reasoning of
consumers when making decisions related to the agri-tourism experience.
Importance of Agri-Tourism
According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture, there are an estimated 1,000 to
3,000 agri-tourism, farm marketing, and food destination (non-restaurant, grocery, bakery, and
4
specialty store) businesses in Michigan. These include entrepreneurs marketing foods,
agricultural and natural resources goods, services, and attractions directly to consumers through
wineries, community farmers’ markets, and on-farm markets (such as cider mills, U-pick farms,
roadside stands, community supported agriculture farms, and other on-farm enterprises).
A wide range of Michigan grown and processed foods and non-food products are offered
through these enterprises. Such products include apples, blueberries, cherries, strawberries,
watermelon, asparagus, sweet corn, pumpkins, flowers, Christmas trees, peaches, herbs,
tomatoes, nursery stock, honey, wines, cider, jams, jellies, pies, breads, specialty foods, maple
syrup, meats, dairy products, woolen goods, and much more. Many of these establishments also
offer organic products.
Goods and experiences are often presented together. One may find agri-tourism
destinations offering fresh grown and processed products along with a wide variety of
experiences including processing demonstrations, farm tours, educational programs, hayrides,
haunted barns, wilderness trails, and other attractions. This “direct-to-consumer” retailing allows
producers to be less dependent on wholesale market fluctuations – thereby potentially improving
profit margins for the growers, farmers and food entrepreneurs using this business model.
Nationally, direct-to-consumer selling through agri-tourism destinations appears to be
growing as an opportunity for small to medium-size family farm and food entrepreneurs to
increase profits. In addition, food tourism appears to be thriving in some European countries and
is increasing as a strong tourism trend for some U.S. states working to establish new agri-tourism
industries as a way to diversify rural economies. While agri-tourism appears to positively impact
Michigan’s economy, there may be opportunity for more significant growth through the bettering
of marketing communications efforts. A content analysis of marketing communications efforts
5
by the agri-tourism industry, made up of many small, individual operations, might reveal an
unfocused approach to promoting the industry.
Governmental agencies have come to recognize agri-tourism destinations as potential
growth areas for the agricultural industry – particularly as an opportunity for small to mid-sized
farms to sustain profitability. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Michigan
Department of Agriculture (MDA), State of Michigan Governor’s office, Travel Michigan (the
State of Michigan’s tourism bureau), and many local tourism organizations have increased focus
on promotion of agri-tourism in recent years. Travel Michigan launched its first television
advertisements spotlighting Michigan’s harvest season. (The advertisement showed images of a
country store, a corn maze, fresh Michigan apples, and wine grapes.) “Buy local” campaigns,
and local food movements spearheaded by various non-profit grassroots organizations, Michigan
State University Extension, and the aforementioned governmental agencies have added to the
growing awareness of, and interest in agri-tourism. Farmland preservation agencies have also
begun to recognize agri-tourism’s potential for addressing land use issues by adding to the
financial sustainability of farms.
Justification and Contribution
This project seeks to better understand consumers’ values related to agri-tourism
experiences and how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging
in agri-tourism experiences. Academic literature supports the need to explore consumers’ values
(and associated emotions) as they relate to place and tourism marketing, and the marketing of
experiences. This project builds upon past academic research in the areas of tourism, marketing,
product and services branding, and other areas.
6
This work will lay the foundation for additional research in the areas of agri-tourism,
marketing, branding, communications, and other fields. The values identified in this study may
provide a common ground for communicating about agri-tourism experiences by both academics
and practitioners.
To consumers, brands are nationally known companies or products such as Kellogg’s
Corn Flakes, Campbell’s Tomato Soup or Ford Explorer. Some understand the difference
between corporate and product brands, but many don’t understand people as brands (e.g. Elvis
Presley) or ideas as brands (e.g. clean coal, or Right to Life). This means that to study how agri-
tourism consumers organize their brand knowledge you have to talk about products and
experiences and elicit conversation so that you can see what brand symbols occur in their
language. It is also important to understand at what level this brand symbol usage occurs, e.g.,
specific products, specific farms, or specific ideas (such as local produce or organic produce).
Agri-tourism entrepreneurs may benefit from this project as it may contribute to a better
understanding of consumers’ hierarchical organization of agri-tourism brands, as well as the core
reasons (values) involved in consumers participating in agri-tourism experiences. An
understanding of the levels where consumers organize their brand symbols can assist both
academics and industry members determine where branding for individual farms, farm
organizations, or states can differentiate their agricultural products.
Brand-related references made by consumers in this project may disclose how effective
previous promotional efforts have been. In addition, these references may disclose at what levels
farmers, marketers, and vintners are able to differentiate their products.
7
Definition of Terms
Agri-Tourism – Agricultural tourism incorporates visits to farms for the purposes of on-
site retail purchases, enjoyment, and education. This includes wineries, community farmers’
markets, and on-farm markets (Veeck, G., Che, Veeck, A., 2006).
Winery – A business producing and selling wine, related goods, attractions, and
entertainment to consumers.
Community farmers’ markets – A community-based marketplace where multiple sellers
gather to offer farm products, related goods, and often attractions and entertainment to
consumers.
On-farm markets – A market on-site at the farm where usually a single seller offers farm
products, related goods, and often attractions and entertainment to consumers.
Brand – A brand is a symbol that evokes an emotional connection between a consumer
and an object. This object can be a person, a place, an idea, a product, a product category, or an
experience.
Project Limitations
As with any research project, this endeavor is subject to certain limitations, particularly
stemming from the fact that emotions are extremely difficult to analyze and measure.
One limitation is the conscious/unconscious nature of brand knowledge in consumers.
Consumers have a less sophisticated understanding of what brands have come to mean for social
scientists, and therefore it may be difficult to establish clarity in consumers’ ideas related to
brands.
8
A related limitation is the lack of control over prior marketing efforts and their impact on
consumers, such as the intensive campaigns for buying locally in the Grand Traverse Region
sponsored by the Michigan Land Use Institute and many others. In addition, there appears to be
confusion over terms such as “organic” and “sustainable agriculture” among consumer
respondents involved in this project.
This study represents a “snapshot” in time. Consumers, market conditions, economics,
product offerings, and destinations change over time, and further research will be needed as the
understanding of brand communications and the agri-tourism industry evolves, and as trends
change.
As an exploratory project, the results are not meant to be generalized. The validity of the
project comes from the representation of the study’s participants as consumers of Michigan agri-
tourism products and experiences. A key strength of this project is that it provides a more
detailed foundation for later quantitative research. It also provides more depth for understanding
consumer motivations and decisions.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Scope of Agri-Tourism
Agricultural tourism incorporates visits to farms for the purposes of on-site retail
purchases, enjoyment, and education. This business model, long popular in the European Union,
is gaining popularity throughout the United States, including growth in Michigan (Veeck, G. et
al., 2006). Stagnant grain prices, rising farm costs, and growing international competition are
drivers. For rural areas the potential of agri-tourism to generate new sources of income through
sales and tourism linkages has built interest.
Increased tourism can provide a variety of economic benefits – both direct and in
secondary nature (Richardson, 1991). Tourism brings “new” money into communities and
contributes to the state and local tax bases. There are also social advantages as tourism requires
that community residents share their place and interact with outsiders. Social advantages include
cultural exchanges between hosts and the visitors, and the bringing of new ideas for
improvement to communities.
There has been increasing interest among farmers and economic development agencies to
use tourism as a vehicle for generating business and additional revenues for rural (agricultural)
regions, and farming areas have much to gain from more active development of tourism products
and related marketing activities (Williams, P., 2001). In many cases, farmers had little
awareness of destination marketing or the positioning strategies needed to draw visitors to their
farms. In the wine industry, production processes (growing, picking, crushing, storing, and
10
bottling) have given way to more focus on experiential dimensions related to leisurely,
recreational, and tourism pursuits (e.g. wine tasting, cooking classes, and boutique shopping).
Economies have evolved from the delivery of commodities to the delivery of goods, from
the delivery of goods to the delivery of services, and now are in the process of evolving to the
delivery of experiences (Petkus, 2004). This is evident when considering the growth of direct
selling of agricultural products to consumers (on the farm and through community farmers’
markets).
Agri-tourism, farm marketing, and food destinations provide the delivery of experiential
market offerings, which involves engaging customers in a memorable way. These experiences
have been of interest to researchers, as evidenced by the academic literature found in many
disciplines of study.
Consumer Experiences
In the landmark popular book, The Experience Economy, authors Pine and Gilmore
(1999), cited U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics showing that employment growth and growth of
gross domestic product had increased at a faster rate for experiential offerings than for
commodities, goods, and services.
Consumer tourism experience provides participants with experiences regarding a product,
its operation, production process, history, and historical significance and brand bonding may
contribute to higher levels of personal product involvement and brand loyalty (Mitchell &
Orwig, 2002). These experiences provide strong opportunities related to relationship marketing,
particularly as consumers increase their knowledge of both familiar and not-so-familiar brands.
11
This heightened level of product knowledge may contribute to a heightened level of personal
product involvement and may help establish closer bonds.
Involvement theory suggests that consumers who have witnessed a product’s production
may become more brand loyal (Mitchell & Orwig, 2002). This is due to participating
consumers’ “identification with the product, their familiarity with the production process, their
firsthand interaction with employees, first-hand witness to their quality assurance processes, and
other internal needs.” Such participation in consumer tourism experiences may increase the
buyer’s cognitive involvement with the brand. This involvement addresses the buyer’s need for
experiential learning. In addition, the “aura of the manufacturing process” and history of the
brand may become linked in consumers’ minds as part of a brand’s image. Consumer tourism
participants may become credible spokespersons for the brand as word-of-mouth ambassadors
who share experiences. Therefore, consumer tourism experiences can become a key component
of integrated marketing communications programs for brands.
Experiential Marketing
Experiential marketing is a relatively new marketing orientation and provides a contrast
to traditional marketing (Hudson & Ritchie, 2009). Some tourism destinations have the physical
attributes of their destination and have developed “a clear, unique positioning by branding the
destination experience.” Experiential marketing involves “creating an emotive connection to
bring brands to life.” Destination marketers are increasing their focus on the tourist experience
and creating marketing messages based on these experiences to appeal to emotions of potential
travelers. Research focusing on agri-tourism, which has a strong experiential component, allows
12
for an excellent opportunity to uncover issues related to experiential marketing and related brand
issues.
Tourism Experiences
In his book, “Flow: The Psychology of the Optimal Experience,” Csikszentmihalyi
(1990) described “optimal experience” where experiences provide a sense of exhilaration and a
deep sense of enjoyment. Such an experience becomes “landmark in memory for what life
should be like.” Csikszentmihalyi’s writings about “the experience” have applied to discussions
in the study of leisure (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009).
In considering ordinary versus extraordinary experiences, it has been determined that
there are two kinds of “an experience” – including those unplanned or with little preparation, and
experiences that are planned, looked forward to and “where the parts are precast and each role
has its set of lines” (Abrahams, 1986).
Experiences are multifaceted and people have different experiences even if they are doing
the same thing in the same place, and there is social meaning embedded in the activities (O’Dell,
2005).
Understanding these meanings embedded in experiential activities are important to
successful experiential marketing.
Experiential Marketing (Marketing an Experience)
Experiential marketing means that the consumer is not just interested in purely functional
benefits, but in “the consumption of a total experience” (Leighton, 2007).
13
Experiential marketing focuses on “consumers as emotional beings” who engage in
achieving pleasurable experiences, and there are few examples of tourism organizations using
experiential marketing (Williams, A., 2006).
The essence of tourism experience can be truly insightful and rewarding, and this
includes “the serendipitous moment’…. self-discovery and …. goes beyond “being a tourist”
(Hom Cary, 2004). This is similar to Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “Flow.”
Experiential marketing is the point of engagement between a brand and its consumer as
experiences engage consumers’ senses, sight, sound, touch, and feelings in an unforgettable way
(Schmitt, 1999). If executed correctly this can produce short term behavior change and create
emotional connections.
A tourism destination brand is a name, symbol, logo, word mark, or other graphic that
both identifies and differentiates the destination; furthermore, it conveys the promise of a
memorable travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination. It also serves to
consolidate and reinforce the recollection of pleasurable memories of the destination experience
(Ritchie, J.R.B. & Ritchie, R.J.B., 1998).
There are various dominant components of tourism experiences such as amusement,
emotions, and learning (Aho, 2001). There are four “essential core elements of the touristic
experience”: emotional experiences, learning, practical experiences, and transformational
experiences. Tourism experiences may be individual or collective events.
“Experience branding” serves to “consolidate and reinforce the emotional connection
between the visitor and the destination” – thus leading to a “unique selling proposition and a
corresponding increase in tourist spending” (Blain & Levy, 2005).
14
Experiential marketing is about “taking the essence of a product and amplifying it into a
set of tangible, physical, interactive experiences that reinforce the offer” (Williams, A., 2006).
There are opportunities to identify the essence of agri-tourism by better understanding consumer
experiences through a focused research effort specific to this specialized segment of tourism.
Research Opportunities – Understanding Consumer Experiences in Agri-Tourism
Traditional service quality measurements of customer satisfaction (in research on hotel
destination consumers) are “insufficient in evaluating the satisfaction of the new tourists with
consumed services” and it is important to consider “feelings experienced by consumers” and “the
importance of assessing emotions” (Brunner-Sperdin & Peters, 2009).
“The experience value of tourism products is a dominant factor influencing consumers’
motivation to buy a service” (Brunner-Sperdin & Peters, 2009). “High emotionality of services
and products” should be the goal when designing memorable experiences for customers.
A review of traditional quality management-oriented models designed to measure service
performance and satisfaction showed that the models emphasized functional and technical
aspects of the service delivery – where consumers were typically asked what they know about a
service. Rarely were they asked how they ‘feel’ at the service encounter (Brunner-Sperdin &
Peters, 2009). Past models and studies did not focus on assessing emotional aspects of consumer
interactions with tourism/hospitality destinations.
Only a small number of studies related to consumers’ emotions have been carried out in
the tourism and hospitality industry, and in traditional service quality research emotional aspects
are largely excluded (Brunner-Sperdin & Peters, 2009). Investigation of emotions is somewhat
new in the field of economics, and just beginning in tourism research. There is the question of
15
whether a study for the measurement of experience quality can be accomplished solely by means
of questionnaires. The use of face-to-face interviews should be considered when seeking to
understand experiences because experiences are emotional events of a person which are difficult
to uncover and record through quantitative research methods.
“The stages of branding, marketing, and managing the delivery of experiences have been
occurring in various degrees for some time now in a relatively ‘unmanaged’ manner” (Ritchie &
Hudson, 2009). It is important to bring order to experience by placing “individual things as
belonging to a category” (Polkinghorne, 1995). Past research has included attempts to define
and understand “the essence” of “the tourism experience” (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009).
A new perspective on the importance of experience in consumer behavior came with the
focus to move from the “world of products” to the “world of experience” – where consumer
behavior goes beyond information processing to being experiential (Holbrook, Chestnut, Oliva,
& Greenleaf, 1984). Previous research tended to ignore the “playful nature of leisure activities
and the importance of sensory pleasures, daydreams, aesthetic enjoyment, and emotional
responses,” while “fantasies and feelings” and “experiential view” need to be considered in
consumer behavior research (Holbrook et al., 1984).
In researching leisure and tourism, focusing on experience rather than the product is
important, and the conventional approach to measuring tourist satisfaction through quantitative
studies of the performance of discrete attributes of the vacation should be questioned (Arnould &
Price, 1993).
In researching the emotional components of experiential consumption, “the actual unit of
analysis is the individual consumption experience, not the respondent” (Havlena & Holbrook,
1986).There has been lack of innovation in tourism research methods (Small, 1999).
16
Reviewing the evolution of the travel/tourism experience, indicates that “there appears to
be a foggy, but still discernable, evolution of research”, and that there appears to be an amount of
research that remains “undone” (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009). The most demanding is to “truly
understand” the essence of the tourism experience. A true understanding of experiences can be
elusive and qualitative methods have found particular favor with experience researchers. In
order to probe deeper into the way respondents interpret their experiences, a number of
techniques can be used.
In comparing the meanings behind visitors’ experiences using three methodological
approaches – diary, open-ended mail-back survey, and in-depth interviews – only the in-depth
interview was able to unearth a “spiritual connection” to the vacation experience (Nickerson,
Kerstetter, Bricker, & Andereck, 2004).
In-depth interviews uncovered characteristics of the leisure experience: social bonding,
communion with nature, physical stimulation, intellectual cultivation, creative expression,
introspection, relaxation, fun, and enjoyment (Lee, McGoldrick, Keeling, & Doherty, 2003).
Focus groups and individual in-depth interviews provide data that allow individuals in
their own words to use their own categorizations and perceived associations (O'Loughlin,
Szmigin, & Turnbull, 2004). In-depth interviews are proposed as one of the best methods to
study decision making, as the method offers the advantages of length and completeness as well
as the ability to probe deeply for complex answers. The focus group method allows the
researcher to access large and rich amounts of data that might not be uncovered in in-depth
interviews. Deeper levels of understanding, connections, subtle nuances in expression, and
meaning may be obtained.
17
Experience research must recognize memories as the raw data, and that the subject and
object of the research should become one. The researcher and researched are “co-researchers” –
where the combined cooperative method offers more opportunity for depth of understanding
(Small, 1999).
Determining Values – Means-End Chain Theory and Laddering Interviews
Means-End Chain Theory
The means-end chain (MEC) model explains how a product or service choice satisfies
consumers’ desired end states (Gutman, 1982).
The means-end chain technique allows the identifying of linkages between product
characteristics and consumer personality traits (Barrena & Sanchez, 2009). “The means-end
chain is a cognitive structure linking consumers’ knowledge of the attributes of a product to their
perception of the consequences and terminal values they personally derive from consuming it, in
the form of a hierarchically ordered chain of related factors.” The MEC theory has many
similarities with expectancy-value theory (Rosenberg, 1956). In both theories, consumer actions
related to specific products or service attributes lead to consequences.
MEC theory was introduced in consumer research because it explains that it is not the
product, rather it is the consequences of specific product attributes that determine consumers’
preferences, and the probing process (through laddering interviews) continues until the personal
values of the respondent are known (Zaman, 2008). Laddering interviews work to discover and
explain personal values that are not initially obvious in people’s actions.
MEC theory is linked to product positioning strategies (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
Consumers seek out products which contain attributes which work to achieve their desired
18
consequences, and through means-end theory “specifies the rationale underlying why
consequences are important, namely, personal values.” Through laddering the researcher
uncovers how consumers translate product attributes into “meaningful associations with respect
to self.” This provides a motivational perspective – and the underlying reasons – why an
attribute or a consequence is important to the consumer. The specific reason for laddering
interviews is to bring forth consumers’ attribute-consequence-value associations as they are
related to a product or service class. Through the laddering process a summary table is
constructed. The table represents the number of connections between the elements uncovered in
the laddering process. This serves as the basis for a hierarchical value map (HVM), which is the
visual display of how the attributes, consequences, and values are linked. The HVM serves to
summarize “dominant perceptual orientations” or “ways of thinking” by all consumers with
respect to the product or service category. The HVM can function as a foundation for
segmenting consumers based upon values orientations for product class or brand(s), and as the
core for advertising strategies.
Laddering Interviews
Laddering is the one-on-one, semi-structured in-depth interviewing technique in which
respondents describe freely why something is important to them and researchers try to find
linkages between the key perceptual elements across the range of attributes, consequences, and
desired end-states (Reynolds & Gutman, 1985). Laddering investigates personal values using
models of the MEC theory – and draws out hierarchical constructs. The laddering technique is
exploratory in its approach, rather than experimental.
19
The laddering technique has its roots in clinical psychology and can be traced to personal
construct theory, which outlines that individuals create hierarchically organized templates of
their world (Kelly, 1955). The preferences identified in these templates become the foundation
for choices. Kelly explored personalities through interviewing, seeking to draw out information
about a specific element (a situation, a person, an object, an event, or other).
Hinkle added to Kelly’s theory by developing a technique to bring out “constructs at
higher levels of abstraction by analyzing the implications of a change in one construct on the rest
of the hierarchical system” (Hinkle, 1965). Hinkle’s technique was explored in more depth, and
named “laddering”, by Bannister and Mair (Bannister & Mair, 1968). As an adaption of
Hinkle’s laddering method, the means-end chain model allows for theoretical structure to help
uncover individuals’ values in a systematic and hierarchical order.
It is the laddering interview technique – as it is based on the means-end chain theory
model – that associates means (physical aspects of products) with ends (consumer values) and
allows for branding implications (Trocchia, Swanson, & Orlitzky, 2007). As an example, the
physical aspects of the product, a four-wheel drive vehicle, is the “means” – and the potential for
an exciting life is the “end” – the consumer value. “Empirical evidence shows that deeper
understanding of values can affect an individual’s decision making and behavior in a wide
variety of areas pertinent to commerce.” The laddering methodology has its origins in
Psychology where it was used to uncover key elements that are not obvious or fully surfaced
(Wansink, 2000). Through the laddering process the dominant values driving a respondent’s
product choice are expressed (Gutman, 1988).
The laddering interview involves closely related questions to determine product
attributes, consequences, and personal values (Wansink, 2003). The objective of using laddering
20
interviews is to show how these linkages are related through creating a “mental map” of the
consumer’s view of the product. Combining maps of similar consumers allows for a larger,
more exhaustive map to be developed.
The “ladder” refers to the important factors across three connected levels – from top to
bottom: a) attributes or features of some entity, b) consequences or benefits associated with
choosing that entity, and c) personally held values or beliefs underlying the choice (Trocchia et
al., 2007).
Laddering identifies “core attributes and values that drive product users” and the
technique uncovers why consumers really do buy products, by getting past the common
responses to the question of why a person buys – such as “quality” or “low price” (Wansink,
2000). The common answers “do not begin to describe the deep underlying psychological and
emotional reasons that influence people’s buying decisions.” Laddering is the tool of choice to
examine the “in-depth underlying motivators” influencing consumers’ purchase decisions
because it allows researchers to “get to the heart of the reasons that people purchase what they
do.” The goal is to “find the root reasons for the customer’s purchase” and to “get past the
superficial and down to what is really important.” This process helps understand a brand’s
equity.
Laddering addresses the important question of evaluation of a product or brand, as the
technique offers “more in-depth profiling of the consumer and his or her relationship to
products” which presents potential to both understanding the “cognitive” positioning of current
products among consumers, and allows for development of new product positioning strategies
(Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). The method grants a “unique opportunity to understand the
product class in the consumer’s own context.”
21
Applying personal values perspective to the marketing of consumer products is grounded
in two theoretical perspectives: “macro” – representing sociology; and “micro” – representing
psychology (Reynolds & Gutman, 1985). The macro approach refers to standard survey research
methodology where a “classification scheme is used to categorize respondents into
predetermined clusters or groups” and followed by product positioning strategies target these
general groups. While these general classifications may be “strong on face validity,” they do not
present “an understanding, specifically, of how the concrete aspects of the product fit into the
consumer’s life.” The macro approaches do not identify “key defining components of a
positioning strategy” and they miss the linkages between the product and the “personally
relevant role it has in the life of the consumer.” In addition, “it is advantageous to allow
respondents to use their own frame of reference when providing their evaluations of a brand
rather than some researcher-supplied attributes that may not be the subject’s own.” The “micro”
approach – specifically that based upon means-end theory – centers on the linkages between
product attributes (the “means”), the consequences for the consumer provided by the attributes,
and the personal values (the “ends”) that are reinforced by the consequences.
The qualitative, in-depth information gathered through laddering brings an understanding
of “consumers’ underlying personal motivations with respect to a given product class” and
laddering offers unique tracks from a product attribute to a value (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
This “represents a possible perceptual orientation with respect to viewing the product category.”
There exists the opportunity to differentiate a specific brand by communicating how it is
personally relevant to the consumer, as it delivers higher level consequences.
The opportunity to differentiate a specific brand comes by creating “image positioning”,
not by focusing on a product attribute (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). The results uncovered by
22
laddering, combined with the “unique analytical procedures it allows”, offer a foundation for
“developing a product space that is truly aligned with preference”. Spatial maps may be
uncovered, and this understanding allows for the development of branding communications
strategies.
Laddering is useful in uncovering insights related to “the source and the nature of” a
brand’s equity, and why consumers buy what they buy (Wansink, 2003). Through the process, a
meaningful “mental map” can be developed that visually links a brand’s attributes, the benefits
or consequences of using it, and the personal values it satisfies.
When seeking to analyze brand equity, most methods “focus on concrete product
knowledge and not on how such attributes relate to important values for that consumer,” and
“many methods used to gauge a brand’s equity fail to tap into the deeper reasons why a person
attributes such equity to the brand” (Wansink, 2000). Through laddering a researcher can
discover the “root reasons” why the consumer purchased a product, and, in contrast to surveys,
laddering assesses deeper reasons why individual consumers buy (Wansink, 2003). Thus deep
perceptions allow “more profound, but still generalizable, insights to be uncovered.”
The laddering analysis and interpretation process steps include converting/reducing data
into select phrases/elements, content analysis of these phrases/elements, building a summary of
relations in content codes, developing an implication matrix of the paired relationships, and
development of the HVM to meaningfully represent the main implications of the study (Gengler
& Reynolds, 1995).
A consumer utilizes “association networks or ladders” to decide where to shop, and
uncovering these (through laddering) helps better understand the consumer’s motivational
perspective (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
23
It is important to use research techniques to investigate the key factors that are essentially
socially constructed based on human beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions (Hirschman, 1986).
