Abstract
Purpose
Among the growing interest towards market segmentation and targeted marketing, the current study adopted a scientometric approach to examine the literature on wine selection and preferences. The current review specifically attempts to shed light on the research that explores the determinants of wine preferences at multiple levels of analysis.
Design/methodology/approach
CiteSpace was used to compute a Document Co-Citation Analysis (DCA) on a sample of 114,048 eligible references obtained from 2,846 publications downloaded from Scopus on 24 May 2021.
Findings
An optimized network of 1,505 nodes and 4,616 links was generated. Within the network, impactful publications on the topic and thematic domains of research were identified. Specifically, two thematic macro-areas were identified through a qualitative analysis of papers included in the 7 major clusters. The first one - “Methods of Wine Making” - included clusters #0, #3, #5, #6 and #18. The second one - “Consumers' Attitudes and Preferences Towards Wine” - included clusters #1 and #2. The first thematic macro-area included more technical aspects referring to the process of wine making, while the second thematic macro-area focused more on the factors influencing individuals' preferences and attitudes towards wine. To reflect the aims of the current paper, publications giving light to the “Consumers' Attitudes and Preferences Towards Wine” macro-area were analyzed in detail.
Originality/value
The resulting insights may help wine makers and wine sellers optimize their work in relation to market segments and to the factors influencing individuals' purchasing behaviors.
Keywords
Citation
Carollo, A., Fong, S., Gabrieli, G., Mulatti, C. and Esposito, G. (2022), "To wine or not to wine? A scientometric approach to 65+ years of wine preference and selection studies", British Food Journal, Vol. 124 No. 13, pp. 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2022-0011
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Alessandro Carollo, Seraphina Fong, Giulio Gabrieli, Claudio Mulatti and Gianluca Esposito
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Highlights:
65+ years of wine preference and selection studies via 2,846 documents were analyzed.
Consumers' wine preferences are influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic wine attributes.
Intrinsic wine attributes refer to the physical composition of the wine itself.
Extrinsic wine attributes refer to wine's external features (e.g. price, packaging).
Interest in eco-friendly wines from both producers and consumers is growing.
1. Introduction
1.1 Literature review
Wine, the most ancient alcoholic beverage (McGovern et al., 2004), has become part of the cultural heritage of many countries and a form of entertainment in others (Acuti et al., 2019). Since its popularization by the ancient Romans, wine is a beverage that has been produced and consumed throughout the centuries (Lukacs, 2012; Snopek et al., 2018). Evidence suggests that, in 2020, around 260 million of hectolitres of wine were produced worldwide (2020 Wine Production – OIV First Estimate, 2020).
Given the wide range of wine styles that are currently available and the globalization of the wine market (Festa et al., 2020b), possibilities for segmentation and targeted marketing have increased (Pickering and Hayes, 2017). In fact, researchers have tried to quantify wine consumers' preferences and selection to not only provide insight into the multitude of factors that drive wine purchasers' decisions but to also identify market segments (Goldsmith and d'Hauteville, 1998; Martínez et al., 2006; Pickering and Cullen, 2008). For instance, the study by Wolf et al. (2022) showed that dividing consumers by generation (i.e. Generation Z, Millennials, Generation X and Baby-Boomers) is an effective method to accurately target wine consumers with customized products. In brief, the factors driving wine (and also food) purchasing behavior can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of quality (Olson and Jacoby, 1972; Wang et al., 2019). The former, intrinsic dimensions, refer to the physical composition of the product itself (Jover et al., 2004). For instance, both taste and aroma influence consumers' wine experiences and preferences (Delwiche, 2004; Lee and Lee, 2008; Pozo-Bayón et al., 2016). The latter, extrinsic dimensions, refer to external attributes of the product. For instance, packaging, price and brand reputation all influence the perceived quality of a wine (Barber and Almanza, 2007; Charters and Pettigrew, 2007; Veale and Quester, 2008). Even more subtle extrinsic cues can modulate consumers' perception of the taste of food and beverages. For instance, Crisinel et al. (2012) reported food taste being affected by changes in background music. Similar effects on the taste of food and beverage are frequently reported in the available scientific literature (Ares and Deliza, 2010; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2016). Cross-modal influences across the five senses dynamically interact and shape the overall wine tasting experience (North, 2012; De Luca et al., 2019; Campo et al., 2021). Accordingly, the systematic review by Giacomarra et al. (2020) highlighted the importance of considering the relevance of extrinsic cues in purchasing decisions to optimize wine market targeting strategies. In line with this, Setoh and Esposito (2021) proposed a framework for multilevel lifespan development to reveal the determinants of wine preferences. In agreement with the available scientific literature, the authors posit that consumer preferences are not only shaped by perceptual or intrinsic level attributes (e.g. taste, appearance), but by the integration and interaction between multiple factors associated with wine consumption. These multiple factors include aspects belonging to the individual level of behavior (e.g. memories and context), to the interpersonal level (e.g. culture, values and prestige) and to the group level (e.g. social status).
1.2 Research question and purpose of the study
This multilevel framework for the determinants of wine preferences has recently favored interdisciplinary research approaches, where contributions from developmental psychology, consumer psychology, cultural psychology, cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics have also started to play a role. A systematic insight into the contributions in the multilevel framework and the interactions between disciplines in shaping the literature of wine preferences and selection has not been provided yet. To address this research gap, the current study adopted a scientometric approach. The scientometric approach can be considered as an application of the broader bibliometric approach to systematic reviews (Mejia et al., 2021; Ranjbari et al., 2022). The use of the scientometric approach is gaining momentum in recent years and the method proved its efficacy in reviewing literature topics belonging to the fields of neurobiology, clinical psychology, developmental psychology (Carollo et al., 2021a, b, c; Lim et al., 2021). A scientometric approach enables reviewing the existing scientific literature on wine selection and preferences in a data-driven fashion. In particular, the current review intends to provide insight into the literature on wine preferences and liking by focusing especially on the scientific contributions that led to the multilevel framework in the determinants of wine preferences. This scientometric analysis has two aims: (1) identifying the impactful publications; and (2) identifying the thematic domains that, in the years, gave shape to the available literature on wine preferences and selection. A systematic understanding of the roots and developments of the recent multilevel and interdisciplinary approach on wine preferences could potentially have at least two benefits. First, it would help provide a unified framework of factors influencing wine purchases. Secondly, it would help bridge the gap between research on wine preferences and its application to the wine markets.
2. Research methodology
2.1 Materials
To have a holistic insight into the field of wine preference and selection, the complete literature on the topic available on the Scopus platform [as done by Carollo et al. (2021a, b, c