Focus groups and surveys – methods used to better understand brand equity – have met
with disappointing results, and there appears to be a need for more qualitative research to
identify consumer values, though there has been a resistance to adopting and acknowledging
qualitative research techniques (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
There is the “over-quantification” of research methods to deal with (corporate brand
research) marketing topics concerning consumers beliefs, perceptions, and values (Schoenfelder
& Harris, 2004). There has been criticism among academic and mainstream researchers related
to the “over-quantification” of marketing research methods (Zaltman, 1997; Talmage, 1998;
Heath, 1999).
Defining a brand’s equity is difficult for researchers, and that equity is a consumer-
specific concept that differs from consumer to consumer (Aaker, 2007). An understanding of the
essence of the agri-tourism brand among consumers is needed to best implement any brand
marketing efforts.
Brand Marketing
Brands are the “flags of marketing”, staking out territory and informing the world that
brands are the “atomic core” of capitalism, where consumers are attracted in search of benefits
that will make their lives more pleasant (Upshaw, 1995). In addition, a company has eight
alternative positioning tools that are used to position brands: feature-driven prompts,
problem/solution prompts, target-driven positioning, competition-driven positioning,
24
emotional/psychological positioning, benefit-driven positioning, aspirational positioning, and
value positioning.
A brand and what it represents are the most important assets for many companies, and set
its products or services apart from the rest – for competitive advantage and profits (O'Loughlin et
al., 2004). A brand’s success is determined by the long-term relationships built and sustained
which add to its overall value.
In addition to a name, symbols, and functionality, a brand must offer consumers a reason
why they should care, and must provide meaning to consumers (Keller, 2003). This meaning
includes what the brand can do for the consumer and how it is different from other brand name
products. A brand is something that resides in the minds of consumers, as well as “a perceptual
entity, rooted in reality, but also reflecting the perceptions and perhaps even the idiosyncrasies of
consumers.” It is not just “who” a product is, but also “what” a product is and “why” consumers
should care. Consumers develop personal meanings about a brand. This includes consumers not
only having awareness, but attaching meaning to attributes, benefits, and images, and having
thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences that are linked to a brand by the consumer. While
these differences are related to the product attributes and benefits, in some cases “brand
differences may be related to more intangible image considerations.” Associations make up the
meaning of a brand for the consumer. While the image of a given brand can differ among
individuals, some brand associations may be shared by a majority of consumers. Meaningful
associations give deeper meaning for consumers, but knowledge of these associations is valuable
for marketing strategists.
A brand image exists in the minds of consumers (Sjodin & Törn, 2006). Brand image
extends from how people perceive and interpret the brand and the marketing activities
25
surrounding it. Brand image goes beyond the product itself. In addition, brand associations such
as attributes, beliefs, attitudes, or experiences connect a brand name in memory.
Successful brands “move beyond attributes to a brand identity based upon a brand
personality and a relationship with customers” (Aaker, 2007).
Brand managers seek to address consumer needs at three levels: 1) functional (providing
solutions to consumer problems), 2) symbolic (providing satisfaction of psychological desires),
and 3) experiential (providing sensory pleasure, variety, and cognitive stimulation) (Park,
Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986).
Brand essence is the core of the brand identity and can be represented in single words
(Upshaw, 1995).
There appears to be the need to better understand of the typologies of brands in agri-
tourism is needed. This includes the need to understand of how consumers “rank” brands as they
are encountered through agri-tourism experiences. Such understandings will help both
academics as they consider future research efforts and practitioners as work to better promote
agri-tourism.
Brand Typologies
A brand is a symbol that evokes an emotional connection between a consumer and an
object. This object can be a person, a place, an idea, a product, a product category, or an
experience.
Keller (2003) outlined brand typologies – the hierarchy of brands. An understanding of
typologies allows a marketer to identify which are the stronger or weaker brands in a given
product category. Brand hierarchies have been used to describe the level at which the brand
26
symbol originates. For example, it could be a brand in a specific store (Whole Foods), a product
line (Eden Foods Organics), a product category (hard cider), or an industry (the produce
industry). There is little to no evidence as to whether agri-tourism consumers are aware of local
brands, national brands, etc. Such an understanding is lacking in agri-tourism, though there are
many brands. Related, there is uncertainty as to how consumers hierarchically organize the
brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. Knowing how consumers organize
brand symbols can be important because it might describe where promotional efforts should be
expended: on the farm, in regional tourism efforts, or at the state level, such as the “Pure
Michigan” campaign.
Consumer goods are branded. These include brands of types of physical goods.
Examples from agri-tourism include both fresh and processed products such as farm-fresh fruit,
apple cider, hard cider, wine, numerous baked goods, and a variety of packaged goods such as
jams and jellies. An example is Uncle John’s Farmhouse Hard Cider. The ingredients may also
be considered a brand – such as the Michigan cherries used in pies. These ingredients may
impact the strength of the brand utilizing them (e.g., Michigan cherries in Grand Traverse Pie
Company products).
A commodity is a product so basic that it cannot be physically differentiated in the minds
of consumers. Yet commodities can be branded. Agri-tourism marketers have the opportunity to
turn agricultural commodities into branded products through identifying and promoting them as
farm brands (such as Uncle John’s peaches), as state-branded products (such as Michigan
peaches), or as varietal brands (such as Red Haven peaches). Former commodities can become
brands because consumers may be persuaded that there are meaningful differences in the
branded products that set them apart from other offerings in the category.
27
The level of sophistication in branding services and retailers has accelerated in recent
years. Agri-tourism retailers can offer services such as custom packaging of wines, and other
packaged goods. Agri-tourism retailers/destinations themselves can also be brands. Brands
carried by a retailer can build the consumer interest and loyalty for a retailer, e.g., a specific
varietal brand of sweet corn, sold exclusively through an on-farm market. In this scenario,
consumers come to expect certain brands from a retail site – such as Northern Spy apples
available at only on-farm markets or community farmers markets (as the seasonal and hard to
store variety is rarely found in retail grocery stores). Stores themselves can have store brands (or
private label brands), an example being Robinette’s Apple Haus & Winery’s Barzilla’s Brew
hard cider. In each case, brands help create retailers’ brand images by attaching unique
associations to the retailers’ services, product offerings, pricing, etc.
People may also be branded. This takes place in agri-tourism. Fruit grower Herb
Teichman of Tree-Mendus Fruit is a regular guest on Chicago radio stations and has a strong
following among Chicago consumers. Richard Koziski of the historic Dexter Cider Mill has
fresh cider purists traveling miles to stand in line when he is pressing cider. Jim Koan of Al-Mar
Orchards has a stellar reputation as the largest and best organic apple producer in the Midwest.
Each can be considered “people” brands as they compete for public attention, approval and
acceptance while projecting a meaningful image.
Geographic locations can be branded. The concept of place marketing is an outcome of
tourism industry growth. Place brands include countries, states, regions, cities, and other
locations – all making consumers aware of the respective location and linking desirable
associations. In the case of agri-tourism there are many levels of place branding. This includes
the actual agri-tourism destination itself as the place – for example a winery (e.g., Blackstar
28
Farms), a community farmers’ market (e.g., the Ann Arbor Farmers’ Market), or an on-farm
market (e.g., Erwin Orchards and Cider Mill). Another level of geographic location is a specific
region, such as the Leelanau Peninsula, or West Michigan’s Fruit Ridge (a unique fruit growing
area north of Grand Rapids). State location has a distinct place in the discussion of agri-tourism.
The State of Michigan’s “Select Michigan” and “Pure Michigan” campaigns promote state
destinations and brands, and have encouraged consumers to visit Michigan agri-tourism
destinations.
A strong brand can evoke significant and powerful feelings and emotions, according to
Keller. These are “experience goods”, and the quality of these brands is not judged by
inspection, rather through experiencing them, through third party critical reviews, or word-of-
mouth reviews. Examples of experience goods from the agri-tourism industry include winery
tours, demonstrations such as cider making, u-pick, and more.
There appears to be little clarity on where the brands appear among consumers and at
what level brands have most strength and impact among consumers of Michigan agri-tourism.
Though the main focus of this project is to discover consumer values as they engage in agri-
tourism, there is also an effort to understand how brands are hierarchically organized among
these consumers. It is important to recognize that brands are experiential at their core.
Experiencing a Brand
A brand is built at all points of contact with the customer and can be defined as the
collection of the consumers’ experiences with the brand (Kapferer, 2004).
The brand experience needs to fit into customers’ lives, and the position of the brand in
consumers’ lives goes beyond the time and place where it is made available (Cleaver, 2006). It
29
may include “mood or emotion” involved as a consumer engages in the brand experience. The
way a brand is established in customers’ minds should deliver a particular feeling (emotion) or
experience to customers before and after they have chosen a product.
Tourist destination brand image is a major influencing factor in traveler destination
choice, and destination experience is important in the brand image formation process (Hanlan &
Kelly, 2005).
As perceptual entities, brands are said to appeal to the consumer’s senses, reasons, and
emotions, and “place branding” has received considerable attention over the past two decades in
both the marketing press and the academic literature (Hankinson, 2004). However, classical
branding theory, with its roots in product marketing, is still in its infancy in the application of
branding to the more specialized areas such as place branding, and no general theoretical
framework exists to underpin the development of place brands apart from classical, product-
based branding theory.
The key to uncovering such a theoretical framework is through an understanding of the
emotional connections consumers have with agri-tourism (place) brands.
Brands and Emotional Connections
Tourists mainly consume services to stimulate emotions (Russell & Pratt, 1980; Otto &
Ritchie, 1996).
Customer relationships (as human relationships) are emotional constructs – more than
retention and repeat buying (Barnes, 2003). While it is possible for customers to demonstrate
repeated patronage, and for brands to have a high level of customer retention without a
“genuine” relationship existing, what is needed for a true customer relationship to exist is an
30
emotional attachment or connection. The strength of the customer relationship depends on the
relative contribution of emotional and functional value created by the company or brand in the
mind of the customer. This includes the company or brand being viewed by the customer as a
partner. Emotional loyalty and more lasting relationships stem from shared history, values,
goals, interests, beliefs, sense of commitment, reliance, social support, intimacy, interest, respect,
trust, etc. Such loyalty – deep in emotional value – will allow brands to stand up to competition
from more convenient and efficient competitors.
A consumer does not buy or use a good or a service, or engage in some activity, based
upon attributes, rather the reason for purchase is the consequences or subsequent personal values
satisfied through the purchase and use of the good or service (Botschen, Thelen, & Pieters,
1999).
Brand identity originates from a differentiated product with unique features, while brand
image refers to consumer perceptions and encompasses consumer beliefs about the brand
(Chrzan, 2006). Both brand identity and brand image are related but distinct concepts, and both
are essential ingredients for strong brands. Brand loyalty is built through ensuring that there is
congruence between both brand identity and brand image. Consumers form an image of the
brand based on the associations that they have remembered with respect to that brand. However,
brand attitudes are consumers’ overall evaluations of a brand, including emotions and feelings.
An important factor in determining a brand’s equity stems from a person’s emotional
associations with the brand (Keller, 2003).
Emotional marketing may have a positive impact on brand equity (Orth, Wolf, & Dodd,
2005). Successful brands look beyond building “transactional loyalty” and seek to develop
“emotional loyalty” (Gonzales, 2002). Consumers’ personality dimensions are connected to the
31
personality of their most preferred brand and that concept of self-congruity leads to consumers
choosing “situations and companions that reaffirm their self-schema” (Phau & Lau, 2002).
Strengthening the links between brand identity and brand image will “enhance long-term
interaction between a brand and the customer” (Chrzan, 2006). This loyalty can be built, in part,
through interpretive communication. The interpretive communication model focuses on the
receiver rather than the source. Because consumers view brands in symbolic and emotional
terms, trust in and satisfaction with a brand must be built. Because the interpretive
communication model focuses on the consumer, it is suggested that brand communications
managers and researchers must have a deeper understanding of the emotions and meanings held
by the consumers about the brands.
Wineries could work to build strong emotional connections through creating an
experience in a wine tasting room that is fun or exciting and builds customer loyalty and future
sales (Nowak, Thach, & Olsen, 2006). Wineries can focus their efforts on improving the
customer’s experience and build loyal consumers for the long term.
If a business is successful at forming a positive emotional bond with the consumer it will
have a competitive advantage (Robinette, Brand, & Lenz, 2002). This “share of heart” is where
marketers appeal to the consumer on a personal and emotional level (Day, 1989). Building share
of heart helps strengthen a winery and protects it from aggressive promotional efforts (e.g. price
reductions, etc.) by other wineries.
The result of these emotional connections can be a deep relationship between the
consumer and the brand which can lead to both positive responses to the brand and purchase
(Robertson, 2007).
32
Emotion marketing is not an advertising campaign that hits emotional “buttons” – it is a
total firm effort by employees, events, and communications to give the customer a tremendous
sense of belonging and camaraderie (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997). Positive emotion has a direct
and significant effect on customer satisfaction that then leads to purchase intention.
Customers’ emotions affect decisions (Otto & Ritchie, 1996). Environments influence
consumer emotional states and behavior (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Experience-oriented
settings strongly influence the emotional state of consumers of leisure activities (Wakefield &
Blodgett, 1994).
The retail environment brand experience involves partnerships – where the consumer has
the opportunity to interact with a product or brand and thereby form their own ideas and
emotions (Fulberg, 2003). In this retail environment there is opportunity for a brand to
communicate with a consumer on a one-to-one basis. In this setting, there is opportunity for
loyalty to be built. Partnerships between consumers and brands are established through shared
experiences.
Certain connections are associated with special events and occupy a special place in our
lives. Such feelings are often associated with companies and brands, and emotional connections
with brands can come to “mean” something special to certain customers (Barnes, 2003). The
acquisition of meaning in relationships includes companies and brands being distinguished by
the degree of emotional loyalty consumers hold. Goods, services, and locations (i.e. restaurants
and stores) can take on special meaning and relevance in some consumers’ lives.
Emotion marketing takes time and is not easy to accomplish, though the results can be
measured in loyal customers who spend more and stay with a brand longer (Robinette et al.,
33
2002). Lifelong loyalty can be created by emphasizing the emotional component of human
interactions, such as the importance of friends and family.
Brands with established functional connections in the market and with earned personal
connections with their customers can have confidence that steps taken to build their market
position will be well received, and that these strong personal connections mean customers will
respond more favorably to brand management activities such as extensions and premium pricing
(Hess & Story, 2005).
The potential for value creation and developing a differential advantage may come from
the development and communication of emotional brand values (Lynch & de Chernatony, 2004).
Brands based on emotions such as trust, reassurance, reputation, image, and responsiveness may
be more durable and less vulnerable to “competitive erosion”.
Few companies look carefully at the broad context in which customers select, buy, and
use products and services, but instead focus on fine-tuning their own offerings (Seybold, 2001).
By doing so they have failed to see how products and services fit into the real lives of their
customers. This has led companies to have routinely missed chances to expand sales and deepen
loyalty.
There is a need to conduct an inventory of product attributes to successfully understand a
brand image, though such an inventory approach “may fail to capture the emotional qualities the
brand evokes” (Johns & Gyimóthy, 2008).
Summary
A review of academic literature reinforces the need to explore consumers’ values related
to place and tourism experiences.
34
The means-end chain theory explains that it is not the product, rather the consequences of
specific product attributes that determine consumers’ preferences, and through laddering
interviews, the respondent’s personal values related to the product are known (Zaman, 2008).
Laddering interviews, as an exploratory method, investigate personal values using the
MEC theory model. The laddering interview process draws out hierarchical constructs – the
dominant values driving a respondent’s product choices.
Such an understanding of the values of winery, on-farm market, and community farmers’
market consumers can support agri-tourism product positioning opportunities for individual
entrepreneurs, and regional and statewide promotional efforts. This project will also encourage
additional research in the areas of agri-tourism, branding, communications, and other fields, as
the values uncovered in this study will provide an understanding for communicating about agri-
tourism experiences.
In turn, the use of the Grounded Theory method allows for an understanding of how
consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging in agri-tourism
experiences.
Therefore, a review of the academic literature justifies the need to seek an understanding
of the essence of consumers’ involvement in agri-tourism experiences.
35
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
The discussion of the research methods for this project includes an overview of the
conceptual framework, the research questions, the qualitative paradigm, the chosen qualitative
methods (including means-end chain theory and Grounded Theory), the researcher’s role, data
sources, data collection, data analysis, and verification.
Conceptual Framework
Parallel Tracks – Exploring Values and Brand Issues in Agri-Tourism
The conceptual framework for this project is based upon the use of means-end theory to
1) explore consumer values as they relate to agri-tourism experiences; and 2) to determine how
consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging in agri-tourism
experiences. These are parallel pursuits in this exploratory project, though the main focus is to
uncover experience-related values across three key agri-tourism experience consumer segments.
The conceptual framework map for this project is shown in Figure 1.
Through the use of laddering interviews, a tool of means-end chain theory, this project
first works to uncover the underlying values among agri-tourism consumers. The use of the
Grounded Theory approach in the analysis of the data from these laddering interviews also
allows for an understanding of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered
when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
36
Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework Map
Investigating: Attributes Consequences Values
Attribute of the agri-
tourism destination
Benefits gained by
engaging in agri-
tourism
Personal values
pursued or fulfilled
by engaging in agri-
tourism
Methodology:
Data Analysis:
Examples of
Data:
"The destination is
located in the
community"
"I get to support
my community by
shopping at the
market"
"I value helping my
local economy and
I have a strong
sense of civic pride"
"drawn in
initially by
the
product"
"for me...
it’s about
place"
"you go
there and
have the
experience"
Implications
Matrices
Hierarchical Values
Maps
Results:
Summary of how consumers
hierarchically organize brands
encountered when engaging agri-
tourism experiences
Means-End Chain Theory
Brand Related Issues
Seeking understanding of how
consumers hierarchically organize
brands encountered when engaging
agri-tourism experiences.
Laddering Interviews: Winery, On-Farm Market, & Farmers' Market Consumers
Grounded Theory Analysis: 1) Open Coding, 2) Selective Coding,
3) Formation of Categories, 4) Theory Development
37
The Need to Understand Values
As a qualitative exploratory project, the goal is not to begin with the identification of a
problem. However, the review of the academic literature supports the need for this project and
the research methods chosen. The literature outlines that there is a lack of understanding of the
essence of why consumers engage in tourism activities, and a lack of understanding of the
underlying values among agri-tourism experience consumers. In addition, there appears to be
little understanding of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences. This project provides opportunity to better understand the
essence of why consumers engage in agri-tourism experiences, and how they rank the brands
encountered in these experiences.
Literature Support
There have been limited studies related to consumers’ emotions in tourism and hospitality
industry research (Brunner-Sperdin & Peters, 2009). Related, the stages of branding, marketing,
and managing the delivery of experiences have been occurring in a rather “‘unmanaged’
manner” ( Ritchie & Hudson, 2009). Researchers have called for the need to bring order to
experience by placing “individual things as belonging to a category” (Polkinghorne, 1995). In
addition, there are various streams of theoretical thinking and empirical research, including the
“fundamental stream” which involves research that seeks to define and understand “the essence”
of “the tourism experience” (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009).
There has also been a lack of innovation in tourism research methods (Small, 1999). In
the field of leisure and tourism research, the need to focus on experiences rather than the product
is essential (Arnould & Price, 1993). And in researching the emotional components of
38
experiential consumption, “the actual unit of analysis is the individual consumption experience,
not the respondent” (Havlena & Holbrook, 1986).
There appears to be an amount of research that remains “undone” in travel and tourism
research (Ritchie & Hudson, 2009). A challenge is to capture and understand the essence of the
tourism experience, and qualitative methods have found favor among researchers seeking to
understand experiences. More specifically, this project seeks to understand the essence of the
agri-tourism experience, as past research on this specialized segment of tourism has
predominantly revolved around inventory approaches (such as looking at numbers of visitors,
numbers of products sold, and other counts).
Both means-end theory, which relies on laddering interviews, and Grounded Theory
analysis, are used to determine values and develop an understanding of how consumers
hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
While surveys help track or gauge general consumer sentiment, laddering interviews best
explore in depth the reasons why individual consumers make decisions related to product brands.
A more insightful understanding may be a result of collecting deep perceptions of the
interviewed individuals, which are still able to be generalized to better understand the marketing
opportunities for brands (Wansink, 2003).
The use of Grounded Theory analysis helps to guard against researcher bias by requiring
that a concept be relevant to an evolving theory. Regardless of the investigator’s enthusiasm for
a particular concept, it must be proven through continued scrutiny to be relevant to the
experience under question, or it must be discarded (Allan, 2003).
39
Grounded Theory analysis can be used to formulate theories based on conceptual ideas
reflected in the categories, as well as be used to “discover the participants’ main concern and
how they continually try to resolve it” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Methodology
Means-end theory calls for the use of laddering interviews as the primary tool to uncover
consumers’ values. It is the extensive probing aspect of laddering interviews that leads to the
revelation of values. The laddering interview questions used in this project were designed to
address the uncovering of the attributes, consequences, and values for each of the three segments
of agri-tourism consumers. In addition to the uncovering of values, the laddering interviews
allowed for exploration of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging in agri-tourism experiences. Grounded Theory analysis steps were utilized in this
project.
Data Collection
In this project, values of visitors across three key categories of agri-tourism experiences –
winery tours, community farmers’ market visits, and on-farm market destination visits – are
explored for similarities or differences. In addition, how consumers hierarchically organize the
brands encountered when engaging in agri-tourism experiences is explored.
A total of 36 consumers who had recently visited Northwest Michigan agri-tourism
destinations participated in laddering interviews. These included 12 winery visitors, 12
community farmers’ market visitors, and 12 on-farm market visitors.
40
The laddering interviews allowed the opportunity to secure deeper insight from these
agri-tourism consumer segments, as they allowed for experiences, opinions, attitudes, and
behaviors to be expressed by respondents in more detail and depth, and offered the opportunity
to further explore meanings, while pursuing the underlying values for consumers.
With a foundation in the field of psychology, a laddering interview has parallels to the
image of a psychologist interviewing a patient on a couch, where individuals reveal insights into
their lives that are not apparent. Just as the psychologist works to get to the root of an issue
through questioning, laddering serves a similar function, though the marketer is not searching for
the root of a psychological problem. Instead, the marketer is working through constant probing
to uncover the “root reasons” (core values) for the customer’s purchase of a particular product.
The laddering interview questions are shown in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
This project utilizes four stages of analysis of the data generated to address the research
questions related to consumers’ agri-tourism experiences: 1) open coding, 2) concept generation
through selective coding, 3) formation of categories, and 4) theory development. This analysis
was based upon the process analysis used in Grounded Theory, and following the goals of
uncovering attributes, consequences, and values, as outlined in means-end chain theory.
1) Open coding. In the open coding stage, key points gathered from the texts of
interview transcript data are collected and anchored. Initially data is coded line by line, as the
goal is to uncover which statements represented attributes, consequences, or values – or other
related themes – of the respondents as they participated in the agri-tourism experience. This
open coding represents first level conceptualization, consideration, and reflection.
41
2) Concept generation through hierarchical selective coding. The key points identified in
the open coding are then assessed and compared as coding continued at a more refined next
level. Through the use of hierarchical selective coding, similar codes are identified, then sorted
and grouped into key concepts. This use of selective coding allows for refinement of the broader
themes that are discovered in the open coding step. The concepts that emerge from the coding at
first are considered temporary, subject to further analysis as they are merged. The merged
concepts are subject to renaming and some are modified. A back and forth comparison of the
concepts takes place and helps build the strength of the data.
3) Formation of categories. The next step in analysis is the formation of categories –
which includes the identification and naming of categories, built from the groups of similar
concepts identified through selective coding. Through the process there is a comparing of
comments from the interview transcripts, and concepts are gathered and grouped into
conceptually labeled units, or categories. These conceptually labeled categories (units) become
the elements for the development of theory, as they represent the core reasons for respondents’
engagement in agri-tourism experiences. These categories are higher level and more abstract
than the concepts they represent, and not all concepts are grouped into categories.
Grounded Theory calls for continual comparisons of similarities and differences in the
categorization of the data. Making comparisons throughout the coding and grouping – from the
initial open coding through the development of categories – works to guard against bias, because
the researcher is constantly challenging concepts with fresh data. This guarding against bias
strengthens the validity of this project.
4) Theory development. Grounded Theory calls for a theoretical model to emerge
during the process of constant coding comparison (Glaser, 1998). A key deductive component of
42
Grounded Theory is when a researcher engages in theoretical sampling – selectively coding data
with theory development in mind. Drawing on the categories which emerge through the analysis
process allows the generation and creation of a new theoretical model.
According to Grounded Theory, concepts that warrant a place in theory development are
the ones repeated, sometimes in varying form as the coding moves through the open coding and
selective coding stages. Theoretical themes emerge as the researcher works to merge and unite
fragmented concepts into new theory. Theory comes from the collection of explanations about
the subject of the research. The new theory illuminates the key issues revealed by participants,
which in this project are the three key segments of agri-tourism consumers.
Means-end chain theory calls for the construction of ladders as the first step in the
development of implication matrices for all three segments of agri-tourism visitors studied in this
project: winery visitors, on-farm market visitors, and community farmers’ market visitors. This
development of ladders represents a third round of coding (and a second stage of selective
coding) in this project. Once developed, the implications matrices are used as the basis for the
development of Hierarchical Value Maps, which visually represent the attributes, consequences,
and values of importance to each of the three segments of agri-tourism consumers.
The coding in this project also leads to the emergence of brand related themes. These
themes allow for an understanding of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging in agri-tourism experiences.
Research Questions
Research questions serve as the hypothesis that states a study‘s objective, and are the
essential tools to find facts and gather information (Cooper & Schindler, 2003).
43
Through the use of laddering interviews and a web-based survey, this study explored
consumers’ experiences with Northwest Michigan agri-tourism destinations, including wineries,
community farmers’ markets, and on-farm markets in Northwest Michigan.
The purpose is to gain significant understanding of consumers’ involvement in, and
feelings toward, Michigan agri-tourism – specifically to uncover the attributes, consequences,
and values related to these experiences. The project seeks to better understand the emotional
values and meanings of the experiences to segments of agri-tourism consumers and to present
possible understanding of the hierarchy of brands related to these experiences.
The following research questions guided this study:
Research Question 1: Why do consumers visit agri-tourism destinations?
Research Question 2: What are the relationships between consumer values, brands, and
agri-tourism experiences?
Research Question 3: Are there important similarities and differences between agri-
tourism consumers at different agri-tourism venues?
Research Question 4: What role do agri-tourism brands play in consumer decision
making and consumer cognitive organization of agri-tourism experiences? For example,
do consumers anchor their values around brands or are brands incidental to the
consumer experience?
The Qualitative Paradigm
A paradigm is one’s world view, including “value judgments, norms, standards, frames of
reference, perspectives, ideologies, myths, theories, and so forth” (Gummesson, 1991). It is
within the framework of these beliefs, values, and methods within which research takes place.
Spoken or written language, rather than numbers, is the form in which qualitative data is
predominantly gathered. “Qualitative research is inquiry aimed at describing and clarifying
44
human experience as it appears in people’s lives” and by using qualitative methods, researchers
work to gather data that “serve as evidence for their distilled descriptions” (Polkinghorne, 1995).
“A qualitative study is defined as an inquiry process of understanding a social or human
problem, based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed
views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting” (Cresswell, 1994).
The qualitative paradigm is based on interpretivism (Altheide & Johnson, 1994) and
constructivism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), where there are multiple truths. These truths are based
on one’s construction of reality, within social contexts and which is continually being modified
(Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In the qualitative paradigm, the efforts of the researcher and the
object of study are connected and collaborative in nature, with results created together (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). The qualitative paradigm calls for purposeful, small samples of respondents who
are encouraged through the research activities to be articulate in their expression of the
information they provide (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002).
In contrast, the quantitative paradigm is based on positivism. The quantitative paradigm
promotes that facts can be reduced to empirical indicators which represent the truth. This pursuit
of the truth exists isolated from human perception, and the investigator and investigated are
independent entities. Therefore, in contrast to the qualitative process – where the researcher is
an active participant in the process – a quantitative researcher investigates a phenomenon
without influencing it or being influenced by it (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
A key strength of qualitative research methods is the ability to “focus on dynamic
processes with the aim of explaining, rather than predicting, phenomena” (Leavy, 1994). Thus,
qualitative research is “centrally concerned with the understanding of things rather than
measuring them” (Gordon & Langmaid, 1988).
45
Qualitative Methods
Means-End Chain Theory
Means-end chain theory is a technique for theory building based on analysis of the
resulting mean-end hierarchy (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994). Like Grounded Theory, it is an
approach which facilitates the development of theory through a systematic methodology
emphasizing the generation of theory from the data generated and coded in the process of
conducting research.
Means-end chain theory considers consumers as goal-oriented decision-makers, who
choose to perform behaviors that seem most likely to lead to desired outcomes. It is the means-
end chain theory approach that is utilized in this study to address the research questions related to
consumers’ values with agri-tourism experiences and brands.
A key assumption of means-end chain theory is that in this goal-oriented framework
consumers buy and use products depending on their evaluation of the self-relevant consequences
of doing so. Means-end chain theory outlines that consumers have links from a product’s
attributes to consequences of using or purchasing the product, to “the self-relevance of the
consequences based on individually held values” – or, that consumers “infer their valuation from
the products’ attributes” (Costa, Dekker, & Jongen, 2004). It is the attributes, consequences,
values, and the links consumers establish between them, that constitute the essence of the means-
end chain theory.
The classic means-end chain approach is to acquire, through qualitative research
methods, an understanding of consumers’ consumption motives in particular circumstances.
This allows a better understanding of consumers’ decision-making processes.
46
The laddering interview method used in means-end chain theory to uncover consumers’
motivations, is the primary method used in this study. Laddering interviews are face-to-face,
individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted to uncover consumers’ attribute-
consequence-value associations (Grunert, K.G. & Grunert, S.C., 1995).
Grounded Theory Method
Grounded Theory is a research method of discovery where the data collection and
analysis are interrelated processes; therefore, the analysis begins as soon as data are collected
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This initial and ongoing analysis is necessary because it enables the
researcher to direct the next interview and observations. While the goals of data collection are
standardized (with interview questions stemming from the research questions) in Grounded
Theory, the researcher starts with data collection rather than beginning with the development of a
hypothesis. This offers an alternative to the traditional model of research, where a theoretical
framework is chosen by a researcher, and then it is applied to the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Grounded Theory includes the opportunity for looking systematically at qualitative data (such as
transcripts of interviews) with the goal of the generation of theory.
By starting with data collection rather than beginning with the development of a
hypothesis theory, development is grounded in reality. Grounded Theory studies, which often
are not only academic in nature, consider genuine issues and concerns of participants (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).
In the Grounded Theory process, the investigator analyzes and incorporates salient
emerging issues into the research process. Emerging issues guide the researcher toward further
exploration (Corbin & Strauss 1990; Suddaby, 2006).
47
A relevant Grounded Theory study considers the genuine issues and concerns of
participants, and is not only of academic interest. Grounded Theory operates in somewhat
reverse fashion, where at first it may appear to be a contradiction of the scientific method (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). Grounded Theory works when it explains how the problem is being solved by
the participant, with the emphasis being the encouragement of the respondent and seeking the
emergence of data.
With Grounded Theory, there is a systematic development of theory from the data itself.
This involves both inductive and deductive thinking. The researcher’s creativity is part of the
research process, and Grounded Theory is considered modifiable because it can be adapted or
altered when new significant data is compared to existing data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Grounded Theory calls for the investigator to analyze and incorporate emerging
important issues into the subsequent interviews or observations. This systematic analysis allows
for potentially relevant issues to be incorporated as soon as they are recognized, which is a
strength of the effectiveness of Grounded Theory; “The research process itself guides the
researcher toward examining all of the possibly rewarding avenues to understanding” (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990).
Like other qualitative researchers, Grounded Theory researchers also follow the
principles that “good science” should be retained through the process. However, Grounded
Theory calls for a “redefinition in order to fit the realities of qualitative research and the
complexities of social phenomena” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Grounded Theory results are not
reported as statistically significant probabilities, rather a set of probability statements about the
relationship between concepts (Glaser, 1998).
48
Validity is not considered in the traditional sense in Grounded Theory. Instead fit,
relevance, workability, and modifiability are considered. Grounded Theory is never right or
wrong, it just has more or less fit, relevance, workability and modifiability. How closely
concepts fit with the incidents they are representing, and how thoroughly the constant
comparison of incidents to concepts was done is important to Grounded Theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978).
Means-end theory acts in a similar way as Grounded Theory in that both have the goal of
discovering things at a deeper level, and explaining things not initially obvious in people’s
actions. Grounded Theory calls for the continual asking of “What’s going on?” and “What is the
main problem of the participants and how are they trying to solve it?” Similarly, means-end
chain theory continually seeks out why a consumer pursues a product choice – linking the
attributes, consequences, and values. Grounded Theory does not aim for the “truth” but works to
conceptualize what’s going on by using empirical data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Means-end
chain theory, like Grounded Theory, is exploratory in nature.
In addition, Grounded Theory and means-end chain theory have parallels in their analysis
(coding) approaches. At the open coding stage of the Grounded Theory process,
conceptualization takes place (Glaser, 2002). This is the first level of contemplation of what the
respondents might be saying. At this initial stage of coding, all text is coded line by line. This is
similar to the goal of means-end chain theory, where the researcher reviews the text of laddering
interviews line by line – working to uncover the attributes, consequences, and values of the
consumer respondent as they relate their experiences with the product offerings. Through the
coding process, the researcher looks for occurrences that may be possible indicators of
phenomena taking place in the data. Any such indicators are then given conceptual labels. As
49
the coding process evolves, the researcher may find concepts that initially appeared different, or
are actually representing similar activities by the respondent in their seeking a solution to the
problem.
The Researcher’s Role
In the qualitative paradigm the research is part of the research process itself – from the
initial stages through the completion of the data analysis and the development of a hypothesis.
The researcher is involved in a systematic development of theory from the data itself, using both
inductive and deductive thinking, with the researcher’s creativity being a part of the stages of the
research process.
The researcher is also key to ensuring reliability and validity of the project, by following
strategies such as investigator responsiveness, methodological coherence, theoretical sampling
and sampling adequacy, an active analytic stance, and saturation. Prolonged engagement and
persistent observation add to the trustworthiness of the research results. The researcher’s actions
during the course of a qualitative study ensure rigor, and this rigor is the responsibility of the
researcher as opposed to that of external reviewers.
Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made when conducting the study.
The first assumption was that all participants in the research project responded honestly and
accurately to the laddering interviews regarding their experiences related to visiting Northwest
Michigan agri-tourism destinations.
50
The second assumption was that the three categories of agri-tourism destinations – wineries,
community farmers’ markets, and on-farm markets – fully represented the primary and most
often encountered types of agri-tourism destinations.
The third assumption is that the selected population was representative of Northwest
Michigan agri-tourism visitors.
Finally, because a key purpose of this research study was to explore and identify emerging
themes and values among a small number of respondents, the results are not able to be
generalized to the population as a whole, but do have validity as a qualitative research project
and add to the understanding of the phenomenon taking place as consumers engage in agri-
tourism experiences.
Data Sources
The data sources for this project were transcripts from interviews with 36 consumers who
had recently visited Northwest Michigan agri-tourism destinations. These included 12 winery
visitors, 12 community farmers’ market visitors, and 12 on-farm markets visitors.
Respondents/Participants
As an exploratory project, this study employs purposive sampling. By design, there was
control over the respondent group composition and a small sample size was used. The sampling
technique used was consistent with generally accepted qualitative methodological approaches
employed in scholarly research and the mainstream marketplace.
Due to the nature of the subject matter – the exploration on agri-tourism in the Northwest
Michigan region – participants in this study were adults visiting various Northwest Michigan
51
agri-tourism sites offering both agricultural/food products (fresh or processed) and agri-tourism
experiences (such as processing demonstrations, on-farm activities, attractions, etc.).
It is important to note that visiting on-farm markets, community farmers’ markets, and
wineries offer different activities and attractions to consumers. There are, however,
commonalities that can be identified in the data that emerges through this project.
From within this group, respondents were identified as either the key decision makers or
key influencers among those visiting the destinations. Demographic information gathered
included, sex and age of respondents. Respondents were also asked how far they have traveled
to visit the destination, and their frequency of visits each year to Michigan agri-tourism
destinations.
Respondents were segmented into small, homogeneous groups of recent agri-tourism
visitors. This included: 12 winery visitors, 12 community farmers’ market visitors, and 12 on-
farm market visitors.
Initial laddering interview respondents were recruited through the following means:
From customer lists supplied by select Northwest Michigan agri-tourism
destinations.
Through responses to a call for research participants in the Michigan Grape and
Wine Council electronic newsletter.
From signups through website promotion.
Through responses to Traverse City Record Eagle and Northwest Express
newspaper listings highlighting the research project.
Through on-site recruitment at two Traverse City community farmers’ markets,
and various Northwest Michigan on-farm markets.
52
From responses to information cards promoting the research project at various
Northwest Michigan agri-tourism destinations, including on-farm markets,
community farmers’ markets, and wineries.
Additional laddering interview respondents were recruited through snowball sampling,
where initial respondents provided names and contact information for others they knew who had
recently participated in Northwest Michigan agri-tourism experiences.
Geographic Location
All questions sought responses related to experiences respondents had while visiting
Northwest Michigan agri-tourism destinations. All laddering interview respondents resided in
Northwest Michigan. All were required to have visited a Northwest Michigan agri-tourism
destination.
Data Gathering Timeframe
Recruitment of laddering interview participants took place from October through early
December 2010. The laddering interviews were conducted beginning late October through early
December 2010.
Informed Consent and Confidentiality
Researchers must take precautions and make efforts to ensure confidentiality that are
consistent with proper ethical research guidelines (Creswell, 2005). Per Michigan State
University’s Office of Human Subjects guidelines, all respondents were assured that the data for
this project will be kept confidential, with the data collected and full names being separated. All
53
participants offered documentation of informed consent that they voluntarily agreed to
participate in this research study.
In addition, all respondents were told that participation in this research project was
completely voluntary. They were told that they had the right to refuse participation, and that
they may choose not to answer specific questions and could stop participating at any time.
Respondents to the interviews were told that in order to best capture their responses, they
would be recorded. Each interview respondent agreed to the audio taping by signing and
initialing a consent form.
Interview respondents were compensated $25 at the completion of their interview.
All respondents were provided researcher and faculty contact information in case of
questions or concerns. They were also provided contact information for Michigan State
University’s Human Research Protection Program in case of any questions or concerns they
might have had about their role and rights as a research participant, if they wished to obtain
information or offer input, or if they sought to register a complaint about this study.
Data Collection
The research study involved the use of means-end chain theory laddering interviews
involving Northwest Michigan agri-tourism consumers. The means-end chain model gives the
opportunity to clearly link consumers’ needs with product characteristics, as well as reveal the
consumers’ motivations in choosing a product (Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002). An underlying goal in
this study was to uncover consumers’ values across the three chosen agri-tourism experiences –
visiting wineries, visiting community farmers’ markets, and visiting on-farm market destinations.
54
In addition, the project sought to understand how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
A second goal was to uncover issues related to how consumers hierarchically organize
the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
Laddering Interviews
Laddering interviews, a technique drawn from means-end chain theory to reveal
consumers’ attribute-consequence-value chains, was the method used to secure responses.
Through a laddering interview, the respondent may outline how product attributes, usage
consequences, and personal values are linked in the person’s mind (Wansink, 2003). The
purpose of using the laddering technique in this project was to gain significant understanding of
consumers’ involvement in, and feelings toward, Michigan agri-tourism; specifically to try to
identify core attributes, consequences, and values that drive consumers as they engage in agri-
tourism experiences, and to better understand how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
Laddering interviews are a form of in-depth interviews. As a method of research used in
the social sciences, the use of in-depth interviews offers significant strengths in uncovering
values, and offers significant advantages in understanding consumers’ actions, as respondents
provide first-hand, personal insights related to their agri-tourism experiences. In this project the
interviews allowed for ideas, opinions, and attitudes to be given by respondents in more detail
and depth. The interviews allowed the opportunity to further explore meanings and values
related to their agri-tourism experiences. A strength of in-depth interviewing is flexibility, as the
55
research technique allows for follow-up and probing questions to be presented during the actual
interview.
The 36 selected respondents, who have experienced the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and
related offerings of Northwest Michigan agri-tourism and food tourism sites, offered first-hand
personal insights. This included insights from 12 winery visitors, 12 community farmers’ market
visitors, and 12 on-farm markets visitors.
Each participant was asked to participate in a 30 minute face-to-face interview, though
most interviews extended to approximately 45 minutes. The interviews took place in isolated
public areas, including a private area of the Horizon Bookstore, and on-site at the Village
Farmers Market at the Mercato, both in Traverse City. Both locations provided a neutral and
familiar setting for respondents. All interviews were recorded with permission of the
respondents, and transcribed.
In this study, the laddering interview process progressed from uncovering the specific
attributes of the agri-tourism destination visited by the consumer to addressing issues related to
consequences, and then working to uncover values. At appropriate points, how consumers
hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences were
discussed in order to examine relationships to the concept of agri-tourism brands. This included
discussions of the products, the destination itself, and people (e.g. farmers, vintners, etc.).
End goals of using laddering interviews included working to associate consumers’ values
with the agri-tourism experiences and to discover how consumers hierarchically organize the
brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. This understanding allowed the
opportunity to evaluate the importance of brands in the makeup of consumer experiences and to
lay the foundation for discussion on whether experiences may possibly be branded.
56
The output of this project includes values maps for each segment of consumers: winery
visitors, on-farm market visitors, and community farmers’ market visitors. Generated through
the laddering interviews, these values maps hierarchically show the links between the attributes,
consequences, and identified values as they relate to the agri-tourism experiences. Such
identification can help develop the foundation for subsequent research projects and marketing
campaigns, including the development of experiential branding strategies.
Soft Laddering
There are two approaches in the use of laddering interviews – hard laddering and soft
laddering. With soft laddering, the respondent follows the means-end chain approach as data are
uncovered from more “free-flowing natural speech.” Therefore, the ladder is built through the
interview process (Grunert, K.G. & Grunert, S.C., 1995). In contrast, hard laddering calls for the
respondent to answer questions following a fixed sequential ladder. For this project, soft
laddering was used because it is thought to be more appropriate when a researcher seeks better
understanding of respondents’ cognitive categories (Grunert, K.G. & Grunert, S.C., 1995). In
this project, it is not only the end values, but the specific (and unknown) attributes and
consequences that need to be considered as when exploring how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
The soft laddering approach allowed for a more free-flowing interview, where not every
question was used. Consistent with the researcher’s role as an active participant in the
qualitative research process, the choice of questions and follow-up probes were modified based
upon the responses of interview participants during the actual interviews. For example, if
respondents revealed an attribute or consequence that was important to them, the laddering
57
interview process called for continued probing until the introduced concept or idea was
exhausted, including the disclosure of the related value. Throughout the interview process,
respondents were continually asked “why is this important to you?” when making statements.
This “why?” probing led the interviews down various pathways until respondents’ values were
discovered.
Nvivo Software
Because of the rich text based data gathered (nearly 500 pages) and the analysis required,
Nvivo 9 software was utilized to sort and arrange data. This software provided a workspace to
allow more complete analysis of the data gathered in the in-depth interviews. This software
allowed for an efficient review of the data and provided opportunity to code the data into specific
nodes, thus allowing for efficient review and analysis.
Units of Analysis
Through the coding process many concepts appeared. Actions by the respondents were
analyzed as potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. It is
the concepts that emerged from the data (the conceptualizations of the data) that became the
units of analysis in this project.
Data Analysis Process
As stated in the conceptual framework, the analysis process used in this project followed
the Grounded Theory approach, while following the goals of means-end chain theory. The four
stages of analysis used in this project to address the research questions regarding consumers’
58
agri-tourism experiences included: 1) open coding, 2) concept generation through selective
coding, 3) formation of categories, and 4) theory development.
Memoing
Memoing is important in the early phase of a Grounded Theory study, such as during the
open coding process. Memos allow for the conceptualization of incidents. Following the
Grounded Theory method, theoretical memos are anything written or brought into the constant
comparison process. Memos allow for refinement and help secure ideas that arise when
comparing incidents to incidents and then concepts to concepts as theory evolves.
The memoing process allows for the researcher to begin naming concepts and relating
them to each other. Memoing allows the researcher to go past development of superficial theory,
as it generates concepts that are original. Through memoing, the researcher can accrue written
ideas, store ideas about concepts, and help identify how the concepts are related. The richness of
memos is what can be referenced later when writing theory. Because memos are free flowing
and creative, they can be any length, and can be done without adhering to the traditional rules of
writing, grammar, or style (Glaser, 1998).
A core stage of Grounded Theory is the use of theoretical memoing to assist in
conceiving ideas during the writing stage of a research project. “Memos are the theorizing write-
up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically coded relationships as they emerge
during coding, collecting, and analyzing data, and during memoing” (Glaser, 1998).
The use of memos, from the first coding sessions through the end of the research, allows
the researcher help in keeping track of all the categories, ideas, and concepts that come from the
59
analytical process. Memos are not just concerned with concepts; they are linked with the
construction and modification of theory during the research process.
Because theoretical memos are sorted and re-sorted during the writing process, they
provide a well-crafted foundation for reporting on the research discoveries and related
implications. Though theoretical memoing writing procedures is key to grounded theory, it is
similar to the recording of field notes and interview data techniques used in other qualitative
research studies.
Sorting
In Grounded Theory, sorting is the step in the analysis process where fractured data is
reconstructed. The formulation of theory comes as memos are generated and sorted, and as
concepts are put back together. During sorting, new ideas emerge which may generates theory.
Theory written from sorted memos is more likely to be rich in ideas, with a stronger connection
between concepts. Sorted memos are written up, setting the stage for the theory development.
Different categories are connected to each other. The density that appears in categories that
appear through the coding process is used to put forth scholarly theory.
Verification of Results
Both qualitative and quantitative methods include verification techniques. It is in the
qualitative study that there is a focus on ensuring rigor and responsibility with the investigator,
including recognizing and trusting the strategies within qualitative inquiry that ensure rigor
(Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). A qualitative approach (based on means-end
chain theory) was deemed most appropriate for the goals of this project.
60
Strategies must be built into the qualitative research studies to ensure rigor. By following
strategies such as investigator responsiveness, methodological coherence, theoretical sampling,
sampling adequacy, an active analytic stance, and saturation, the researcher can both modify the
course of analysis and ensure reliability and validity of the project (Morse et al., 2002).
The academic community has debated the issues of reliability and validity in qualitative
inquiry; as the application of standards to ensure rigor that grew for the field of quantitative
inquiry do not appear to fit qualitative inquiry. Academics suggest embracing new standards for
verification of reliability and validity, which would in turn ensure rigor in qualitative research
studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Leininger, 1994; Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S., 1995).
As a result, ensuring rigor in qualitative research focuses on the researcher’s actions
during the course of the study. Such rigor is the responsibility of the investigators themselves (as
opposed to that of external reviewers) who must incorporate and maintain reliability and validity
themselves. Attaining this rigor in qualitative research should come through “implementing
verification strategies integral and self-correcting during the conduct of inquiry itself” (Morse et
al., 2002).
Focusing on the process of verification during the study, as opposed to focusing on
strategies of “trustworthiness” or rigor at the end of the study, allows the qualitative researcher to
avoid threats to reliability and validity (Guba & Lincoln, 1981).
In addition, criteria and standards for evaluation of the overall significance, relevance,
impact, and utility of completed qualitative research have replaced the reliability and validity
standards applied to quantitative research.
Reliability and Validity
61
To validate is to investigate, to check data, to question the data, and to theorize based
upon the data (Kvale, 1989).
The nature of establishing reliability and validity in the quantitative research paradigm is
different than the qualitative paradigm. With the quantitative paradigm, rigor comes in the form
of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. In qualitative studies there must
be “truth value”, applicability, consistency, and neutrality in order to be a meaningful
contribution (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). In the qualitative paradigm trustworthiness (in lieu of
rigor) comes from credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba,
1985).
In qualitative research, strategies to attain trustworthiness include prolonged engagement
and persistent observation, and other approaches. The characteristics of the investigator also
contribute to trustworthiness. These characteristics include responsiveness and adaptability to
changing circumstances, ability to hold a holistic view, sensitivity, and an ability for clarification
and summarization (Guba & Lincoln, 1981).
In the qualitative research paradigm, verification involves both checking and confirming
steps and procedures undertaken in the course of the research to incrementally contribute to the
project’s reliability and validity. These steps impact the rigor of a research project. Researcher
responsiveness is tied to verification in qualitative research. It is the responsibility of the
researcher to be open-minded, to use creativity and insight, and to be willing to let pass poorly
supported (though perhaps exciting to the researcher) concepts that is critical to reaching ideal
reliability and validity. Responsiveness of the researcher throughout project reinforces the
validity of the work. “It is the researcher’s creativity, sensitivity, flexibility, and skill in using
62
the verification strategies that determines the reliability and validity of the evolving study”
(Morse et al., 2002).
Reliability and validity are umbrella concepts that are appropriately used in both
quantitative and qualitative research methods to establish rigor, and the use of specific
verification strategies ensures rigor (Morse et al., 2002).
Verification strategies safeguard the reliability and validity of qualitative data.
Verification strategies include: 1) methodological coherence, 2) appropriate sampling, 3) data
collection and analysis, 4) thinking theoretically, and 5) theory development.
1) Methodological coherence. Methodological coherence is needed to ensure
congruence between the research question and the chosen method. Qualitative research calls for
the question(s) to match the method, and the method to match the data, and the data to match the
analytic procedures. The qualitative research process is not necessarily linear, and question(s)
may have to be changed or methods modified. The methodological coherence works to ensure
reliability and validity.
2) Appropriate sampling. Appropriate sampling comprises participants who best
represent or have knowledge of the research topic. Appropriate sampling will allow efficient and
effective saturation of categories and will optimize the quality of the data secured in the research
project, thus leading to reliability and validity. It also allows the researcher to minimize input
into the research project that is not pertinent. In addition, saturation and replication signifies
sampling adequacy, where sufficient data to account for all aspects of the phenomenon have
been obtained. The saturating of data demonstrates that the results are comprehensive and
complete (Morse, 1991).
63
3) Collecting and analyzing data concurrently. Collecting and analyzing data
concurrently – the mutual interaction between what is known and what one needs to know –
works to ensure reliability and validity as well. The back and forth straddling and repetitive
exchange between data and analysis is key to achieving reliability and validity.
4) Thinking theoretically. Thinking theoretically also works to safeguard the reliability
and validity of qualitative data. Concepts emerged from the data are checked against previously
uncovered concepts, which leads to new ideas that then must be corroborated with the previously
collected data.
5) Theory development. Theory development involves the researcher progressing from
the micro assessments and perspectives of the data uncovered in the research process to a macro
abstraction and theoretical comprehension of what the data is saying in terms of a theory.
The strategies of methodological coherence, appropriate sampling, data collection and
analysis, thinking theoretically, and theory development are all opportunities for verification that
were incorporated into this project, thus contributing to its reliability and validity.
64
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter reviews the responses from laddering interviews conducted with 36 agri-
tourism consumers, including 12 winery visitors, 12 on-farm destination visitors, and 12
community farmers’ market visitors. The results of the open coding of the laddering interviews
are presented first, followed by the selective coding results. The selective coding results are
presented across the three key agri-tourism destination consumer segments under study in this
project: winery visitors, on-farm destination visitors, and community farmers’ market visitors.
In addition, following the means-end chain theory process, implication matrices for each agri-
tourism consumer segment are developed from the laddering interview results and presented.
These are followed by the hierarchical values maps (HMVs) for each studied consumer segment,
which are also discussed. In addition, there is discussion of results that indicates how consumers
hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
Laddering Interviews
The means-end chain theory model, through the use of laddering interviews, addresses
the project’s research questions related to consumers’ values associated with agri-tourism
experiences. The parallel Grounded Theory approach is used to explore additional issues related
to brands.
These research questions include:
Research Question 1: Why do consumers visit agri-tourism destinations?
65
Research Question 2: What are the relationships between consumer values, brands, and
agri-tourism experiences?
Research Question 3: Are there important similarities and differences between agri-
tourism consumers at different agri-tourism venues?
Research Question 4: What role do agri-tourism brands play in consumer decision
making and consumer cognitive organization of agri-tourism experiences? For example,
do consumers anchor their values around brands or are brands incidental to the
consumer experience?
In this project, the means-end chain theory (similar to Grounded Theory in the analysis
approach) was used to discover and explain consumers’ actions by linking the attributes,
consequences, and values for each of the three segments of agri-tourism consumers studied in
this project: winery visitors, on-farm destination visitors, and community farmers’ market
visitors. The laddering interviews worked to discover and explain personal values at a deeper
level. Unlike the traditional model of research, the development of a hypothesis stems from the
results uncovered after the data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As an exploratory research
project, the goal is the generation of theory from the data itself.
The project’s research questions were the basis for the development of specific laddering
interview questions. In addition to laddering interviews fitting this project, the interview
questions also went beyond seeking the attributes, consequences, and values traditionally sought
in the means-end chain theory process. The interview questions also sought to address the
project’s overarching research questions related to how consumers hierarchically organize the
brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
The earliest of the interviews revealed a pattern of interviewees providing responses that
addressed more than one question. The questions were not designed to be mutually exclusive,
66
and there was often substantial overlap in responses to the questions. In some instances,
questions did not need to be asked if the respondent had already provided the information sought.
In addition, the order of questions was also changed as needed to allow the free-flow
responses to continue. Often the order of the questions was changed to better fit the direction of
the conversation. Time limitations also influenced the omission of certain questions in the
interviews. All interviews exceeded the initially estimated 30 minute time allotted. With verbal
permission from each respondent, the interviews continued. The average time of the interviews
exceeded 40 minutes.
The questions were not always asked verbatim because many concepts and ideas emerged
in the process of the respondent answering the earliest presented questions. In addition, due to
the free-flow nature of the semi-structured laddering interviews, interviewees provided rich
responses to questions that generally did not lead directly to one distinct answer, or singular idea,
or responses that could be coded to just one results category. This is evidenced by the large
number of responses coded when respondents were probed and encouraged to provide more
detail.
The laddering interview questions are found in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
The analysis for this project involved looking systematically at the transcripts from
interviews with 36 consumers who had recently visited Northwest Michigan agri-tourism
destinations. These included 12 winery visitors, 12 community farmers’ market visitors, and 12
on-farm markets visitors. Means-end chain theory laddering interviews were used to explore
these consumers’ values as they relate to engaging in agri-tourism experiences. The purpose was
to capture data as respondents moved from the identification of attributes and consequences to
67
revelations of their values related to agri-tourism experiences. A representative sample interview
with attributes, consequences, values responses is shown in Appendix B.
In means-end chain theory, the data analysis and interpretation process steps include: 1)
converting and reducing data into select phrases and elements, 2) content analysis of these
phrases and elements, 3) building a summary of relations in content codes by developing an
implication matrix of the paired relationships, and 4) developing the hierarchical value map to
represent the main implications of the study (Gengler & Reynolds, 1995).
A Grounded Theory approach, with data analysis parallels to means-end chain theory,
allowed a better understanding of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered
when engaging in agri-tourism experiences.
The process used in Grounded Theory to address the research questions related to
consumers’ agri-tourism experiences included four stages of data analysis generated through the
interviews. These stages included: 1) open coding, 2) concept generation through selective
coding, 3) formation of categories, and 4) theory development. Building of the implication
matrix and development of the hierarchical value map, as called for in means-end theory, were
part of this analysis and serve as the foundation for the theory development stage.
Laddering Interview Responses: Open Coding Stage
At the open coding stage of the Grounded Theory process, conceptualization takes place
(Glaser, 2002). This first level of analysis considered what the respondents might be saying. At
this first level all meaningful text was coded line by line. This line by line review of the
laddering interview transcripts was the first step in uncovering the attributes, consequences, and
values – or other related statements – of the respondents as they participated in the agri-tourism
68
experience. At this open coding level, all key statements from the transcripts that were
considered signs or indicators of experiences were coded and anchored with conceptual labels.
As stated, the use of Nvivo 9 software supported the organization, sorting, and arranging
of the coded data, both in the open coding and in the selective coding stages. Nvivo provided the
workspace to allow more complete data analysis; however, it is organizational software. It did
not serve to make any coding decisions. The software was helpful in adding efficiency as there
were nearly 500 pages of interview transcript text to analyze and code.
This open coding represented the first level of conceptualization, consideration, and
reflection in the analysis process.
The open code stage was an initial step in the data analysis from the laddering interview
transcripts. This open coding stage did not break out the data by agri-tourism consumer type
(i.e., winery visitor, on-farm destination visitor, or community farmers’ market visitor). Further
analysis, through selective coding and with the development of more refined categories
(including results segmented by agri-tourism destination visitor type), followed this initial open
coding stage. The discussion of these categories in the open coding stage was preliminary,
subject to further analysis through the selective coding process.
An important note: There is a limitation of counting statements in content analysis.
Number of statements does not necessarily correlate with the intensity or importance of the
statement, and content analysis tends to overinflate the numbers.
Following the Grounded Theory approach, the open coded interview results are reported
first, followed by the selective coding results.
69
Open Coding Results: All Coded Categories
The results of the open coded statements are reported in this first section as they were
coded combined for all three segments of agri-tourism consumer respondents considered in this
study. Further analysis in the next stage of coding (selective coding) segmented the data by type
of agri-tourism visitor: winery visitors, on-farm destination visitors, and visitors to community
farmers’ markets.
All 36 laddering interviews were open coded. The content analysis of these transcripts in
the open coding process returned 3,226 meaningful statements of interest. These statements
were coded to nine open code categories that emerged as the data were being analyzed. These
categories, and number of statements coded to each, are shown in Table 1.
References
Values 1620
Consequences 513
Attributes 298
People Connections 174
Reason For Visit 158
Advertisement 141
Brand Elements 138
Share With Others 102
Post Visit Feelings 82
Table 1 - Open Coding: All Coded Categories
The nine open coded categories for all agri-tourism consumers interviewed include:
Attributes, Consequences, Values, Brand Elements, Post Visit Feelings, Advertisement, Share
with Others, Reason For Visit, and People Connections.
70
The first three open coded categories, Attributes, Consequences, and Values are used in
the means-end chain theory analysis put forth in this project. Because the laddering interview
process focused on identifying attributes and consequences with an emphasis on continual
probing for values, the numbers of responses for these categories are significantly higher than for
other categories. These means-end chain related categories are discussed first in the results.
The balance of open coded categories, People Connections, Reason For Visit,
Advertisement, Brand Elements, Share With Others, and Post Visit Feelings, represent responses
to interview questions designed to uncover how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging in agri-tourism experiences. These additional categories were
generated from interview questions related to connections made with others when visiting
destinations, the reasons for the visit, what respondents would say in advertisements about agri-
tourism, brand elements related thoughts, what respondents would share with others about agri-
tourism, and their post visit feelings related to their agri-tourism experience. All of the interview
questions related to these categories were generated to address how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging in agri-tourism experiences. These brand related
categories are discussed following the discussion of the means-end chain related categories,
which include attributes, consequences, and values.
Open Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories
Table 2 shows the open coding results for all 36 interviews combined for the three key
categories used in means-end chain theory analysis: Attributes, Consequences and Values.
71
References
Values 1620
Consequences 513
Attributes 298
Table 2 - Open Coding: MEC Theory Categories
Open Coding Results: Attributes
Data open coded to the Attributes category included 298 statements by the respondents
regarding attributes of the agri-tourism destinations. Attributes are concrete or abstract product
characteristics (de Boer and McCarthy, 2003). These attributes are best thought of as features
that include the physical assets of an agri-tourism destination, the variety of products offered,
and more. Open coded attribute statement examples from the laddering interviews include:
“Homemade products”
“They have a totally amazing bread”
“It’s really excellent location”
“Exceptional wine”
“It has an amazing diversity of stuff”
“It’s a very unique setting”
“It’s a pretty clean operation”
Open Coding Results: Consequences
Table 2 also shows that the data open coded to the Consequences category includes 513
statements by the respondents regarding consequences of visiting the agri-tourism destinations.
As previously stated, means-end chain theory suggests that consumers seek out products which
contain attributes which work to achieve their desired consequences. Consequences are any
72
result (functional or psycho‐social) the product is perceived to deliver to the consumer (de Boer
and McCarthy, 2003). Consequences include the desired outcomes of engagement with a
product. In this study, consequences of consumers’ engagement in agri-tourism experiences are
considered. These consequences include desirable quality of products, experiences, and more.
Coded consequences statement examples from the laddering interviews include:
“You get better quality food”
“I know where that stuff’s coming from”
“Being able to talk to the growers and say, you know, ‘what do you do with
this?’”
“I know it’s fresh, I know it will be good”
“It’s not coated in stuff or treated with stuff”
“It’s kind of a cool little adventure”
“It’s more fun than going to the grocery store”
Open Coding Results: Values
Table 2 also shows that data open coded to the Values category includes 1620 statements
by the respondents regarding their underlying values related to visiting the agri-tourism
destinations. Means-end chain theory suggests that there are deeper meanings, emotional
connections, and core values that are the true underlying reasons consumers engage product
offerings – in this case, visiting agri-tourism destinations. These values included statements of
underlying motivations, such as a desire to support local economy, support environmentally
sound practices, support of farmers and vintners, and more. Open coded values statement
examples from the laddering interviews include:
“I try to buy all of my food from people who respect what they’re growing”
73
“I want to be involved with the people who are producing it for me”
“Local is vital. I want to eat from my, almost from my homeland, you know, my
stomping grounds”
“Family is common to all cultures and once, if you look at history, once a family
falls apart the culture tends to fall apart”
“Comes back into being in tune with your own environment”
“I’m always interested in new things. I like to learn new stuff. I’m very curious”
“It’s self-control, local control. It’s not a big corporation controlling things”
Open Coding Results: Brand and Other Agri-Tourism Related Categories
In addition to the means-end chain theory related categories of Attributes, Consequences,
and Values, the interview respondents offered other statements regarding agri-tourism experience
issues. As shown in Table 3, content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed data that fell
into additional brand and other agri-tourism related categories. These open coded categories
were best determined to be: People Connections, Reason For Visit, Advertisement, Brand
Elements, Share with Others, and Post Visit Feelings.
References
People Connections 174
Reason For Visit 158
Advertisement 141
Brand Elements 138
Share With Others 102
Post Visit Feelings 82
Table 3 - Open Coding: Other Categories
74
Open Coding Results: People Connections
Data open coded to the People Connections category included 174 statements by the
respondents regarding the connections made with other people while visiting their chosen agri-
tourism destination. Examples include:
“It becomes kind of like the old general store. It’s a social destination in a way”
“You can kind of create a relationship if you will. And it may be a buyer/seller
relationship, but it’s a little more than that”
“If you go down there you get to know some of the farmers, and know where
they’re from, and so on”
“I completely changed my mind about the farmers. I think they have the best
possible life”
“The farmers on their end are happy that they were able to get their harvest there
and show it to people, and everybody’s happy to buy it because it’s so exciting”
“It’s just a nice experience to go and talk to people and it’s a place where I think
communities are coming together a lot more”
“To go to meet people, and just everyone who’s kind of on the same wave length
it seems, and have the same goals and you know, sustainability and that sort of
thing”
Open Coding Results: Reason For Visit
Data open coded to the Reason for Visit category included 158 statements by the
respondents regarding reasons they visited their chosen agri-tourism destination. Examples
include:
“The local food”
“Drawn in initially by the product”
“Being able to talk to the growers and say, you know, what do you do with this”
75
“Wanting to find sustainable sources of food and that’s always been the driving
force”
“It’s a little break-away experience just to mingle with people and to get out and
do something in the community”
“I like the fruit. Well, fruit and vegetables are mostly what I’m in for”
“As a quest for healthy food, real food”
Open Coding Results: Advertisement
Data open coded to the Advertisement category included 141 statements by the respondents
regarding things they would say in an advertisement promoting the agri-tourism. Examples
include:
“I would just focus on the produce”
“The fact that you’re supporting a farmer”
“Support your neighbors and the local community”
“I’d just be excited about the products”
“The beauty of the place”
“Fresh, local, you know, and abundant harvest”
“The people that are growing these things, the people that are processing these
things”
Open Coding Results: Brand Elements
Data open coded to the Brand Elements category included 138 statements by the
respondents regarding the brands, including their thoughts on the hierarchies of brands for
destinations, the products, the people, regions, etc., as they consider their agri-tourism
experiences. Examples include:
76
“I’ll be drawn in initially by the product”
“It’s the destination I’m sure. Friske could sell Frisbees and they’d probably do
okay”
“I would say it’s about place, for me. It’s about place. It’s about going
someplace that’s beautiful”
“What people like about coming here is it’s got the unique products”
“For people that are taking a wine tour, it is definitely the experience”
“It’s not just the product, but if you go there and have the experience”
“I think the product itself is paramount”
Open Coding Results: Share with Others
Data open coded to the Share with Others category included 102 statements by the
respondents regarding things they would share with others about agri-tourism. Examples
include:
“For a small market, it has an amazing diversity of stuff”
“You can get products there that you can’t get other places”
“Support your neighbors and the local community”
“It’s fresh, it’s clean, it’s healthy”
“That diversity of products combined with the faces of Michigan farmers”
“In terms of that concept, of eating local and eating fresh, and if possible,
organic, you just are not going to put a more wholesome food in your mouth”
“Beautiful and nice views and it’s a great experience”
77
Open Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings
Data open coded to the Post Visit Feelings category included 82 statements by the
respondents regarding the feelings they had after visiting the agri-tourism destinations.
Examples include:
“And so leaving I feel a little bit more peaceful, feel a little bit more connected to
the community”
“I almost leave feeling like I’ve done something good for the community just by
showing up”
“There’s the enjoyment of being there, and then just the net effect is sort of, it’s
almost a little mini adventure and I always feel better after having been there”
“Always feel happy”
“To the point of withdrawal, yeah!”
“I feel better about going to the farm than I do about going to the grocery store”
“I’ve soaked in some more knowledge”
Laddering Interviews: Selective Coding Stage
At the selective coding stage of the data analysis, the key points identified in the open
coding stage were assessed and compared as coding continued at a more refined next level.
Through the use of selective coding, similar codes were identified then sorted and grouped into
key concepts. The concepts that emerged first in the open coding stage were considered
temporary and were subject to further analysis as they were merged, re-coded, split and re-coded,
or shifted to different categories. The use of this second stage selective coding allowed for
refinement of the broader themes that were revealed in the open coding step. The reviewed
concepts were placed into new, hierarchical categories, allowing more clarity. As discussed in
78
Chapter 3, the back and forth comparison of the concepts and refinements helped build the
strength of the data and strengthened validity of the findings.
Open Coding and Selective Coding Results Comparison
Table 4 shows the categories uncovered in the open coding process and the number of
both the open coded and the selective coded references. Note that the selective coding stage
generated additional references for each category, as all 3,226 statements of interest uncovered
through the content analysis of the 36 interview transcripts during the open coding process were
reviewed in this second selective coding stage and then placed into more refined and expanded
selective coding categories. The selective coding process generated 3,445 references.
Categories
Open
Coding
References
Selective
Coding
References
Values 1620 1768
Consequences 513 530
Attributes 298 314
People Connections 174 175
Reason For Visit 158 163
Advertisement 141 153
Brand Elements 138 154
Share With Others 102 105
Post Visit Feelings 82 83
Table 4 - Open Coded and Selective Coded References
Selective Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories
Table 5 shows the selective coding results for the three key categories used in means-end
chain theory: Attributes, Consequences, and Values.
79
Means-End Chain
Theory Categories
Selective
Coding
References
Values 1768
Consequences 530
Attributes 314
Table 5 - Selective Coding of MEC Theory Categories
These statements include 2,612 attribute, consequences, and values references uncovered
in the first level open coding analysis. Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the selective coding of 314
attributes, 530 consequences, and 1,768 values statements related to the respondents’ agri-
tourism experiences consolidated to four attributes, ten consequences, and eight values
categories, respectively.
Selective Coding Results: Attributes
Table 6 shows 314 attributes selectively coded to four categories, including: People –
Farmers & Winemakers, Local Produce, Wines, Products, Market, Farm or Winery Destination,
and On-Site Activities & Attractions. These categories contain the laddering interview
respondents’ statements about attributes of agri-tourism destinations. (It should be noted that
when considering consumers’ responses regarding “local” categories, these statements may be
influenced by the heavy brand support for “local agriculture.”)
These attributes are best thought of as features that include the physical assets of an agri-
tourism destination (visited by the respondent), the variety of products offered, and more.
80
References
Market, Farm or Winery Destination 113
Local Produce, Wines, Products 99
On-Site Activities & Attractions 58
People - Farmers & Winemakers 44
Table 6 - Selective Coding: Attributes for All Interview Respondents
The category with the most attributes mentioned most often was that related to the
Market, Farm or Winery Destination, with 113 responses selectively coded. Statements made
specific to the destination (visited by the respondent) were selectively coded to this attribute
category. Examples of respondents’ statements include:
“Family-friendly”
“It’s just a mom and pop place”
“This funky little farm, gigantic barn”
“It’s really quaint”
“Casual environment”
“The setting. I mean it was very, very peaceful and great scenery”
“Smaller artisan-style farm”
Statements made related to products found at the destinations were selectively coded to
the Local Produce, Wines, Products attribute category, which had 99 responses selectively coded
to it. Examples of respondents’ statements include:
“They grow all kinds of amazing things seasonally”
“Wholesome, natural, earthy”
“Beautiful unbelievable pumpkins”
“So many great wines”
81
“Healthy food, real food”
Homemade products
Cherries, and apples, and pears, and peaches, and everything
The Farmers & Winemakers and On-Site Activities & Attractions attribute categories
garnered fewer attribute statements for all interview respondents, with 44 and 58 statements
selectively coded, respectively. These were statements made related to the destination’s
attributes of the farmers, winemakers, or their family members or employees, and the on-site
activities or attractions.
Selective Coding Results: Consequences
Table 7 shows 530 statements selectively coded to 10 consequences categories,
including: Fun & Enjoyment, Quality of Product, Learning, Farmer or Vintner, Environmental
& Clean Food, Variety of Products, Community Support, Social Interaction, Personal
Economics, and Convenience. These categories contain all interview respondents’ statements
regarding consequences related to their experiences at agri-tourism destinations.
References
Fun and Enjoyment 124
Quality of Product 108
Learning 64
Farmer or Vintner 63
Environmental & Clean Food 49
Variety of Products 45
Community Support 32
Social Interaction 29
Personal Economics 9
Convenience 7
Table 7 - Selective Coding: Consequences for All Interview Respondents
82
As shown in Table 7, the category with the most consequences mentioned for all
interview respondents were those related to Fun and Enjoyment, with 124 responses selectively
coded to this category. These were statements related to consequences of the visitors having a
fun and enjoyable experience at the destination. Examples of respondents’ statements include:
“You’re getting a lot more than just buying the food.”
“This is kind of a place where if you wanted to spend a whole day”
“It’s more fun than going to the grocery store”
“It’s just a feast of sensation”
“It’s just kind of a breath of fresh air”
“It’s fun talking with the farmers about what types of things they have”
“It’s a place where you can just park and you can just be like, ‘we don’t have to
go back to the car, we can just hang out here all day.’”
The Quality of Product consequences category, which included statements related to
consequences of the quality of the product, including freshness, flavor, texture, and appearance,
had 108 responses selectively coded to it. Examples of respondents’ statements include:
“You see a bushel of apples instead of the brightly packaged wax stuff you see in
the super market”
“It’s the freshest stuff you’re gonna get”
“We can put a lot of our wines – not all of them – but a lot of our wines up
against certainly a lot if not most of the wines in America and even some
internationally”
“I just feel I’m getting more nutrients with something that’s fresh and not sitting
around”
“It guarantees a better quality of product as far as its freshness”
“Once you taste an amazing honey crisp apple or something that’s from a farmer
that you know, and then you taste a Macintosh apple that’s shipped in from
83
Washington or whatever, and it’s been refrigerated all winter, you can taste the
difference”
“Organic greens that they hand-washed probably that morning and bagged up”
Consequences statements for all interview respondents were also selectively coded to the
following categories: Farmer or Vintner, Community Support, Environmental & Clean Food,
Variety of Products, Learning, Social Interaction, Personal Economics, and Convenience. Of
these, the Learning and Farmer or Vintner categories were the next two highest, with 63 and 64
statements selectively coded respectively, behind the Fun & Enjoyment and Quality of Product
as the consequences categories with the highest number of selectively coded statements for all
interview respondents. Personal Economics and Convenience had less than 10 statements coded
to each.
The selective coding for these other consequences categories followed this logic:
Statements related to consequences of learning more about farming, food, or production
and processing techniques were selectively coded to the Learning category.
Statements related to consequences of the skills or expertise of the farmers or
winemakers were selectively coded to the Food – Farmer or Vintner category.
Statements related to consequences of the environmental impacts in producing the
product, and the perception of the food as unprocessed, pure, wholesome, or clean were
selectively coded to the Environmental & Clean category.
Statements related to consequences of the variety of products, including produce, wines,
and other products found at the destinations were selectively coded to the Variety of
Products category.
84
Statements made related to consequences of the support of, or positive feelings about, the
community or local economy were selectively coded to the Community Support category.
Statements related to consequences of the social interactions found at the destinations,
including meeting other visitors, connecting with others, etc., were selectively coded to
the Social Interaction category.
Statements related to consequences of finding good values at the destinations were
selectively coded to the Personal Economics category.
Statements related to consequences of the ease of purchase, shopping, or related were
selectively coded to the Convenience category.
Selective Coding Results: Values
Table 8 shows 1,768 statements for all interview respondents selectively coded to eight
values categories, including: Support Farmer & Winemaker, Environment & Anti-Mass
Marketed Food, Indulgence & Fun, Local Economy & Civic Pride, Family & Friends & People,
Local Products, Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, and Health. These categories contain all
interview respondents’ statements regarding their values related to their experiences at agri-
tourism destinations.
References
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement 396
Local Economy & Civic Pride 303
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food 292
Farmer & Winemaker 281
Local Products 193
Family & Friends & People 138
Indulgence & Fun 118
Health 47
Table 8 - Selective Coding: Values for All Interview Respondents
85
As shown in Table 8, the category with the most values mentioned for all interview
respondents was Self-Satisfaction & Self Improvement with 396 response statements of values
related to the respondents’ choices made regarding self-improvement through education, healthy
living, or other means were selectively coded to the Self-Satisfaction & Improvement category.
Examples of respondents’ statements include:
“I would call it a spiritual thing”
“That sort of resiliency of a community, the same reason that I would like,
I mean, I wish I was resilient where I could just live off of my own
recognizance”
“Further my goal of having ethical food”
“I think to broaden my horizon. I mean, to learn. To become
knowledgeable on what’s out there”
“It simply makes me feel better if I know what I bought locally came out of
the ground yesterday and it’s on my plate today”
“It’s important to keep your brain moving, you know. Keep, not just your
body, your brain”
“What we’re here for is to evolve and move forward, and actually learn
things”
A total of 303 response statements of values related to the respondents’ feelings
regarding supporting the local and state economy, and connected sense of pride in the Northwest
Michigan area, were selectively coded to the Local Economy & Civic Pride category. Examples
of respondents’ statements include:
“I’ve been able to raise my kids here, and I owe them something back
too”
“Boycotting Walmart isn’t going to bring ‘em to their knees, but it makes
me feel better”
“People producing on their own land from their own hands. I think it just
adds a lot more character to a community and to what you own”
86
“I value having the market here, if you will. Just supporting it just makes
my own little contribution to sustaining it”
“For me it’s just important to support those who support me”
“For me, it’s the whole economics behind everything, keeping the money
local and supporting community because of my love for this town, my love
for the people in this town”
“So for me, knowing that my money, knowing that my people, my energy,
knowing that it’s all circulating around this area, for me personally, that’s
what I care about”
There were 292 response statements of values related to the respondents’ feelings
regarding caring for the environment, eco-friendly agricultural practices, and sustainability
issues, both locally and globally, selectively coded to the Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed
Food category. This category includes feelings regarding large scale food production (“agri-
business”) and large scale food distribution and sales (“grocery stores”). Examples of
respondents’ statements include:
“That so much stuff that you buy in the grocery store has traveled so many
thousands of miles just doesn’t make any sense”
“I think your standard agricultural system does damage to the
environment. It does damage to the people that are involved”
“I think that generally there needs to be a localization effort, and
eventually it’s just going to not be possible to bring all this stuff in from
all over the place”
“I can buy organic carrots that were grown in California. Well,
somebody had to ship them all the way over here. Now if I buy them from
a guy who lives around the block from me, we didn’t just spend four
thousand miles worth of gas to get them here”
“American farmers and they are making a living, but ultimately, they’re
working for a corporation it feels like to me”
87
“It’s a frustration with large agriculture and corporations, you know, kind
of putting dollar over humans’ health and well-being”
“Lower impact on the ecosystem up here. Which I really, I want to
support the wineries that are using those approaches”
The Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food categories had 303 responses selectively
coded. Examples of respondents’ statements include:
I think your standard agricultural system does damage to the environment.
It does damage to the people who are involved
This system, the big commercial system is immoral. And sort of not really
good for anybody that’s involved in that
Don’t you think it would be better to treat the world nice and buy local
rather than pollute the Earth with chemicals, and trucks, and you know,
energy that we’re spending on keeping this stuff cold?
That so much stuff that you buy in the grocery store has traveled so many
thousands of miles just doesn’t make any sense
Always wanted to get food that I felt was ethical or you know, the best for
the environment
It’s good to know where our food is coming from and getting back to that
aspect instead of some mass-produced stamped-out food
It’s a frustration with large agriculture and corporations, you know, kind
of putting dollar over humans’ health and well-being
A total of 281 response statements of values related to the respondents’ feelings
regarding supporting the individual farmer, farmers, winemakers, or entrepreneurs were
selectively coded to the Support Farmer & Winemaker category. This includes the desire to
support the farmers and winemakers, as well as the respect/admiration of the farmers and
winemakers, their independence, and their entrepreneurial spirit. Examples of respondents’
statements include:
88
“If he’s got big sausage hands he’s out there working it himself, and therefore
I appreciate that. Therefore, I’ll give him my business”
“You’re eating something that someone put a lot of love into. And so talking
to them about that is important because it makes them feel the love back”
“I don’t think the farmer that grows the produce that shows up in the regular
commercial markets gets compensated as much, or adequately for what, for
the work that gets put into something”
“I’m not capable of it myself and so to have them say, you know, yeah I
decided throw it all in and just go grow things and be more self-reliant, that’s
something I really admire”
“These guys here who are trying to just make their living and aren’t owned by
a company, aren’t being subsidized by a company, they’re really kind of going
back to the basics”
“There’s a lot of people out there who have small farms who are trying to
make it work as a, as a sole source of income, and I respect that”
“To actually make a great product, you know, and to do what you love and to
make a living off that, I hold that in some of the highest respect”
The Local Products category had the next highest level, with 193 responses selectively
coded. This Local Products selectively coded category includes values related to the
respondents’ desire to eat local foods because they are perceived to be better in nutrition, and or
grown in more sustainable ways.
Other values categories include Family & Friends & People, with 138 responses;
Indulgence & Fun, with 118; and Health, with 47. Statements of values related to the
respondents’ connections with family, friends, and others were selectively coded to Family &
Friends & People. Statements of values related to the respondents’ feelings regarding self-
improvement, including self-education, expansion of understanding, and increasing awareness
and knowledge were selectively coded to Indulgence & Fun. Statements of values related to the
89
respondents’ feelings regarding health benefits of eating the products offered at the agri-tourism
destinations were selectively coded to the Health category.
Selective Coding Results: Means-End Theory Categories for Each Consumer Segment
(Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community Farmers’ Market Visitors)
In the previous section, the analysis results included all selectively coded responses for
all 36 interview respondents involved in the laddering interviews. These results showed both the
open coding and selective coding stages, and introduced the key attributes, consequences, and
values for all interview respondents consumers related to their agri-tourism destination visits.
As previously stated, this project called for analysis by type of agri-tourism destination
consumer. The laddering interviews allowed for a means-end chain analysis to explain
consumers’ actions by linking the attributes, consequences, and values for each of three
segments of agri-tourism consumers studied in this project: winery visitors, on-farm destination
visitors, and community farmers’ market visitors.
Tables 9, 10 and 11 show the selective coding analysis of attribute, consequences, and
values responses as coded for each of the three agri-tourism visitor segments.
Selective Coding Results: Attributes for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community Farmers’
Market Consumers
Table 9 shows the selective coding Attributes results for each of the investigated
segments of agri-tourism consumers: winery visitors, community farmers’ market visitors, and
on-farm market visitors.
90
As shown in Table 9, the Attributes category includes the selectively coded categories of
Market, Farm or Winery Destination; Local Produce, Wines, Products; On-Site Activities &
Attractions; and People – Farmers & Winemakers.
The winery visitors’ attributes responses were selectively coded generally evenly across
all categories.
Winery
Visitors
Community
Farmers’
Market
Visitors
On-Farm
Market
Visitors
Attributes
Category
Totals
Market, Farm or Winery Destination 32 57 24 113
Local Produce, Wines, Products 23 33 43 99
On-Site Activities & Attractions 29 6 23 58
People - Farmers & Winemakers 24 15 5 44
Table 9 - Selective Coding Results: Attributes
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ attributes responses, the highest number
(57) were coded in the Self-Satisfaction & Improvement category. These were followed by Local
Produce, Wines, Products, with 33 responses coded.
Among the on-farm market visitors’ attributes responses, the highest number (43) were
coded in the Local Produce, Wines, Products category. The Market, Farm or Winery
Destination, and On-Site Activities & Attractions had 24 and 23 responses coded, respectively.
Selective Coding Results: Consequences for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
Table 10 shows the selective coding Consequences results for each of the investigated
segments of agri-tourism consumers.
91
As shown in Table 10, the Consequences category includes the selectively coded
categories of Fun and Enjoyment, Quality of Product, Learning, Farmer or Vintner,
Environmental & Clean Food, Variety of Products, Community Support, Social Interaction,
Personal Economics, and Convenience.
Among the winery visitors’ consequences responses, the highest number (70) was coded
in the Fun and Enjoyment category. The categories of Learning and Farmer or Vintner received
41 and 39 responses coded, respectively. The Quality of Product category received 24 responses
coded.
Winery
Visitors
Community
Farmers’
Market
Visitors
On-Farm
Market
Visitors
Consequences
Category
Totals
Fun and Enjoyment 70 23 31 124
Quality of Product 24 46 38 108
Learning 41 15 8 64
Farmer or Vintner 39 20 4 63
Environmental & Clean Food 17 10 22 49
Variety of Products 11 22 12 45
Community Support 11 17 4 32
Social Interaction 13 16 0 29
Personal Economics 2 2 5 9
Convenience 1 1 5 7
Table 10 - Selective Coding Results: Consequences
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ consequences responses, the highest
number (46) was coded in the Quality of Product category. This was followed by Fun and
Enjoyment and Variety of Products, 23 and 22 responses coded, respectively.
92
Among the on-farm market visitors’ consequences responses, the highest number (38)
was coded in the Quality of Product category. The category of Fun and Enjoyment contains 31
responses selectively coded, followed by the Environmental & Clean Food category, with 22
responses selectively coded.
Selective Coding Results: Values for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community Farmers’
Market Consumers
Table 11 shows the selective coding Values results for each of the investigated segments
of agri-tourism consumers.
Winery
Visitors
Community
Farmers’
Market
Visitors
On-Farm
Market
Visitors
Values
Category
Totals
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement 165 107 124 396
Local Economy & Civic Pride 139 87 77 303
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food 87 79 126 292
Farmer & Winemaker 109 106 66 281
Local Products 54 74 65 193
Family & Friends & People 59 15 64 138
Indulgence & Fun 56 41 21 118
Health 16 17 14 47
Table 11 - Selective Coding Results: Values
Table 11 shows the Values selectively coded categories of Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement, Local Economy & Civic Pride, Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food,
Support Farmer & Winemaker, Local Products, Family & Friends & People, Indulgence & Fun,
and Health.
93
Among the winery visitors’ values responses, the highest number (165) was coded in the
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement category. The categories of Local Economy & Civic Pride
received 139 values responses coded, followed by the Support Farmer & Winemaker and
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food categories, with 109 and 87 values responses coded,
respectively.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ values responses, the highest number
(107) was coded in the Self-Satisfaction & Improvement category. This category was closely
followed by the Support Farmer & Winemaker category, with 106 values responses coded. The
categories of Local Economy & Civic Pride and Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food
followed, with 87 and 79 values responses coded, respectively.
Among the on-farm market visitors’ values responses, the highest number (126) was
coded in the Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food category. The Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement category was very close to this highest category as it received 124 values responses
coded. Local Economy & Civic Pride received 77 values responses coded.
Selective Coding Results: Brand Related Categories for Winery, On-Farm Market, and
Community Farmers’ Market Consumers
The previous section included the analysis results related to the means-end chain theory
by linking the attributes, consequences, and values for each of three segments of agri-tourism
consumers studied in this project: winery visitors, on-farm destination visitors, and community
farmers’ market visitors. This project also calls for the analysis of other agri-tourism experience
and brand related issues for each of these consumer segments.
Table 12 shows the selective coding of other agri-tourism and branding issues categories
(beyond the means-end chain theory related issues shown in Table 5). As stated, these additional
94
categories were generated from interview questions related to connections made with others
when visiting destinations, the reasons for the visit, what respondents would say in
advertisements about agri-tourism, brand elements related thoughts, what respondents would
share with others about agri-tourism, and their post visit feelings related to their agri-tourism
experience. All of the interview questions related to these categories were generated to address
branding and other agri-tourism experience issues.
Selective
Coding
References
People Connections 175
Reason For Visit 163
Advertisement 153
Brand Elements 154
Share With Others 105
Post Visit Feelings 83
Table 12 - Other Agri-Tourism Branding Issues Categories
Responses identified in the first stage of open coding analysis include 795 statements
related to agri-tourism experience and brand related issues. (This was in addition to the 2,612
attribute, consequences, and values references uncovered in the first level open coding analysis.)
Tables 13 through 18 show the analysis of agri-tourism experiences and brand related
responses as selectively coded for each of the three agri-tourism visitor segments. These tables
show the numbers of selectively coded responses that were previously uncovered in the open
coding stage. This allows the comparison of the numbers of the selectively coded agri-tourism
experiences and brand related responses across all three segments of agri-tourism consumers
considered in this project.
95
Selective Coding Results: People Connections for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 13, the People Connections category includes the selectively coded
categories of Farmers, Vintners; Strangers, Community; Friends; and Family.
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to the personal
connections the visitors made with others while engaging in agri-tourism experiences.
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
Farmers, Vintners 31 34 15 80
Strangers, Community 7 36 14 57
Friends 8 14 1 23
Family 10 2 3 15
Table 13 - Selective Coding Results: People Connections
The leading category for winery visitors’ People Connections was Farmers, Vintners
with 31 responses selectively coded. The other leading category was Family which received 10
responses.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ People Connections responses, the
highest number (36) was coded in the Strangers, Community category. This category was
closely followed by the Farmers, Vintners category with 34 people connections responses
selectively coded. The category of Friends followed, with 14 responses selectively coded.
Among the on-farm market visitors’ People Connections responses, the highest numbers
(15, and 14, respectively) were coded in the Farmers, Vintners and Strangers, Community
categories.
96
Selective Coding Results: Reason for Visit for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 14, the Reason For Visit category includes the selectively coded
categories of Activities & Attractions, Economics, Clean Food & Environmental Concerns,
Local Food & Wine, Farmers or Vintners, Farm or Market or Winery, Social Aspects,
Convenience, Support Local and Community, and The Experience.
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to the reasons
why respondents made their visits to the agri-tourism destinations they chose.
Table 14 - Selective Coding Results: Reason for Visit
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
Activities & Attractions 17 21 21 59
Economics 5 6 8 19
Clean Food & Environmental Concerns 11 7 0 18
Local Food & Wine 3 1 13 17
Farmers or Vintners 4 6 6 16
Farm or Market or Winery 5 4 4 13
Social Aspects 1 0 7 8
Convenience 6 0 1 7
Support Local and Community 1 1 1 3
The Experience 1 0 2 3
The leading category for the winery visitors’ Reasons For Visit was Activities &
Attractions, with 17 responses selectively coded. The other leading category was Clean Food &
Environmental Concerns which received 11 responses.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ Reasons For Visit responses, the highest
numbers (21) were coded in the Activities & Attractions category.
97
Among the on-farm market visitors’ Reasons For Visit responses, the highest numbers
(21) were coded in the Activities & Attractions category, followed by Local Food & Wine with
13 responses coded.
Selective Coding Results: Advertisement for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 15, the Advertisement category includes the selectively coded
categories of Product(s), Region (NW Michigan Area), People (Farmer, Vintner), Local
Economy, Activities & Attractions, Destination (Farm, Winery, Market), Experiences,;
Environmental, Social, and Heritage.
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
Product(s) 13 10 20 43
Region (NW Michigan Area) 20 5 7 32
People (Farmer, Vintner) 6 8 10 24
Local Economy 1 5 7 13
Activities & Attractions 8 4 0 12
Destination (Farm, Winery, Market) 3 3 3 9
Experiences 5 1 1 7
Environmental 1 4 1 6
Social 2 2 0 4
Heritage 0 0 3 3
Table 15 - Selective Coding Results - Advertisement
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to what
respondents would say in a promotional advertisement to encourage others to participate in agri-
tourism experiences.
98
Among the winery visitors’ suggestions to include in an advertisement, the highest
numbers (20) were coded in the Region (NW Michigan Area) category, followed by Product(s),
with 13 responses selectively coded.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ suggestions to include in an
advertisement, the highest numbers (10) were coded in the Product(s) category.
Among the on-farm market visitors’ suggestions to include in an advertisement, the
highest numbers (20) were coded in the Product(s) category. The next highest advertisement
related responses were selectively coded to the People (Farmer, Vintner) category (10).
Selective Coding Results: Brand Elements for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 16, the Brand Elements category includes the selectively coded
categories of Product(s), Destination (Farm, Winery, Market), People (Farmer, Vintner),
Experiences, Region (NW Michigan Area), Activities & Attractions, All, and Social.
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to what things
respondents feel are most important when considering agri-tourism experiences and where they
feel most consumers connect with agri-tourism related brands.
Among the winery visitors’ things they feel are most important when considering agri-
tourism experiences, the highest numbers (19 and 9 responses, respectively) were coded in the
Product(s) and Destination (Farm, Winery, Market) categories.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ things they felt were most important
when considering agri-tourism experiences, the highest number (20) was coded in the
Product(s) category.
99
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
Product(s) 19 20 26 65
Destination (Farm, Winery, Market) 9 6 10 25
People (Farmer, Vintner) 6 4 10 20
Experiences 6 4 7 17
Region (NW Michigan Area) 8 2 3 13
Activities & Attractions 1 4 1 6
All 0 2 3 5
Social 0 0 3 3
Table 16 - Selective Coding Results: Brand Elements
Among the on-farm market visitors’ things they felt were most important when considering agri-
tourism experiences, the highest number (26) was coded in the Product(s) category. The next
highest brand elements related responses were selectively coded to the Destination (Farm,
Winery, Market) and People (Farmer, Vintner) categories with each having 10 responses.
Selective Coding Results: Share With Others for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 17, the Share With Others category includes the selectively coded
categories of Quality of Products, The Experience, Variety of Products, Farmers or Vintners,
Farm or Market or Winery, Support Local and Community, Activities and Attractions, Social
Aspects, Economics, and Convenience.
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to the things
the respondents would choose to share with others about their agri-tourism experiences.
The leading category for the winery visitors’ Share With Others responses was The
Experience category, with 9 responses selectively coded.
100
Table 17 - Selective Coding Results: Share With Others
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
Quality of Products 5 8 9 22
The Experience 9 7 5 21
Variety of Products 6 11 3 20
Farmers or Vintners 4 5 2 11
Farm or Market or Winery 3 5 1 9
Support Local and Community 5 4 0 9
Activities and Attractions 1 0 3 4
Social Aspects 0 4 0 4
Economics 1 0 2 3
Convenience 0 1 1 2
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ Share With Others responses, the
highest numbers (11 and 8 responses, respectively) were coded in the Variety of Products and
Quality of Products categories.
The leading category for on-farm market visitors’ Share With Others responses was the
Quality of Products category with 9 responses coded.
Selective Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings for Winery, On-Farm Market, and Community
Farmers’ Market Consumers
As shown in Table 18, Post Visit Feelings includes the selectively coded categories of
The Experience; Local Products; Farmers, Vintners; Farm, Market, Winery; Social
Connections; Community Support; Learned; and The Region or Michigan.
These are the selectively coded responses to interview discussions related to the feelings
respondents had after engaging in their agri-tourism experiences.
101
Table 18 - Selective Coding Results: Post Visit Feelings
WineryCommunity
Market
On-Farm
Market
Values
Category
Totals
The Experience 14 13 17 44
Local Products 1 3 8 12
Farmers, Vintners 0 5 2 7
Farm, Market, Winery 1 4 1 6
Social Connections 1 4 0 5
Community Support 0 4 0 4
Learned 4 0 0 4
The Region or Michigan 1 0 0 1
The leading category for winery visitors’ Post Visit Feelings was The Experience, with
14 responses selectively coded.
Among the community farmers’ market visitors’ Post Visit Feelings responses, the
highest number (13) was coded in The Experience category.
Among the on-farm market visitors’ Post Visit Feelings responses, the highest number
(17) was coded in The Experience category. The other leading category for on-farm market
visitors was Local Products which received 8 selectively coded responses.
Means-End Chain Analysis Results: Attributes, Consequences, and Values
The first step in the coding of the interview transcript data for use in the attributes,
consequences, and values (ACV) ladders process began with open coding, as all statements of
importance from each respondent were coded to various categories. The second round of coding,
the selective coding stage, further refined the categories and all statements related to attributes,
consequences, and values of respondents’ engagement in agri-tourism at wineries, on-farm
markets, and community farmers’ markets were selectively coded.
102
Verification strategies were used to safeguard the reliability and validity of the formation
of the attributes, consequences, and values categories in this project. First among these
verification strategies was the methodological coherence (the methodology choice matched the
research questions at hand). Appropriate sampling was undertaken, which optimized the quality
of the data secured, thus leading to reliability and validity. The data collection and analysis
included both open coding and selective coding, with continual review (back and forth exchange
between the data and analysis) to strengthen validity and reliability. The categories emerged
from the data and continued to be coded selectively through repetitive analysis.
Important to note is that there is a limitation of counting statements in content analysis.
Number of statements does not necessarily correlate with the intensity or importance of the
statement, and content analysis tends to overinflate the numbers. However, since this project
utilized laddering interviews, with detailed probing about consumers’ beliefs, transcripts show
that respondents did offer a certain level of intensity and passion in their responses, particularly
when disclosing their values related to agri-tourism. (More than one respondent had tears in his
or her eyes during interviews.)
In some cases the labels given to categories across the attributes, consequences, and
values levels have similar names. An example is People – Farmers and Winemakers (attributes),
Farmer or Vintner (consequences), Farmer or Winemaker (values). The labels were kept in
condensed form to better fit the limitations of the Nvivo 9 software. (The simplicity allowed
more ease in screen reading.) However, the key throughout the coding was following these
guidelines used to distinguish between attributes, consequences, and values:
Attributes are the features of some entity, including concrete or abstract product
characteristics. Consequences are the benefits associated with choosing that entity, or any result
103
(functional or psycho‐social) the product is perceived to deliver to the consumer. Values are
beliefs underlying the choice (Trocchia et al., 2007).
Construction of Ladders
Constructing ladders is the first step in the development of implication matrices for all
three segments of agri-tourism visitors: winery visitors, on-farm market visitors, and community
farmers’ market visitors. This represented a third round of coding, and a second stage of
selective coding in this project. This selective coding stage allowed for the construction of 12
ladders for each of the three segments, for a total of 36 ladders constructed.
The implications matrices are used as the basis for the development of Hierarchical Value
Maps, which visually represent the attributes, consequences, and values of importance to each of
the three segments of agri-tourism consumers.
Content Analysis of Ladders and Development of Content Codes
In order to build the implications matrices called for in means-end chain theory, summary
content codes were developed. These content codes represent the attributes, consequences, and
values categories uncovered in the earlier selective coding stage of interview responses. These
codes are represented in the ACV ladders for each of the 36 interview respondents. The ladders
are shown in Tables 19a, 19b, and 19c.
The summary content codes for this project are as follows:
Codes Attributes
(1) Market, Farm or Winery Destination
(2) Local Produce, Wines, Products
(3) On-Site Activities & Attractions
(4) People – Farmers & Winemakers
104
Consequences
(5) Fun and Enjoyment
(6) Quality of Product
(7) Learning
(8) Farmer or Vintner
(9) Environmental & Clean Food
(10) Variety of Products
(11) Community Support
(12) Social Interaction
(13) Personal Economics
(14) Convenience
Values
(15) Self-Satisfaction & Improvement
(16) Local Economy & Civic Pride
(17) Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food
(18) Support Farmer & Winemaker
(19) Local Products
(20) Family & Friends & People
(21) Indulgence & Fun
(22) Health
Numbers, from 1 to 22, were assigned to the codes, with these numbers labeling all
elements in each of the 36 respondents’ ladders to produce the raw data matrices for the three
agri-tourism respondent segments (community farmers’ market, on-farm market, and winery) as
shown in Tables 19a, 19b, and 19c. The rows in the matrix represent an individual respondent’s
ladder. Note that some respondents have multiple ladders, shown in multiple rows. If the
laddering interview uncovered attributes for a respondent that lead to more than one link to
consequences and values, end ladders would reflect these as multiple ladders for the same
respondent. The columns in this raw data matrix represent the elements in each ladder chain,
including Attributes (A), Consequences (C) and Values (V). As an example, Ladder 1 for the
first Community Farmers’ Market Visitors’ respondent, CommMkt-Joelle, shows the attribute of
Market, Farm or Winery Destination (1), followed by the consequence of Learning (7), then
105
followed by the values of Local Products (19) and Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food
(17).
Important notes regarding the ACV Tables 19a, 19b, and 19c:
The numbers shown in these tables represent the code for each category, not
frequencies of responses.
A blank space indicates no additional consequence or value of importance was
identified for the individual respondent’s ladder chain.
Columns show that through laddering a single attribute statement (A) can lead to
multiple consequences (C) statements (though no more than two meaningful
consequences for any respondent were uncovered in this project), and that these
consequences can lead to multiple values (V) statements (though no more than
three meaningful values for any respondent were uncovered in this project). This
contradicts what some might expect: That attributes would be more plentiful than
consequences, and consequences more plentiful than values. However, this may
be a function of the subject under study, as agri-tourism consumers appear to hold
many values related to their experiences. In addition, the laddering interview
process encourages the revelation and disclosure of values.
Implication Matrices for Agri-Tourism Consumer Segments
In means-end theory, the use of an implication matrix allows for the display of the
number of times each element leads to every other element in the same row (operationally
defined as those elements in a row which precede other elements in the same row) (Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988).
106
An implications matrix shows both direct and indirect relations between the elements.
Direct relations are those in which one element leads to another without any intervening element.
For example, in Table 19c, the first respondent in Winery Visitors – Wine-Adam Ladder 1 –
shows that the attribute of People – Farmers & Winemakers (4) is linked to the consequences of
Farmer or Vintner (8) and Environmental & Clean Food (9), and to the values of Environment &
Anti-Mass Marketed Food (17) and Support Farmer & Winemaker (18). In this case, the
attribute category of People – Farmers & Winemakers has a direct link to the consequence
category of Farmer or Vintner, and an indirect link to the consequence category of
Environmental & Clean Food. (Indirect relations are those in which one element leads to
another through an intervening element.)
Tables 20 through 22 show the implications matrices for the three segments of agri-
tourism visitors considered in this project (abbreviation key in Appendix C). Numbers in the
implications matrices are shown with a decimal: direct relations shown to the left of the decimal
and indirect relations shown to the right of the decimal. For example, in Table 20, the
Community Farmers’ Market Visitors matrix shows the Market, Farm or Winery Destination
attribute element (shown in row 1) leads to the Farmer or Vintner consequence element (shown
in column 4) two times directly and one time indirectly (shown in the matrix as 2.01).
It is important to note that these decimal placements are for counting purposes only. They
do not represent numerical values or weightings. Those numbers to the left of the decimal point
represent the direct relations in the laddering chains, while those to the right of the decimal point
represent the indirect relations.
As a convention, direct connections were assigned 1.0 for each reference and indirect
were assigned .001. This leads to confusing interpretations, because .001 is an arbitrary value
107
assigned to indirect references. It was selected by the researchers (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988)
because it allows a visual comparison of the number of direct and indirect references in one
number. Many alternative nomenclatures could be invented to show the comparison. This
system was used because it has become a standard for comparisons in content analysis.
A C C V V V
CommMkt - Joelle Ladder 1 1 7 19 17
Ladder 1 1 12 8 15 18
Ladder 2 1 5 12 21
Ladder 1 4 11 18 16
Ladder 2 1 5 15
Ladder 1 4 6 18 15
Ladder 2 1 9 17
Ladder 1 1 6 21 19
Ladder 2 1 10 16
Ladder 1 1 11 15 16
Ladder 2 1 5 17
CommMkt - Patrick Ladder 1 2 6 9 15 17
Ladder 1 1 12 11 15 16
Ladder 2 1 12 18
Ladder 1 1 8 18
Ladder 2 1 10 5 21 15
Ladder 1 1 8 12 21 18
Ladder 2 2 9 16 17
Ladder 3 2 11 15
Ladder 1 4 8 11 18 20
Ladder 2 1 11 16
Ladder 1 2 6 9 17 19
Ladder 2 4 8 18 15
Ladder 3 2 9 6 17
A=Attributes, C=Consequences, V=Values
Table 19a - Community Farmers' Market Visitors
CommMkt - Jack
CommMkt - Gary
CommMkt - Jim
CommMkt - Roberta
CommMkt - Peter
CommMkt - Mike
CommMkt - Melissa
CommMkt - Maura
CommMkt - Mark
CommMkt - Louis
108
A C C V V V
Ladder 1 2 6 17
Ladder 2 2 5 16
Ladder 1 3 7 15
Ladder 2 2 9 17
Ladder 1 2 6 17
Ladder 2 2 5 16
On-Farm - Barbara Ladder 1 3 5 15 18
Ladder 1 2 9 15 17
Ladder 2 1 10 21
Ladder 1 2 9 15 17
Ladder 2 2 6 19 18
Ladder 1 2 9 17
Ladder 2 3 5 16 15
Ladder 1 1 9 15 17
Ladder 2 2 6 19
Ladder 1 1 9 12 18 20
Ladder 2 2 9 16 17
Ladder 1 1 8 18 16
Ladder 2 1 5 15
Ladder 3 2 10 9 17
Ladder 1 3 5 7 20
Ladder 2 2 7 5 15
Ladder 1 2 10 6 22 19
Ladder 2 2 14 16
A=Attributes, C=Consequences, V=Values
Table 19b - On-Farm Market Visitors
On-Farm - Rhonda
On-Farm - Tracey
On-Farm - Perry
On-Farm - Paula
On-Farm - Nancy
On-Farm - Kate
On-Farm - Jenn
On-Farm - Irina
On-Farm - Amy
On-Farm - Ann
On-Farm - AnnMarie
109
A C C V V V
Ladder 1 4 8 9 17 18
Ladder 2 4 8 11 16
Ladder 1 1 7 8 16 15
Ladder 2 3 8 18
Ladder 1 3 5 7 15
Ladder 2 4 5 8 20
Ladder 1 4 8 7 18 15
Ladder 2 2 5 11 17 16
Ladder 1 4 12 8 18 20 15
Ladder 2 2 5 11 16
Ladder 1 1 11 18 16
Ladder 2 1 5 21 15
Ladder 1 4 7 6 15 21
Ladder 2 2 6 19
Wine - Larry Ladder 1 3 7 9 21 15 16
Ladder 1 2 5 9 21 17
Ladder 2 4 7 15
Ladder 1 4 7 8 15
Ladder 2 1 5 8 16
Ladder 1 4 8 8 16 17
Ladder 2 4 7 6 18
Ladder 1 2 6 19
Ladder 2 4 8 7 15
Wine - Kathleen
Wine - Mark
Table 19c - Winery Visitors
A=Attributes, C=Consequences, V=Values
Wine - Brett
Wine - Will
Wine - Rod
Wine - Kris
Wine - Kate
Wine - Gina
Wine - Benjamin
Wine - Amy
Wine - Adam
110
Fun &
Enjo
ym
ent
Qual
ity o
f P
roduct
Lea
rnin
g
Far
mer
or
Vin
tner
Envir
onm
enta
l
& C
lean
Food
Var
iety
of
Pro
duct
s
Com
munity S
upport
Soci
al I
nte
ract
ion
Per
sonal
Eco
nom
ics
Conven
ience
Sel
f-S
atis
fact
ion &
Impro
vem
ent
Loca
l E
conom
y &
Civ
ic P
ride
Envir
m't
& A
nti-
Mas
s M
rkt'd
Food
Far
mer
&
Win
emak
er
Loca
l P
roduct
s
Fam
ily &
Fri
ends
& P
eople
Indulg
ence
& F
un
Hea
lth
M, F, or WD 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.01 1.00 2.00 2.01 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 ###
LP, W, P 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
OSA & A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
P - F & W 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
F & E 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 ###
Q of P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 1.02 1.00 1.01 0.00 1.00 ###
Learning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 ###
F or V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 ###
E & CF 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.01 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 ###
V of P 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 ###
CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 ###
SI 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 ###
PE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
Conv. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
SS & I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
LE & CP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
E & AMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
F & W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
LP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
F & F & P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
I & F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ###
Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 20 - Implications Matrix - Community Farmers' Market Visitors (See Appendix C for Abbreviation Key)
111
Fun &
Enjo
ym
ent
Qual
ity o
f P
roduct
Lea
rnin
g
Far
mer
or
Vin
tner
Envir
onm
enta
l
& C
lean
Food
Var
iety
of
Pro
duct
s
Com
munity S
upport
Soci
al I
nte
ract
ion
Per
sonal
Eco
nom
ics
Conven
ience
Sel
f-S
atis
fact
ion &
Impro
vem
ent
Loca
l E
conom
y &
Civ
ic P
ride
Envir
m't
& A
nti-
Mas
s M
rkt'd
Food
Far
mer
&
Win
emak
er
Loca
l P
roduct
s
Fam
ily &
Fri
ends
& P
eople
Indulg
ence
& F
un
Hea
lth
M, F, or WD 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 ### 0.01 ### 0.00 1.02 1.01 0.01 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
LP, W, P 2.01 4.01 1.00 0.00 5.01 2.00 ### 0.00 ### 1.00 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
OSA & A 3.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
P - F & W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F & E 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Q of P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Learning 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
F or V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E & CF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 1.00 ### 0.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
V of P 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.01
CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
PE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conv. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SS & I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LE & CP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E & AMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F & W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F & F & P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
I & F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 21 - Implications Matrix - On-Farm Market Visitors (See Appendix C for Abbreviation Key)
112
Fun &
Enjo
ym
ent
Qual
ity o
f P
roduct
Lea
rnin
g
Far
mer
or
Vin
tner
Envir
onm
enta
l
& C
lean
Food
Var
iety
of
Pro
duct
s
Com
munity S
upport
Soci
al I
nte
ract
ion
Per
sonal
Eco
nom
ics
Conven
ience
Sel
f-S
atis
fact
ion &
Impro
vem
ent
Loca
l E
conom
y &
Civ
ic P
ride
Envir
m't
& A
nti-
Mas
s M
rkt'd
Food
Far
mer
&
Win
emak
er
Loca
l P
roduct
s
Fam
ily &
Fri
ends
& P
eople
Indulg
ence
& F
un
Hea
lth
M, F, or WD 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.00 ### 1.00 0.00 ### ### 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
LP, W, P 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 ### 0.02 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00
OSA & A 1.00 0.00 1.01 1.00 0.01 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
P - F & W 1.00 0.02 5.02 4.04 0.01 ### 0.01 1.00 ### ### 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
F & E 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 ### 2.00 0.00 ### ### 1.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00
Q of P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.02 0.00 1.00 0.00
Learning 0.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 3.04 0.03 0.01 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
F or V 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 ### 1.00 0.00 ### ### 2.02 3.01 1.01 2.02 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00
E & CF 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
V of P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 4.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SI 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
PE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conv. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SS & I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LE & CP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E & AMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F & W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
LP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F & F & P 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
I & F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ### 0.00 0.00 ### ### 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 22 - Implications Matrix - Winery Visitors (See Appendix C for Abbreviation Key)
113
Hierarchical Value Maps for Agri-Tourism Consumer Segments
The implications matrices serve as summary tables, from which “dominant connections
can then be graphically represented in a tree diagram, termed a hierarchical value map (HVM)”
(Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Such maps allow visual representation of the attributes,
consequences, and values as consumers’ motivations related to products are considered. In this
project, three HVMs focus on three segments of agri-tourism consumers: community farmers’
market visitors, on-farm market visitors, and winery visitors.
HVMs are built through the reconstruction of “chains” from aggregate data (Saaka,
Sidon, & Blake, 2004). In this project, the chains are the connected elements that emerge from
the collection of coded elements of attributes, consequences, and values related to agri-tourism
destination visits. These chains are embedded in the implication matrices and are reconstructed
as HVMs.
A “cutoff” must be established when constructing an HVM, as dominant elements need
to take priority to manage the data. The cutoff, which is arbitrary and determined at the
judgment of the researcher, is “a minimum number of links that must be present before one
considers that item” (Saaka et al., 2004). A typical cutoff of “usually from 3 to 5 relations, given
a sample of 50 to 60 individuals” (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988) was determined too high upon
initial analysis of the data in this project. Therefore, a cutoff of 2 relations was used in
constructing the HVMs for this project. This cutoff of 2 relations proved to allow rich data to be
represented in the HVMs and further allowed the most relevant information to be revealed. A
relatively low cutoff point prevents information loss when constructing the Hierarchical Value
Map (Grunert, K.G., Grunert, S.C., & Sørenson, 1995).
114
The process of selecting the elements to use in the HVM was one of visually walking
through the data presented on the implications matrices. The process involved starting in the
first row, finding values at or above the cutoff level (2 relations), and proceeding to link each
direct element of the chain to build the ladders.
For example, Table 21 shows the implications matrix for On-Farm Market Visitors.
Starting with the first row of the attributes, Market, Farm or Winery Destination, and utilizing
the cutoff of 2, the first noteworthy element that the attribute Market, Farm or Winery
Destination leads to is the consequence element of Environmental & Clean Food, as shown by
the 2.0 coding in the implications matrix. Again, the 2.0 indicates that there are 2 direct relation
statements and 0 indirect relation statements in the coded data between this attribute and this
consequence.
Because Market, Farm or Winery Destination was related to Environmental & Clean
Food, the next row to look at is the ninth one down, Environmental & Clean Food. Following
the row to the right, the eleventh column over, Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, is the first value
element to have a significant value, 3.00, over the established cut off of 2. Therefore, in this
example, the value of Self-Satisfaction & Improvement is linked to the Market, Farm or Winery
Destination and Environmental & Clean Food elements. Figure 2 shows this chain.
Figure 2 - Self-Satisfaction & Improvement Chain
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement (V)
Environmental & Clean Food (C)
Market, Farm, or Winery Destination (A)
115
Moving further down this Environmental & Clean Food row, again to the right, is the
next significant value: Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food. Here again, there was a
significant value, 7.00, over the cutoff of 2.0. Figure 3 shows the final chain, which includes one
attribute, one consequence, and two values.
Figure 3 - Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food Chain
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food (V)
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement (V)
Environmental & Clean Food (C)
Market, Farm, & Winery Destination (A)
This building of the HVMs process also included applying these steps to uncover all
attribute, consequence, and values chains across all three implications matrices. The results of
these efforts led to the construction of the three HVMs proposed in this project, including one for
each of the agri-tourism consumer segments considered. These HVMs are shown in Figures
4 through 6. Note that HVMs show the values at the top, consequences in the middle, and
attributes at the bottom, as the laddering interviews allow the researcher and respondent to
“climb” the ladder from attributes, consequences, and values (in ascending order).
Dominant Perceptual Pathways
The implications matrices serve to show the elements in terms of the number of direct
and indirect relations they have with other elements. As stated, all of the numbers displayed in
116
the implication matrix show direct counts to the left of the decimal and indirect counts to the
right of the decimal. Sums of rows or columns of these numbers present the direct and indirect
VA
LU
ES
Local
Economy &
Civic Pride
Self-
Satisfaction
&
Improvement
Farmer &
Winemaker
Environment
& Anti-Mass
Marketed
Food
Variety
of
Products
Fun &
Enjoyment
Community
Support
Social
Interaction
Farmer or
Vintner
Environmental
& Clean Food
Quality of
Product
Market,
Farm, or
Winery
Destination
People -
Farmers &
Winemakers
Local
Produce,
Wines,
Products
CO
NS
EQ
UE
NC
ES
AT
TR
IBU
TE
S
Figure 4 - Hierarchical Values Map - Community Farmers' Market Visitors
117
VA
LU
ES Environment
& Anti-Mass
Marketed
Food
Self-
Satisfaction &
Improvement
Local
Economy &
Civic Pride
Quality of
Product
Environmental
& Clean Food
Fun &
Enjoyment
Variety
of
Products
Local
Produce,
Wines,
Products
Market, Farm,
or Winery
Destination
On-Site
Activities &
Attractions
CO
NS
EQ
UE
NC
ES
AT
TR
IBU
TE
S
Figure 5 - Hierarchical Values Map - On-Farm Market Visitors
118
VA
LU
ES
Local
Economy &
Civic Pride
Self-
Satisfaction &
Improvement
Farmer &
Winemaker
Family &
Friends &
People
Local
Products
Quality of
Product
Community
Support
Farmer or
VintnerLearning
Fun &
Enjoyment
Market, Farm,
or Winery
Destination
Local Produce,
Wines,
Products
People -
Farmers &
Winemakers
AT
TR
IBU
TE
SC
ON
SE
QU
EN
CE
SFigure 6 - Hierarchical Values Map - Winery Visitors
119
counts for each attribute, consequence, and value. For example, in Table 20, the Community
Farmers’ Market matrix, the first row shows the attribute Market, Farm or Winery Destination.
Adding this row (3.00 + 1.00 + 1.00 + 2.01 + 1.00 + 2.00 + 2.01 + 3.01 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03+
0.03 + 0.02 + 0.03) returns the total of 15.20, which can be interpreted as 15 total direct counts
and 20 total indirect counts for the attribute Market, Farm or Winery Destination.
Tables 23 through 25 present the totals of the direct and indirect relations for the
elements in each respective matrix. The sum of row values is the number of “to” relationships,
while the sum of the columns is the number of “from” relationships.) The row sum measures the
number of relationships that branch away from that particular row category, whereas the column
sum measures the number of relationships that branch into that particular column category. This
offers a way of counting the number of times the various “roads” in the HVM’s are travelled.
Because indirect relationships are less important than direct relationships, this method gives
indirect relationships a less significant value (one direct relationship is worth 1.00; while one
indirect relationship is worth 0.01).
Table 23 shows the Community Farmers’ Market Visitors’ direct and indirect relations
for each element. The Self Satisfaction & Improvement value element shows the most elements
leading from it. Three other value elements appear to have importance with higher frequencies
of elements leading from them, including Support Farmer & Winemaker, Environment & Anti-
Mass Marketed Food, and Local Economy & Civic Pride. These may be considered core values
as they relate to the Community Farmers’ Market Visitors segment of agri-tourism destination
visitors.
120
The consequences elements of Community Support, Quality of Product, Farmer or
Vintner, and Environmental & Clean Food all appear to be important links in the chains from
attributes to values for the Community Farmers’ Market Visitors segment.
for Each Element - Community Farmers' Market Visitors
Elements To From
Market, Farm or Winery Destination (A) 15.2 0
Local Produce, Wines, Products (A) 5.06 0
On-Site Activities & Attractions (A) 0 0
People - Farmers & Winemakers (A) 4.07 0
Fun and Enjoyment (C) 4.01 4
Quality of Product (C) 7.04 5.01
Learning (C) 2 1
Farmer or Vintner (C) 7.04 5.01
Environmental & Clean Food (C) 7.01 5.02
Variety of Products (C) 3.02 2
Community Support (C) 10 6.02
Social Interaction (C) 5.04 5.01
Personal Economics (C) 0 0
Convenience (C) 0 0
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement (V) 0 9.1
Local Economy & Civic Pride (V) 0 6.06
Envirm't & Anti-Mass Mrkt'd Food (V) 0 6.07
Farmer & Winemaker (V) 0 8.09
Local Products (V) 0 3.03
Family & Friends & People (V) 0 1.01
Indulgence & Fun (V) 0 3.06
Health (V) 0 0
Table 23 - Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships
The most important attribute element in the chain for the Community Farmers’ Market
Visitors segment appears to be Market, Farm or Winery Destination, followed to a lesser extent
by Local Produce, Wines, Products, and People – Farmers & Winemakers.
121
Table 24 shows the On-Farm Market Visitors direct and indirect relations for each
element. The value element Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food shows the most elements
leading from it. Two other value elements appear to have importance with higher frequencies of
elements leading from them; these include Self Satisfaction & Improvement and Local Economy
& Civic Pride. These elements may be considered core values as they relate to the On-Farm
Market Visitors segment of agri-tourism destination visitors.
Table 24 - Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships
for Each Element - On-Farm Market Visitors
Elements To From
Market, Farm or Winery Destination (A) 8.07 0
Local Produce, Wines, Products (A) 15.19 0
On-Site Activities & Attractions (A) 4.06 0
People - Farmers & Winemakers (A) 0 0
Fun and Enjoyment (C) 6.01 7.01
Quality of Product (C) 7 5.01
Learning (C) 3.01 3.01
Farmer or Vintner (C) 2 1
Environmental & Clean Food (C) 12.02 8.01
Variety of Products (C) 3.03 3
Community Support (C) 0 0
Social Interaction (C) 2 1.01
Personal Economics (C) 0 0
Convenience (C) 1.01 1
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement (V) 0 8.08
Local Economy & Civic Pride (V) 0 6.07
Envirm't & Anti-Mass Mrkt'd Food (V) 0 9.09
Farmer & Winemaker (V) 0 4.04
Local Products (V) 0 3.03
Family & Friends & People (V) 0 2.02
Indulgence & Fun (V) 0 1.01
Health (V) 0 1.01
122
The consequences elements of Environmental & Clean Food, Quality of Product, and
Fun and Enjoyment all appear to be important links in the chains from attributes to values for the
On-Farm Market Visitors segment.
The most important attribute element in the chain for the On-Farm Market Visitors
segment appears to be the Local Produce, Wines, Products, followed by the Market, Farm or
Winery Destination and On-Site Activities & Attractions.
Table 25 - Summary of Direct and Indirect Relationships
for Each Element - Winery Visitors
Elements To From
Market, Farm or Winery Destination (A) 4.08 0
Local Produce, Wines, Products (A) 5.07 0
On-Site Activities & Attractions (A) 3.03 0
People - Farmers & Winemakers (A) 11.14 0
Fun and Enjoyment (C) 8.06 7
Quality of Product (C) 5.02 4.02
Learning (C) 10.11 11.03
Farmer or Vintner (C) 14.06 11.06
Environmental & Clean Food (C) 7 3.03
Variety of Products (C) 0 0
Community Support (C) 6.01 4.03
Social Interaction (C) 1.03 1
Personal Economics (C) 0 0
Convenience (C) 0 0
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement (V) 0 8.11
Local Economy & Civic Pride (V) 0 8.09
Envirm't & Anti-Mass Mrkt'd Food (V) 0 3.05
Farmer & Winemaker (V) 0 6.07
Local Products (V) 0 2.04
Family & Friends & People (V) 0 3.03
Indulgence & Fun (V) 0 3.05
Health (V) 0 0
123
Table 25 shows the Winery Visitors direct and indirect relations for each element. The
value element Self-Satisfaction & Improvement shows the most elements leading from it. Two
other value elements appear to have importance with higher frequencies of elements leading
from them; these include Economy & Civic Pride and Support Farmer & Winemaker. These
elements may be considered core values as they relate to the Winery Visitors segment of agri-
tourism destination visitors.
The consequences elements of Farmer or Vintner, Learning, and Fun and Enjoyment all
appear to be important links in the chains from attributes to values for the Winery Visitors
segment.
The most important attribute element in the chain for the Winery Visitors segment
appears to be People – Farmers & Winemakers, followed by Local Produce, Wines, Products,
and Market, Farm or Winery Destination.
These dominant perceptual pathways are reflected to a large extent in the HVMs for each
segment of agri-tourism visitors. The visual representation of the HVMs, combined with an
understanding of the dominant perceptual pathways, provides a platform to discuss opportunities
related to implications for both future research and opportunities for agri-tourism practitioners.
The identification of the values among the three segments of agri-tourism consumers, including
visitors to community farmers’ markets, on-farm markets, and wineries, allows for further
exploration of branding issues. In addition, they are the basis for the discussion of these
hierarchical value maps for agri-tourism consumer segments, discussion of the project’s research
questions, recommendations for the agri-tourism industry, and recommendations for future
research.
124
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goals of this exploratory research project included identifying and investigating
underlying consumer values related to agri-tourism experiences. Through looking at consumer
values across three key categories of agri-tourism experiences (winery tours, community
farmers’ market visits, and on-farm market destination visits) this project set the foundation for
discussion regarding whether the values among consumers of these experiences are similar or
different, and to address the question of whether these agri-tourism choices originate from
similar or different values.
In addition, the project explored how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. As a result of this project, there is a
foundation to discuss issues related to agri-tourism brands and branding opportunities.
This chapter contains a summary of interview findings including the discussion of
hierarchical value maps for agri-tourism consumer segments. The chapter also includes a
discussion of the findings related to each of the project’s research questions. In addition, there
are recommendations for the agri-tourism industry and recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Attributes, Consequences, and Values Revealed Through Selective Coding
This research project’s findings offer two opportunities to consider the values among
agri-tourism destination consumers: 1) the selective coding results for attributes, consequences,
and values, and 2) the Hierarchical Value Maps. The selective coding results for attributes,
consequences, and values are discussed first, followed by the Hierarchical Value Maps.
125
The laddering interview coding process, including the open coding and the selective
coding process stages called for in means-end chain theory (and Grounded Theory), provided
adequate data for the discussion of the attributes, consequences, and values of importance to
agri-tourism destination visitors.
Attributes Revealed Through Selective Coding
The coding process revealed that for interview respondents, the top attribute category
varied by agri-tourism destination visitor segments. However, there were some common
categories of importance which emerged. Table 9, in Chapter 4, shows the selective coding of
attributes results for each of the investigated segments of agri-tourism consumers: winery
visitors, community farmers’ market visitors, and on-farm market visitors.
A look at the attribute classifications shows the top category for both community
farmers’ market and winery visitors is Market, Farm or Winery Destination, i.e., the destination
itself.
For the on-farm visitors, the Local Produce, Wines, Products category appears through
the selective coding process to be most important. This attribute also appears to be important to
the community farmers’ market and winery visitors segments.
While these are not the underlying values, according to means-end theory, these findings
indicate that the important attributes are the destinations (the actual community farmers’
markets, on-farm markets, and wineries) and the local products found at them. In the case of the
on-farm visitors, it is the products that appear to be the most important attribute.
Table 9 also indicates that winery visitors find all four categories of attributes to be
almost equally important, with responses selectively coded evenly across all categories. These
126
results indicate that the winery visitors find a number of attributes important as they engage in
agri-tourism destination visits – including the products, the destination, the activities and
attractions, and the vintners.
The selective coding results also indicate that on-farm market visitors find local products
to be most important (with nearly double the number of responses for products compared to the
destination), and that, for community farmers’ market visitors, the market itself is the most
important attribute.
Consequences Revealed Through Selective Coding
Table 10, in Chapter 4, shows that the top ranked consequences for interview respondents
varied by each agri-tourism destination visitor segment.
The selective coding reveals that the winery visitors segment of consumers find the most
important consequence in visiting a winery destination to be Fun and Enjoyment. There is
indication that Learning appears to be an important consequence to winery visitors segment as
well, with the consequence being the visitors learn more about farming, food, or production and
processing techniques. Also registering as an important consequence to winery visitors is the
Farmer or Vintner, where the consequence of visiting the destination is encountering the skills or
expertise of the farmers or winemakers.
The results indicate that the community farmers’ market and on-farm visitors’ most
important consequence in visiting a destination is Quality of Product, where the consequence of
visiting a destination is related to the quality of the products offered, including freshness, flavor,
texture, and appearance.
127
In addition, the results indicate Fun and Enjoyment as an important consequence to the
on-farm visitor segment of agri-tourism consumers.
Values Revealed Through Selective Coding
Table 11, Chapter 4, shows the highest selectively coded values for interview respondents
varied by agri-tourism destination visitor segments.
The results indicate that Self-Satisfaction & Improvement is among the most important
values for all segments of agri-tourism consumers, with the responses coded to this category
highest for winery and community farmers’ market visitors’ values, and within two responses
from being the highest for the on-farm visitors. Self-Satisfaction & Improvement is the value
category related to the respondents’ choices made regarding self-improvement through
education, healthy living, or other means.
Results also indicate that winery visitors, like the community farmers’ market segment,
find the Support Farmer & Winemaker value to be important. Support Farmer & Winemaker is
the value category associated with the respondents’ feelings for supporting the individual farmer,
farmers, winemakers, or entrepreneurs.
Additionally, there is indication that winery visitors find the Local Economy & Civic
Pride values important. These are values related to the respondents’ feelings regarding
supporting the local and state economy, and the associated sense of pride in the Northwest
Michigan area. Note that the winery visitors who provided responses to the laddering interview
were all from the Northwest Michigan area, and, therefore, all wineries were local in proximity.
The results indicate that on-farm market visitors find the Environment & Anti-Mass
Marketed Food value most important, just edging out the Self-Satisfaction & Improvement value
128
in the results. The Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food category includes values related to
the respondents’ feelings regarding caring for the environment, eco-friendly agricultural
practices, and sustainability issues, both locally and globally – including feelings regarding large
scale food production, and large scale food distribution and sales.
Discussion of Values Revealed in Hierarchical Value Maps
Hierarchical Value Maps (HVMs) are the visual displays of how the attributes,
consequences, and values are linked. These maps serve to visually summarize dominant
perceptual orientations (ways of thinking) by all consumers with respect to the product category.
While the attributes, consequences, and values results from the selective coding process
may be strong indicators, it is the HVMs, shown in Figures 4-6, in Chapter 4, which offer the
summary of more refined results. The results were analyzed through open coding, selective
coding, and the development of implications matrices before being posted to the HVMs.
Attributes are concrete or abstract product characteristics, and, in this project, are best
thought of as features that include the physical assets of an agri-tourism destination, the variety
of products offered, and more. According to means-end chain theory, consumers seek out
products which contain those attributes that lead to desired consequences. Consequences are the
desired outcomes of engagement with a product. These consequences include desirable quality
of products, experiences, and more. In this study, both the attributes and consequences of
consumers’ engagement in agri-tourism experiences are considered and displayed in the HVMs.
However, most significant, it is in the HVMs where the core values as they relate to the three
agri-tourism consumer segments researched are displayed for consideration.
129
The values uncovered and displayed in the HVMs serve as the foundation for the balance
of this chapter for supporting discussion addressing research questions related to values and
brands, recommendations for the agri-tourism industry, implications for branding of agri-tourism
experiences, and recommendations for future research.
Review of Values Coding Logic
The HVMs for each segment of agri-tourism reveal the values of importance. To
summarize, Figure 7 shows the coding logic for the values statements made by respondents.
(This coding logic was also presented in Chapter 4.)
While all of these values categories emerged from the respondents’ coded statements, not
all emerged as important enough among all interview participants in each segment to be included
in the HVMs.
Agri-Tourism Visitor Segments’ Values
The values displayed in the community farmers’ market visitors HVM, shown in Figure
4, Chapter 4, are Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, Local Economy & Civic Pride, Environment
& Anti-Mass Marketed Food, and Support Farmer & Winemaker.
The values displayed in the on-farm market visitors’ HVM, shown in Figure 5, Chapter 4,
are Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, Local Economy & Civic Pride, and Environment & Anti-
Mass Marketed Food.
130
Figure 7 - Values Coding Logic
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement: Statements of values related to
the respondents' choices made regarding self-improvement through
education, healthy living or other means were selectively coded to the
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement category.
Local Economy & Civic Pride: Statements of values related to the
respondents' feelings regarding supporting the local and state
economy, and related sense of pride in the Northwest Michigan area,
were selectively coded to the Local Economy & Civic Pride
category.
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food: Statements of values
related to the respondents' feelings regarding caring for the
environment, eco-friendly agricultural practices, and sustainability
issues, both locally and globally, were selectively coded to the
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food category. This category
includes feelings regarding large scale food production ("agri-
business") and large scale food distribution and sales ("grocery
stores").
Farmer & Winemaker : Statements of values related to the
respondents' feelings regarding supporting the individual farmer,
farmers, winemakers or entrepreneurs, were selectively coded to the
Farmer & Winemaker category. This includes the desire to support
the farmers and winemakers, as well as the respect/admiration of the
farmers and winemakers, their independence and their
entrepreneurial spirit.
Local Products: Statements of values related to the respondents’
desire to eat local foods, as they are perceived to better in nutrition,
and or grown in more sustainable ways, were selectively coded to
the Local Products category.
Family & Friends & People: Statements of values related to the
respondents’ connections with family, friends and others were
selectively coded to Family & Friends & People.
Indulgence & Fun: Statements of values related to the respondents
feelings regarding improving oneself, including self-education,
expansion of understanding, and increasing awareness and
knowledge, were selectively coded to Indulgence & Fun.
Health: Statements of values related to the respondents’ feelings
regarding health benefits of eating the products offered at the agri-
tourism destinations were selectively coded to the Health category.
131
The values displayed in the winery visitors’ HVM, shown in Figure 6, Chapter 4, are
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, Local Economy & Civic Pride, Support Farmer & Winemaker,
Local Products, and Family & Friends & People.
Discussion of Values for Agri-Tourism Visitors
A review of the values categories coding logic employed in this project through the
multiple coding steps helps set the stage to address the research questions and conclusions put
forth in this chapter. This review of the meaning of the values categories may allow better
understanding of the results discussion.
Figure 8 - Values Categories in HVM Maps
Community
Farmers' Market
Visitors
On-Farm Market
VisitorsWinery Visitors
Local Economy &
Civic Pride
Local Economy &
Civic Pride
Local Economy &
Civic Pride
Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement
Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement
Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement
Farmer &
Winemaker
Farmer &
Winemaker
Environment & Anti-
Mass Marketed
Food
Environment & Anti-
Mass Marketed
Food
Family & Friends &
People
Local Products
Figure 8 shows a summary of those values categories which appeared in the HVMs for
each segment of agri-tourism visitors. This summary shows the sharing of values across each of
132
the agri-tourism segments. All segments share the value of Local Economy & Civic Pride and
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement. The community farmers’ market and winery visitors segments
share the Support Farmer & Winemaker value. The community farmers’ market and on-farm
market visitors segments share the Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food values.
Discussion of Research Questions
This project proposed four key areas of research questions. The means-end chain theory process,
which required multiple stages of coding, including the open and selective coding stages, and the
development of the implications matrices and the hierarchical maps for each segment, provided
evidence to help address each research question. The following section of this chapter addresses
these research questions.
Research Question #1: Why do consumers visit agri-tourism destinations?
Means-end chain theory proposes that consumers utilize or purchase a product due to
some product attributes that can provide particular benefits that consumers seek out that will
serve the personal values consumers connect with the benefits (Gutman, 1982). Consumers are
goal-oriented decision-makers, who choose to engage in the pursuit of products and services that
seem most likely to lead to desired outcomes. Therefore, the reason consumers visit agri-tourism
destinations goes beyond the surface attributes offered. Consumers engage in agri-tourism
depending on their evaluation of the self-relevant consequences of doing so. The answer to this
key research question of why consumers visit agri-tourism destinations is because consequences
are relevant to consumers because of their deeper values. This project summarizes those
consequences and values for three key segments of agri-tourism consumers.
133
Reasons Why Community Farmers’ Market Consumers Visit Agri-Tourism Destinations
When considering attributes, the HVM for community farmers’ market consumers,
Figure 4, Chapter 4, indicates that this segment of agri-tourism consumers engages in destination
visits because of a number of consequences. These consumers feel that the consequences of their
visiting the community farmers’ market include 1) having a fun and enjoyable outing at the
market; 2) that the products they purchase at the community market will be of higher quality
(including freshness, flavor, texture, and appearance); 3) that they will encounter farmers at these
markets who offer a higher level of skills or expertise; 4) that there are positive environmental
implications related to the way the products sold at the markets are produced and that these
products are unprocessed, purer, more wholesome, or cleaner; 5) that there is a wider/better
variety of products sold; 6) that their doing so allows them to better support their community;
and 7) that they will meet others, and make social connections with others at their market.
The HVM for this segment shows that the most important values for community farmers’
market consumers that drive this segment to engage in visiting agri-tourism destinations include:
1) a desire for self-improvement and to better themselves through education, healthy living, or
other means; 2) deep feelings that supporting the individual farmer, farmers, winemakers, or
entrepreneurs is the right thing to do; 3) a sense of obligation to support the local and state
economy, and a related sense of pride in the Northwest Michigan area; and 4) strong feelings
regarding caring for the environment, supporting eco-friendly agricultural practices, and
sustainable food systems, both locally and globally, and strong feelings of concern over the
negatives of large scale food production and large scale food distribution and sales.
134
Reasons Why On-Farm Market Consumers Visit Agri-Tourism Destinations
The on-farm market segment of agri-tourism consumers engage in destination visits due
to a number of expected/anticipated consequences, as displayed in their HVM, Figure 5, Chapter
4. This segment of agri-tourism consumers feels that the consequences of their visiting on-farm
markets include 1) having a fun and enjoyable outing at the market; 2) that the products that they
purchase at the market will be of higher quality (including freshness, flavor, texture, and
appearance); 3) that there are positive environmental implications related to the way the products
sold at the markets are produced, and that they will find products that are unprocessed, pure,
wholesome, or clean; and 4) that there is a wider/better variety of products sold. Note that a
number of these consequences for the on-farm market segment are shared with the community
farmers’ market segment.
The HVM for this consumer segment shows that the most important values that compel
them to visit on-farm market destinations include: 1) a desire for self-improvement and to better
themselves through education, healthy living, or other means; 2) a sense of obligation to support
the local and state economy, and a related sense of pride in the Northwest Michigan area; and 3)
strong feelings regarding caring for the environment, supporting eco-friendly agricultural
practices, and sustainable food systems, both locally and globally, and strong feelings of concern
over the negatives of large scale food production and large scale food distribution and sales.
Again, as in the case of consequences, these important values for the on-farm market
segment are shared with the community farmers’ market segment.
135
Reasons Why Winery Consumers Visit Agri-Tourism Destinations
The HVM for winery consumers, Figure 6, Chapter 4, indicates that this segment of agri-
tourism consumers also engages in destination visits because of various anticipated
consequences. These consumers feel that the consequences of their visiting a winery include: 1)
having a fun and enjoyable outing; 2) that the products that they purchase will be of higher
quality (including freshness, flavor, texture, and appearance); 3) that they will encounter farmers
or vintners who offer a higher level of skills or expertise; 4) that their visiting a winery allows
them to better support their community; and 5) that a visit to a winery will allow them to learn
more about farming, food, or production and processing techniques.
The HVM for this segment shows that the most important values that drive winery
consumers to engage in agri-tourism destinations visits include: 1) a desire for self-improvement
and to better themselves through education, healthy living, or other means; 2) deep personal
feelings that supporting the individual farmer, farmers, winemakers, or entrepreneurs is the right
thing to do; 3) a sense of obligation to support the local and state economy, and a related sense of
pride in the Northwest Michigan area; 4) the desire to make connections with family, friends,
and others; and 5) the desire to eat local foods because they are perceived to better in nutrition,
and/or grown in more sustainable ways.
Research Question #2: What are the relationships between consumer values, brands, and
agri-tourism experiences?
The hierarchical value maps offer insight related to the important values for each of the
segments of agri-tourism consumers involved in this project. These HVMs address the question
of the relationships between values and agri-tourism experiences.
136
As outlined in the HVMs, all three segments of agri-tourism consumers share three
important values, including a desire for self-improvement and to better themselves through
education, healthy living, or other means; a sense of obligation to support the local and state
economy, and a related sense of pride in the Northwest Michigan area; and strong feelings
regarding caring for the environment, supporting eco-friendly agricultural practices, and
sustainable food systems, both locally and globally, and strong feelings of concern over the
negatives of large scale food production and large scale food distribution and sales.
In addition, both the community farmers market and winery segments share the deep
feelings that supporting the individual farmer, farmers, winemakers, or entrepreneurs is the right
thing to do.
The winery segment also holds an important value in the desire to make connections with
family, friends, and others; and the desire to eat local foods because they are perceived to be
better in nutrition, and/or grown in more sustainable ways.
While the HVMs offer the best summary results of the important values uncovered in this
project, selective coding results also offer the opportunity to consider brands and related agri-
tourism issues. Tables 15-16, in Chapter 4, present results related to brands, and offer insight
into how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism
experiences. The findings which appear in Tables 15-16 emerged from the open coding and
selective coding stages described in Chapter 4.
Table 15, Chapter 4, contains the selectively coded responses to interview discussions
related to what respondents would say in a promotional advertisement to encourage others to
participate in agri-tourism experiences. Advertising serves as the language of brands, and it is
137
where most consumers understand the concept of brands. This selectively coded category
reveals how respondents may think in terms of agri-tourism brands.
Table 15 shows that winery visitors’ have more statements suggesting the inclusion of
Region (NW Michigan Area) in an advertisement than any other theme. The second highest
number of suggestions to include in an advertisement promoting agri-tourism was Product(s).
Both the community farmers’ market visitors and on-farm market visitors suggest
Product(s) as the first choice to be included in an advertisement promoting agri-tourism.
The combined results of all three segments show that these destination visitors feel that
the Product(s), followed by Region (NW Michigan Area), are most important to be included in
an advertisement promoting agri-tourism. A third category of note that was suggested to include
in an advertisement was People (Farmers, Vintners).
Table 16, Chapter 4, contains selectively coded responses to interview discussions related
to the elements of brands for agri-tourism. These responses were made regarding what things
respondents felt were most important when considering agri-tourism experiences and where they
feel most consumers might connect with agri-tourism related brands. The most important
category of responses was determined to be Product(s). This was followed by the Destination
(Farm, Winery, Market) and the People (Farmer, Vintner) categories.
Based upon the selectively coded responses shown in Tables 15 and 16, it appears that
when summarizing how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences, Product(s) (fresh produce, wines, etc.) appears as the
strongest element. And based upon the results of these tables, the brand element categories of
Region (NW Michigan Area) and Destination (Farm, Winery, Market) should follow local
products when summarizing how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered
138
when engaging agri-tourism experiences. The next brand element that appears to be of
importance in how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging
agri-tourism experiences is People (Farmer, Vintner), i.e., those involved in the production of
agri-tourism products.
When considering placing local products at the top of how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences, it is important to note
that very few product brand names were mentioned in the interviews. The term “local” served as
the defining word to describe the products found at community farmers’ markets, on-farm
markets, and wineries. Product(s) included themes and descriptive terms such as “fresh”,
“clean”, “healthy”, “better for you”, and “better for my community”.
These four key categories, Product(s), Region (NW Michigan Area), Destination (Farm,
Winery, Market), and People (Farmer, Vintner) appear to make up the how consumers
hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences, as they
were discussed by consumers in the interviews and coded into what became the basis for
developing the HVMs for each segment of consumers. Note that the Local Produce, Wines,
Products category appears in each of the HVMs. This supports the idea of including local
products in the summary of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences.
Also, as discussed, the HVMs in Figures 4-6, Chapter 4 display the links from the
products through the values held by each segment of agri-tourism consumers. For the
community farmers’ market segment, there are links from Local Produce, Wines, Products to
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food. For on-farm visitors there are links from Local
Produce, Wines, Products to each set of values displayed in the HVM, including Environment &
139
Anti-Mass Marketed Food, Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, and Local Economy & Civic Pride.
The winery visitor HVM shows links to the values of Local Economy & Civic Pride, Self-
Satisfaction & Improvement, Support Farmer & Winemaker, Local Products, and Family &
Friends & People.
As mentioned, when considering the hierarchy of brands as they relate to agri-tourism,
the region and the destination (the farm, market, or winery) register as important to the agri-
tourism consumers involved in this project. The interview transcripts indicate that the region is
best defined as Northwest Michigan, and perhaps more specifically the Grand Traverse area.
The concept of region emerged through the selective coding process as an important element to
include in advertisements, and as something interview respondents related to brand hierarchies.
In addition, the concept of region (Local Economy & Civic Pride) appears to be a value for all
three segments of the agri-tourism consumers, as shown in the HVMs for each.
The fourth key concept which emerged through the selective coding process, and shown
in the results of Tables 15 and 16, is the concept of the people involved in the industry as
belonging in the summary of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered
when engaging agri-tourism experiences. This concept includes the farmers and vintners who
grow, process, and create the produce, baked goods, wines, etc., that are offered at agri-tourism
destinations.
Table 17, Chapter 4, which summarizes the number of responses related to the things the
agri-tourism visitors would choose to share with others about their experiences, indicates the
importance of The Experience. Table 18, Chapter 4, also strongly indicates that The Experience
is important. This table is the summary of responses to interview discussions related to feeling
respondents had after engaging in their agri-tourism experiences. The responses related to The
140
Experience far exceeded all other concepts coded for this post visit category. Therefore, The
Experience does appear to have a place in the summary of how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging in agri-tourism experiences.
Based upon the responses of the consumers in this project, the summary of how
consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism
experiences would appear to include The Local Products, The Region, The Destination, and The
Experience. However, there is some question as to where experience best fits. Experience
appears to be not an element of the how consumers hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences, rather an overarching category that is
made up of the local products, the region, the destination, the people, and the experience.
Figure 9 shows how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences based upon the findings of this project. The placement of the
elements/brands in this summary was determined through interpretation when considering the
numbers of coded responses for each in Tables 15 through 18, the attributes revealed in the
HVMs for each consumer segment, and the summary of direct and indirect relationships for each
element in the chains from attributes to consequences to values. Based upon this interpretation,
this figure indicates where the brands appear to reside in the summary of how Northwest
Michigan consumers who participated in this project hierarchically organize the brands
encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
141
Figure 9 - Summary of How Consumers Hierarchically Organize the Brands
Encountered When Engaging in Agri-Tourism Experiences
The Local Products
The Region
The Destination
The People (Farmers and Vintners)
Research Question #3: Are there important similarities and differences between agri-
tourism consumers at different agri-tourism venues?
The discussion related to Research Question #1, why consumers visit agri-tourism
destinations, revealed that, yes, there are a number of similarities and differences among
consumers at different agri-tourism venues. While there were differences between the segments,
there are common value themes that address why consumers engage in agri-tourism. Therefore,
the conclusion is that there are both similarities and differences between these agri-tourism
consumer segments.
Similarities and Differences Between Agri-Tourism Consumers at Different Venues
Across all three segments of agri-tourism consumers considered in this project are the
common values of Local Economy & Civic Pride and Self-Satisfaction & Improvement. These
value themes were found in the results for all three consumer segments engaged in visiting agri-
tourism destinations in Northwest Michigan.
Through interview statements, consumers revealed a sense of loyalty to their region,
which included expressions of desires to both help the local economy by shopping locally, and a
sense of civic pride. A statement by one of the interview respondents sums this up very well:
142
“For me, it’s the whole economics behind everything, keeping the money local and supporting
community because of my love for this town, my love for the people in this town.”
The theme of self-satisfaction and improvement appeared for all three segments of agri-
tourism consumers. Deep in many laddering interviews was the idea shared by many
respondents that they have a desire to learn about food, about farms, about the region, and about
themselves, and by engaging in agri-tourism they found that they bettered themselves. As stated
by an interview respondent: “I think to broaden my horizon. I mean, to learn. To become
knowledgeable on what’s out there.”
Some values were shared by two of the three segments considered in this project. An
example is the Support Farmer & Winemaker value. Community farmers’ market consumers
and those from the winery segment shared the core idea and personal belief that supporting the
individual farmer, farmers, winemakers, or entrepreneurs is the right thing to do. This statement
from the laddering interviews summarizes a tone that was prevalent in many responses: “You’re
eating something that someone put a lot of love into. And so talking to them about that is
important because it makes them feel the love back.”
Another value shared by two of the segments, the community farmers’ market and winery
visitors, was the Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food value, which consisted of the
underlying belief that caring for the environment, eco-friendly agricultural practices, and
sustainability issues, both locally and globally, were very important. This belief included
negative feelings regarding large scale food production, distribution, and sales. The sentiment
did not appear to be directed at the persons involved in these large scale industries as much as
toward the systems which were described as harmful, and, for some, unjust. This related
143
statement was offered: “I think your standard agricultural system does damage to the
environment. It does damage to the people that are involved.”
Two areas of important values that were unique to the winery segment of consumers were
the Family & Friends & People and Local Products. Winery visitors expressed feelings related
to the importance of making connections with family, friends, and others while engaging in
winery visits. Winery visitors also expressed a core desire to seek out local products because
they are perceived to be of better quality and/or grown in ways that would be less harmful if
consumed (lower pesticides).
The similarities between these three segments of agri-tourism consumers are that they all
place comparatively high importance on the values of Local Economy & Civic Pride and Self-
Satisfaction & Improvement.
Research Question #4: What role do agri-tourism brands play in consumer decision
making and consumer cognitive organization of agri-tourism experiences? For example,
do consumers anchor their values around brands or are brands incidental to the consumer
experience?
The summary of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging in agri-tourism experiences, shown in Figure 9, outlines what are the brand elements of
importance to the agri-tourism visitors. These brand elements appear as generic concepts, with
no specific product brand names having emerged through the selective coding process.
This research project did not uncover any significant findings related to private product
brands (i.e., a specific wine label) or place brands identification (e.g., Blackstar Farms). In agri-
tourism the dominant brands might be considered “non-labeled brands” which hold features and
144
functions of traditionally named brands. These non-labeled brands are concepts not named in a
traditional sense, but are labeled and understood for their attributes by consumers.
The project did, however, uncover that “local products” serves as the strongest brand
concept. Like other brands, this quasi-brand called local products has a number of strong
attributes. These include product features such as freshness, superior taste, etc. This local
products brand concept serves as an umbrella for a number of specific products (mentioned in
the results were a wide variety of fresh produce items, baked goods, wines, etc.)
As discussed, “the region” and “the destination” both appear as brands in the hierarchy of
agri-tourism brands. In this project, the region was labeled by some respondents as “Northwest
Michigan” or “the Grand Traverse area”. The destinations were often called by name, though
more generic terms were used throughout the laddering interviews (such as “the market”, “the
farm”, and “the winery”). No destination name appeared to dominate the overall summary of
interview conversations.
The summary of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences includes “the people” as a brand, though like the local
products, no one person’s name dominated or was discussed in detail. Instead, when presenting
responses related to the people involved in agri-tourism, respondents spoke in generic terms
(“the farmer”, “the winemaker”). Thus, for the respondents in this project, no one person
involved in agri-tourism stood out as a brand. Instead, the brand related to the farmers and
vintners was best titled “the people” of agri-tourism.
As described in response to Research Question #2, these consumers did place an
importance on “the experience” when responding to post-visit related questions. Through
responses related to post visit feelings, the agri-tourism visitors strongly indicated that the
145
experience is very important. Therefore, experience does appear to belong in the discussion of
how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism
experiences.
When considering how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when
engaging agri-tourism experiences, and the selectively coded concepts outlined in Chapter 4, it is
the local products that are offered at agri-tourism destinations that serve as the strongest brand.
It is worth noting that each of the three types of destinations (on-farm markets, community
farmers’ markets, and wineries) discussed in this project use local product advertising messages.
Had this project considered segments not offering products as a key draw for tourists, the results
may have been different. (As an example, an on-farm bed and breakfast or a horse trail riding
enterprise could be considered agri-tourism destinations, though they generally offer local
destination, not local products.)
In response to Question #4, specifically whether consumers anchor their values around
brands or if brands are incidental to the consumer experience, it does appear that consumers do
anchor their values around brands. This is evidenced by the results of this project. The HVMs
for each segment of agri-tourism consumers give some support to the conclusion that there are
values anchored in the agri-tourism brands. Though, as discussed, these might be considered as
non-label brands. These values are linked to local products, the destination, the region, and the
people (farmers/vintners) at these destinations, all of which make up the summary of how
consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism
experiences.
The results of this project support the idea that without the elements that make up the
summary of how consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-
146
tourism experiences (the local products, the destination, the region and the farmers/vintners), or
some combination of them, these three segments of consumers might not engage in agri-tourism
experiences.
According to the results of the responses presented through laddering interviews, and
culled through the coding process and development of the HVMs, these consumers do not
necessarily engage in agri-tourism for “the experience”. The results show that they engage in
agri-tourism experiences in pursuit of the elements in what is to be considered the hierarchy of
agri-tourism brands that appear to make up the experience. This hierarchy is the summary of
how consumers organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences.
As discussed in Chapter 2, an understanding of typologies allows a marketer to identify
which are the stronger or weaker brands in a given product category. Recall that Keller (2003)
offered that brand typologies are the hierarchy of brands. Brand hierarchies can describe the
level at which the brand symbol begins for the consumer. Prior to this project, such an
understanding was lacking when considering consumers’ involvement in agri-tourism. Also as
stated in Chapter 2, knowing how consumers organize brand symbols can be important because
it can indicate where promotional efforts should be applied.
The results further suggest that the consequences stemming from the attributes found in
agri-tourism make up the actual agri-tourism experience. These consequences occur in random
combinations and are different for each consumer. It is the consequences related to finding of
local products, visiting the destination, and the reinforcement of civic pride that happens as these
consumers visit a destination, and the encountering (and caring for) the farmer or vintner that
defines the agri-tourism experience. As means-end theory disclosed through this project,
attributes lead to these consequences, which are experiential consequences linked directly to the
147
values of the consumer. Therefore, the agri-tourism experience, which is made up of the
consequences of finding local products, visiting the destination and the region, and interacting
with the people, is linked directly to this project’s consumer respondents’ values.
Revisiting the literature review in Chapter 2 serves as a reminder that the definition of a
brand goes beyond a name, symbols, and functionality, as a brand must offer consumers a reason
“why” they should care and must provide meaning to consumers (Keller, 2003). A brand is
something that resides in the minds of consumers, and consumers develop personal meanings
about a brand, including attaching meaning to attributes, benefits, and images, and having
thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences that are linked to a brand by the consumer.
A brand image exists in the minds of consumers and goes beyond the product itself
(Sjodin & Törn, 2006). Successful brands “move beyond attributes to a brand identity based
upon a brand personality and a relationship with customers” (Aaker, 2007).
In this project, the hierarchical value maps developed through means-end theory, tell us
that there are underlying values that make the agri-tourism experience very memorable for
consumers. Because there are emotional connections, and because these experiences (the
collection of local products, the destination, the region, and the farmers/vintners) have meaning
in the form of values, it is reasonable to conclude that agri-tourism experiences can be branded.
The Agri-Tourism Experience Model
As discussed in the literature review and methodology chapters, Grounded Theory is a
research method of discovery which grounds a theory in reality (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). With
Grounded Theory the data collection and analysis are interrelated processes, with an end result of
Grounded Theory being the development of theory.
148
This project allowed for the emergence of key concepts. These were analyzed through the
open and selective coding stages. Concepts were then merged and united to complete the
HVMs. These HVMs allow the foundation for the development of a model to summarize the
hierarchy of agri-tourism experiences.
New Conceptual Framework
Figure 10 shows a model representing the agri-tourism experience brand. This agri-
tourism experience brand model represents a hybridization of how consumers hierarchically
organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism experiences. The model shows the
consequences of engaging in agri-tourism. The underlying values which emerged through this
project serve as the base of this model, as they represent the essence of the agri-tourism
consumer HVMs determined through the use of means-end chain theory in this project. This
agri-tourism experience brand model shows that consumers’ values, including those labeled
Local Economy & Civic Pride, Self-Satisfaction & Improvement, Support Farmer & Winemaker,
and Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food, all directly influence the attribute choices, which
are choices made to as means to satisfy consequences for consumers. These consequences of
engaging in agri-tourism, driven by the underlying values of the consumer participants, are what
make up the agri-tourism experience.
Recommendations for Agri-Tourism Industry
Members of the agri-tourism industry have a number of opportunities to better their
marketing efforts. The HVMs obtained through the laddering procedure offer several
particularly valuable types of information for solutions to some marketing problems (Reynolds &
149
Gutman, 1988). For the agri-tourism industry these could include 1) segmenting consumers by
values, 2) assessing brands, products, or experience offerings, and 3) developing promotional
strategies.
Figure 10 - The Agri-Tourism Experience Model
Consequences of
Agri-Tourism
The Local
ProductsThe Region The Destination
The People
(Farmers and
Vintners)
Consumer Values
The Agri-Tourism Experience
Local Economy & Civic Pride
Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Food
Farmer & Winemaker
Self-Satisfaction & Improvement
Segmentation Opportunities
Though the focus of this project was not a market segmentation study, means-end theory
allows the opportunity to place consumers into groups that have common wants and needs. The
HVMs provide the opportunity to help segment consumers who have similar values. Figure 8
shows where the values fit for each segment of consumer. The community farmers’ market
industry might consider to segment consumers by the value of Environment & Anti-Mass
Marketed Food. The community farmers’ market and winery industries might consider focusing
150
on understanding the value related to the farmers and vintners. All of agri-tourism may want to
work to more strongly to incorporate the values of Local Economy & Civic Pride and Self-
Satisfaction & Improvement, values themes that were consistent for all segments of consumers
considered in this project in marketing and promotional efforts. A segmentation strategy focused
on values may help the agri-tourism industry create branding messages with stronger appeal to
consumers.
Brand and Products Assessment
An understanding of the values outlined in the HVMs can also support efforts to evaluate
a product or brand offering. Instead of a focus on product attributes, industry members could
focus on the values identified through the means-end chain theory process. For example, the
wine industry might focus on expanding efforts to educate winery visitors, or work to begin
branding the vintners or farmers.
Development of Promotional Strategies
The understanding of values can help the agri-tourism industry position its products,
brands, or experiences against competitors in the tourism and food industries. The understanding
of the HVMs for agri-tourism can also support advertising strategies, as values can become the
themes of campaigns that promote not only the attributes and positive consequences, but the
values themselves. The promotional emphasis on supporting the local economy and civic pride
would be an example of themes that might resonate with both existing and potential agri-tourism
consumers.
151
Recommendations for Future Research
This work will lay the foundation for additional research in the areas of agri-tourism,
branding, communications, and other fields.
For example, further exploration of private product brands (i.e., a specific wine label) or
place brands identification (e.g., Blackstar Farms) may be a logical focus of future research
projects. The concept of “non-labeled brands” (which hold features and functions of
traditionally named brands, but are not named in the traditional branding sense) might be
explored.
The agri-tourism consumer values identified in this study provide a common ground for
continued research on the subject of agri-tourism. Next steps might include attempts to verify
these values through quantitative research methods.
Because this project focused on three specific consumer segments of agri-tourism, further
research to include other tourism segments, such as recreational tourists, eco-tourists, etc., could
be undertaken. A study of the homogeneity or further exploration of the differences between the
segments might prove useful as well.
This project was focused on Northwest Michigan agri-tourism consumers and, therefore,
subject to the unique geographic, social, and marketplace features of the area. Northwest
Michigan is isolated from many parts of the rest of Michigan consumers. There may be more
wineries in Northwest Michigan than any other Midwest location. Another unique feature of the
Northwest Michigan area is the reputation as a “foodie” town (as named by a national consumer
magazine) – with a strong support network among consumers, the media, and businesses who
promote and help sustain locally grown and produced foods. Therefore, research to include other
regions could be undertaken.
152
Future research could focus on confirming the theory put forth in the results of this
project and shown in the concluding model.
This work will lay the foundation for additional research in the areas of agri-tourism,
branding, communications, and other fields. The values identified in this study may provide a
common ground for communicating about agri-tourism experiences by both academics and
practitioners.
Summary
The project investigated consumers’ involvement in agri-tourism experiences and related
brand issues. This included exploring consumer values as they relate to agri-tourism emerged
through the use of laddering interviews, a tool of means-end chain theory. In addition, how
consumers hierarchically organize the brands encountered when engaging agri-tourism
experiences was uncovered.
This project went beyond the inventory approach of studying agri-tourism which has
typically focused on counting the numbers of agri-tourism, farm marketing, and food
destinations enterprises, estimating their economic impacts, and counting the numbers of
destination visitors and the amounts of products sold to consumers through these destinations.
Instead, this project focused on questions related to the values consumers place on agri-tourism
experiences and also helped for better understand consumers’ agri-tourism experiences.
Experiential marketing involves “creating an emotive connection to bring brands to life”
(Hudson & Ritchie, 2009). This project supports the idea that there are emotional connections
involved as consumers engage in agri-tourism experiences. The evidence of this is presented in
153
the HVMs, where attributes are linked to consequences and values. Inherent in these values are
the emotions held by the agri-tourism consumers who participated in this project.
This project reinforces considering “consumers as emotional beings” (Williams, A.,
2006) who engage in achieving pleasurable experiences. The HVMs for each agri-tourism
segment outline this seeking of pleasurable experiences. The shared value of Self-Satisfaction &
Improvement which appears in HVMs across all segments’ is evidence that the consumers in this
project seek such experiences. A review of HVMs confirms that indeed for all segments, the
essence of the tourism experience was truly insightful and rewarding.
In addition, this project confirms that tourists indeed enjoy what has been described as
“the serendipitous moment”…. self-discovery and …. goes beyond “being a tourist” (Hom Cary
2004). A key discovery of this project is that the consumers engage in agri-tourism experiences
to seek, at the value level, self-satisfaction and improvement.
This project served to confirm that emotional connections are made between the
consumers who participated in this project and their agri-tourism experiences. In addition to
underscoring the importance of the Self-Satisfaction & Improvement value, the responses reflect
strong emotional values related to the desire to protect the environment, the concern about mass
marketed food, and the importance of protecting the local economy, all within the context of
profound civic pride. Emotional connections to the farmers and vintners also appeared in the
values statements. These themes were reflected in the HVMs for the agri-tourism consumers
involved in this project.
154
APPENDICES
155
APPENDIX A
Laddering Interview Questions
The following served as the questions for the laddering interviews:
Laddering Interview Question 1: As you think about visiting a destination (the
winery, community farmers’ market, or on-farm market) what motivates you
to make a visit?
Laddering Interview Question 2: Please tell me about the specific agri-
tourism destination (winery, community farmers’ market, or on-farm market)
you most recently visited. What motivated you to visit this specific
destination? Why are these things important to you? (Note: Probe with
follow-up questions on specific things mentioned – e.g. “I like meeting the
farmers who grow the food.” This response would generate the question: Why
is the meeting the farmer who grows the food important to you?)
Laddering Interview Question 3: As you considered an outing, were you just
looking for something to do? Were you generally interested in visiting an
agri-tourism destination? Or did you have visiting this specific destination in
mind? What other leisure time activities had you considered?
Laddering Interview Question 4: What specific things appealed to you most
about the destination you chose? Why are these things important to you?
(Note: Probe with follow-up question on specific things mentioned – e.g. “I
like the farm atmosphere.” This response would generate the question: Why is
the farm atmosphere important to you?)
Laddering Interview Question 5: What product offerings attracted you to the
destination you visited? Why are these product offerings important to you?
(Note: Probe with follow-up question on specific things mentioned – e.g. “I
like fresh produce.” This response would generate the question: Why is the
fresh produce important to you?)
Laddering Interview Question 6: What activities or attractions drew you to
the destination you visited? Why are these activities or attractions important
to you? (Note: Probe with follow-up question on specific things mentioned –
e.g. “I like seeing the cider making demonstration.” This response would
generate the question: Why is the cider making attraction important to you?)
156
Laddering Interview Question 7: Imagine you’ve met someone who has never
been to your chosen destination. What would you tell them about this
destination? Why are these things important to share? Why are these things
important to you? (Note: Probe with follow-up question on specific things
mentioned – e.g., “I would tell a non-visitor that they get to see the farm up
close.” This response would generate the question: Why is seeing the farm up
close important to you?)
Laddering Interview Question 8: As you think about the many different agri-
tourism destinations around Michigan, which of these things do you feel are
most important: The destination itself? The products offered at these
destinations (such as wines, cider, fresh produce)? The activities and
attractions they offer? The people at the destinations (such as the farmers, the
employees, etc.)? Or something else? Why? (Note: Probe with follow-up
question on specific things mentioned – e.g. “I find that it is the chance to get
out and enjoy the fall weather is most important.” This response would
generate the question: Why is getting out to enjoy the fall weather most
important to you?)
Laddering Interview Question 9: If you were asked to develop an
advertisement promoting Michigan agri-tourism to encourage others to have
an experience as you’ve had, what would be the most meaningful things you
could tell them? Why would these be the most meaningful things you would
say in your advertisement?
Laddering Interview Question 10: Do you feel any different as a result of
visiting this destination? Please explain.
Laddering Interview Question 11: Did your visit create or add to any
emotional connections between you and family members, or friends, or others
who were visiting the destination with you? Please explain.
Laddering Interview Question 12: Do you feel visiting the destination you
chose impacted you in any way? How so? Why do you feel this way?
Laddering Interview Question 13: Is there anything else you would like to
share about this subject?
157
Laddering Interview Question 14: How far – in approximate miles – did you
travel to reach the destination you visited?
Laddering Interview Question 15: How many times do you typically visit
Michigan agri-tourism destinations each year?
Laddering Interview Question 16: Please confirm the spelling of your name?
(Remember, that data for this project will be kept confidential, with the data
collected and your name being separated.)
Laddering Interview Question 17: Your zip code?
Laddering Interview Question 18: What is the best way to reach you again
(phone or email)? (Please provide.)
Laddering Interview Question 19: Your age?
158
APPENDIX B
A Representative Sample Interview with Attributes, Consequences, Values Responses
Respondent: Roberta – Community Farmers’ Market Visitor
Attributes: Local Produce, Wines, Products Reference 1
organic food Reference 2
The apples are fabulous. There’s every variety. Reference 3
I’ll get pies, and I’ll get squashes Reference 4
I’ll get honey.
Attributes: Market, Farm or Winery Destination
Reference 1
the commodity they’re selling Reference 2
easy parking Reference 3
easy-access lay-out Reference 4
it’s not just purchasing foodstuffs, it’s an experience Reference 5
the location Reference 6
there’s the experience Reference 7
there’s such a variety
Consequences: Farmer/Vintner
159
Reference 1
these particular vendors are quite a group, an eclectic group Reference 2
I believe them. They’re farmers.
Consequences: Fun & Enjoyment
Reference 1
it’s just a feast of sensation. Reference 2
It’s a total sensory experience Reference 3
there’s the commodity, and then there’s the experience Reference 4
I’m not kidding you, it is art. Like you would hire that one guy to come and do tables at a
wedding reception. It’s just beautiful.
Consequences: Learning
Reference 1
talking to vendors about how to prepare a particular vegetable Reference 2
And they’re giving samples so you know what you’re getting. Reference 3
I’m making informed purchases because these guys know what they’re doing.
Consequences: Quality of Product
Reference 1
The quality, I mean… it’s just phenomenal. It’s the best! Reference 2
This is the best. I mean, I see chefs shopping there. Reference 3
the caliber of the product is just unparalleled
Consequences: Social Interaction
Reference 1
160
the people down there have big smiles
Consequences: Variety of Products
Reference 1
You’re going to find varieties that are unparalleled offerings. Reference 2
you’re going to get the… six other poetic names of peach varieties that you never heard of Reference 3
I mean, how many kinds of cucumbers could there be? They’re offered.
Values: Environment & Anti-Mass Marketed Foods Reference 1
I’m very anti-agribusiness. Reference 2
make sense to me in terms of my health. Reference 3
I’m buying from a local organic farmer, I know that that apple might have a worm in it. Fine
with me, I’ll cut it out. But I know it won’t have, you know, pesticides Reference 4
It is an anti-agribusiness stance. Reference 5
it’s for your health
Values: Farmer & Winemaker
Reference 1
when it’s their product, they grew it, they know it. It came from their farm. It doesn’t get any
better. Reference 2
I’d rather buy apples from that guy who taught me stuff about apples. I’m impressed with his
knowledge Reference 3
I know he’s proud of his product Reference 4
there’s none of that non-human intervention between that guy who grew the apple and me
161
Reference 5
he’s proud of that apple and I’m proud to buy his apple Reference 6
I like the small farmer, and I want to put money in his pocket Reference 7
it’s also to support local growers Reference 8
There’s something that feels good about infusing locals and keeping them healthy. Reference 9
they really take a lot of pride and I want to support that Reference 10
I react positively to a salesperson that loves their product. Reference 11
I like that human, the human element is really big. Reference 12
It’s the human element. The interaction, it’s that energy again.
Values: Indulgence & Fun
Reference 1
I go every week religiously, if I ever have money left, which is rare, then I spend it all on
flowers. Reference 2
this is like going to a museum, or a concert. I mean, I would put it on that level. Reference 3
It’s so artistic. It’s so aesthetic. And it’s just beautiful. I revel in it. Reference 4
I minored in dance, I majored in literature. So anything remotely poetic appeals to me. And it’s
very, very sumptuous. Reference 5
You have to mill around, you have to talk, you have to feast your eyes. Reference 6
we all look at each others’ faces and go, “Isn’t it a great day!” Reference 7
It’s not just shopping. There are so many layers of pleasure Reference 8
162
Depending on where I park, I cross the bridge, look at the ducks, enter into my kingdom. Reference 9
it’s like going to somebody’s house. It’s like a party. That’s what it is. It’s a party in the
morning. Reference 10
There’s something celebratory about the confluence of, for me, being outdoors, all that natural
setting, and the people
Values: Local Economy & Civic Pride
Reference 1
I will say I grew up here, and so I have a lot of pride. Reference 2
I have a lot of civic pride. Reference 3
the community I lived in. I want it to be healthy and vibrant.
Values: Local Product
Reference 1
I come from a line of farmers, so I appreciate homegrown foodstuffs. Reference 2
when it’s their product, they grew it, they know it. It came from their farm. It doesn’t get any
better. Reference 3
then it comes down to that apple with the specks on it. It’s color, it’s laughter. Reference 4
I think the product itself is paramount.
Values: Self Satisfaction & Improvement Reference 1
I go every week religiously, if I ever have money left, which is rare, then I spend it all on
flowers. Reference 2
this is like going to a museum, or a concert. I mean, I would put it on that level. Reference 3
It’s so artistic. It’s so aesthetic. And it’s just beautiful. I revel in it.
163
Reference 4
I minored in dance, I majored in literature. So anything remotely poetic appeals to me. And it’s
very, very sumptuous. Reference 5
we all look at each others’ faces and go, “Isn’t it a great day!” Reference 6
It’s not just shopping. There are so many layers of pleasure Reference 7
I’m a lot of Earth in me, in terms of Chinese, you know, typing, and so you can imagine
Thanksgiving’s very big for me. The fruits of the earth. Reference 8
enter into my kingdom. Reference 9
it’s like going to somebody’s house. It’s like a party. That’s what it is. It’s a party in the
morning. Reference 10
make sense to me in terms of my health. Reference 11
what you eat gives you… fuels your body, which makes chemical reactions, and chemical
reactions affect your spiritual energy Reference 12
It is an anti-agribusiness stance. It is a… it’s for your health, but it’s also to support local
growers. Reference 13
There’s something that feels good about infusing locals and keeping them healthy. Reference 14
They’re excited about it, I’m excited about it. They’re going to teach me stuff. Reference 15
It feeds me. The apple feeds me, the energy feeds me. I feel good about the apple, I feel good
about the farmer, I feel good about the community. I feel good about all of us. Reference 16
I feel, you know, the rest of the world’s going to hell in a hand-basket and there’s lots to be upset
about. But, hey. But, hey, I just had this wonderful experience at the farm market! Reference 17
I’ll even say, it’s like my church. It’s my church experience. Reference 18
164
you’re in a community of like-minded people, you leave, you feel better. That’s what happens to
me at the farm market.
165
APPENDIX C
Abbreviation Key – Tables 20, 21, and 22
M, F, or WD Market, Farm or Winery Destination
LP, W, P Local Produce, Wines, Products
OSA & A On-Site Activities & Attractions
P – F & W People - Farmers & Winemakers
F & E Fun and Enjoyment
Q of P Quality of Product
Learning Learning
F or V Farmer or Vintner
E & CF Environmental & Clean Food
V of P Variety of Products
CS Community Support
SI Social Interaction
PE Personal Economics
Conv. Convenience
SS & I Self-Satisfaction & Improvement
166
REFERENCES
167
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (2007). Innovation: brand it or lose it. California Management Review, 50(1), 8-24.
Abrahams, R. (1986). Ordinary and extraordinary experience. In V. Turner & E. Bruner (Eds.),
The anthropology of experience (pp. 45-72). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Aho, S. K. (2001). Towards a general theory of touristic experiences: Modeling experience
process in tourism. Tourism Review, 56(3/4).
Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal
of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1-10.
Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Arnould, E. J. & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended
services encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24-45.
Bannister, D. & Mair, J. M. M. (1968). The evaluation of personal constructs. London:
Academic Press.
Barnes, J. G. (2003). Establishing meaningful customer relationships: Why some companies and
brands mean more to their customers. Managing Service Quality, 13(3), 9.
Barrena, R. & Sanchez, M. (2009). Connecting product attributes with emotional benefits:
Analysis of a Mediterranean product across consumer age segments. British Food
Journal, 111(2), 120-137.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effects on
decisions to recycle: A means-end analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 313-340.
Blain, C. & Levy, S. E. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and practices from destination
management organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 328-338.
Botschen, G., Thelen, E. M., & Pieters, R. (1999). Using means-end structures for benefit
segmentation: An application to services. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 38-
58.
Brunner-Sperdin, A. & Peters, M. (2009). What influences guests’ emotions: The case of high-
quality hotels. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 171.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
168
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Chrzan, J. (2006). Why study culinary tourism?. Expedition Magazine, 48(1), 40-41.
Cleaver, C. (2006, November 6). Experiential marketing: Aligning brand and experience. Brand
Strategy, pp. 32.
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th
ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Costa, A. I. A., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2004). An overview of the means-end theory:
Potential application in consumer-oriented food product design. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 15(7/8), 401-415.
Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of the optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Day, E. (1989). Share of heart: What is it and how can it be measured?. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 6(1), 5-12.
De Boer, M. & McCarthy, M. (2003). Means-end chain theory applied to Irish convenience food
consumers. Options Mediterraneennes, 64, 59-73.
Fulberg, P. (2003). Using sonic branding in the retail environment – an easy and effective way to
create consumer branding loyalty while enhancing the in-store experience. The Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 3(2), 193-198.
Gengler, C. E. & Reynolds, T. J. (1995). Consumer understanding and advertising strategy:
Analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. Journal of Advertising Research,
35(4), 19-33.
Glaser, B. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
169
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Transaction.
Gonzales, R. W. (2002). De-mystifying brand personality. Available from
http://amicusbd.com/personality.pdf.
Gordon, W. & Langmaid, R. (1998). Qualitative market research: A practitioner’s and buyer’s
guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Company.
Grunert, K. G. & Grunert, S. C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the
laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(3), 209-225.
Grunert, K. G., Grunert, S. C., & Sørenson, E. (1995). Means-end chains and laddering: An
inventory of problems and an agenda for research. MAPP Working Paper 34. Aarhus,
Denmark: The Aarhus School of Business.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of
evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative methods in management research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes.
Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
Gutman, J. (1988). Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences and values. Journal
of Business Research, 22(2), 143-148.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109-121.
Hanlan, J. & Kelly, S. J. (2005). Image formation, information sources and an iconic Australian
tourist destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(2), 163-177.
Havlena, W. J. & Holbrook, M. B. (1986). The varieties of consumption experience: Comparing
two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research,
13(3), 394-404.
170
Heath, R. (1999). Just popping down to the shops for a packet of image statements: A new theory
of how consumers perceive brands. International Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 153-170.
Hess, J. & Story, J. (2005). Trust-based commitment: Multidimensional consumer-brand
relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 313-322.
Hinkle, D. N. (1965). The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of
construct implications. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method, and
criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), 237-249.
Holbrook, M. B., Chestnut, R. W., Oliva, T. A., & Greenleaf, E. A. (1984). Play as a
consumption experience: The roles of emotions, performance, and personality in the
enjoyment of games. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 728-739.
Hom Cary, S. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61-77.
Hudson, S. & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Branding a memorable destination experience: The case of
“Brand Canada”. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 217-228.
Johns, N. & Gyimóthy, S. (2008). Assessing the brand position of Danish kros. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 14(3), 267-281.
Kapferer, J. N. (2004, June 30). Brand NEW world, brand equity. The Economic Times.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Norton.
Kvale, S. (Ed.). (1989). Issues of validity in qualitative research. Lund, Sweden: Chartwell Bratt.
Lee, M. S. Y., McGoldrick, P. F., Keeling, K. A., & Doherty, J. (2003). Using ZMET to explore
barriers to the adoption of 3G mobile banking services. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 31(6), 340-348.
Leighton, D. (2007). Step back in time and live the legend: Experiential marketing and the
heritage sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
12(2), 117-125.
Leavy, B. (1994). The craft of case-based qualitative research. Irish Business and Administrative
Research, 15(33), 105-118.
171
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M.
Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95-103).
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lynch, J. & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-
to-business markets. Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 403-419.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. A. (1974). The basic emotional impact of environments. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 38(1), 283-301.
Mitchell, M. & Orwig, R. (2002). Consumer experience tourism: Brand bonding. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 11(1), 30-41.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A
contemporary dialogue (pp. 117-131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for
establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-19.
Nickerson, N. P., Kerstetter, D., Bricker, K., & Andereck, K. (2004). Proceedings from the
Travel and Tourism Research Association: In measuring the tourism experience: When
experience rules, what is the metric of success?. Montreal, Quebec.
Nowak, L, Thach, L, & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Wowing the millennials: Creating a brand equity in
the wine industry. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15(5), 316-323.
O’Loughlin, D., Szmigin, I., & Turnbull, P. (2004). Branding and relationships: Customer and
supplier perspectives. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8(3), 218-230.
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, findings, and
managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-336.
Orth, U. R., Wolf, M. M., & Dodd, T. H. (2005). Dimensions of wine region equity and their
impact on consumer preferences. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3),
88-97.
Otto, J. E. & Ritchie, B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3),
165-174.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. M. (1986). Strategic brand concept – image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50(October), 135-145.
Petkus, E. (2004). Enhancing the application of experiential marketing in the arts. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(1), 49-56.
172
Phau, I. & Lau, K. C. (2002). Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual
carriageway. Journal of Brand Management, 8(6), 428-442.
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R.
Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5-23). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Reynolds, T. J. & Gutman, J. (1985). Laddering: Extending the repertory grid methodology to
construct attribute-consequence-value hierarchies. In R. E. Pitts & A. G. Woodside
(Eds.), Personal values and consumer psychology (pp. 155-167). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Reynolds, T. J. & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation.
Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11-31.
Richardson, S. (1991). Colorado Community Tourism Action Guide. Boulder, CA: University of
Colorado.
Ritchie, J. R. B. & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). Keynote address from the Annual Congress of the
International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism. Marrakesh, Morocco.
Ritchie, J. R. B. & Hudson, S. (2009). Understanding and meeting the challenges of
consumer/tourist experience research. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2),
111-126.
Robertson, H. (2007, January 18). At last a definition of experiential marketing. Marketing
Week, pp. 21.
Robinette, S., Brand, C., & Lenz, V. (2002). Emotion marketing: The hallmark way of winning
customers for life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 53(2), 367-372.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russell, J. A. & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311-322.
Sale, J., Lohfeld, L., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:
Implications for mixed methods. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
173
Saaka, A., Sidon, C., & Blake, B. F. (2004). Laddering: A “how to do it” manual – with a note of
caution. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 53-67.
Schoenfelder, J. & Harris, P. (2004). High-tech corporate branding: Lessons for market research
in the next decade. Qualitative Market Research, 71(2), 91-99.
Seybold, P. B. (2001). Get inside the lives of your customers. Harvard Business Review, 79(5),
80.
Sjodin, H. & Törn, F. (2006). When communication challenges brand associations: A framework
for understanding consumer responses to brand image incongruity. Journal of Consumer
Behavior, 5(1), 193.
Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching women’s tourist experiences.
Tourism Management, 20(1), 25-35.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-
642.
Talmage, P. (1998, March). Isn't it time we stopped treating our customers like numbers?.
Admap, pp. 16-18.
Trocchia, P. J., Swanson, D. L., & Orlitzky, M. (2007). Digging deeper: The laddering interview,
tool for surfacing values. Journal of Management Education, 31(5), 713-729.
Upshaw, L. B. (1995). Building brand identity. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Veeck, G., Che, D., & Veeck, A. (2006). America’s changing farmscape: A study of agricultural
tourism in Michigan. The Professional Geographer, 58(3), 235-248.
Wakefield, K. & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wansink, B. (2000). New techniques to generate key marketing insights. Marketing Research,
12(2), 28-36.
Wansink, B. (2003). Using laddering to understand and leverage a brand’s equity. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 111-118.
Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing: Fantasy, feeling and fun. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482-495.
Williams, P. (2001). Positioning wine tourism destinations: An image analysis. International
Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 42-58.
174
Zaltman, G. (1997). Market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(4), 424-437.
Zaman, B. (2008). Introducing contextual laddering to evaluate the likeability of games with
children. Cognition, Technology and Work, 10(2), 107-117.
Zanoli, R. & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase or organic food: A
means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643-653.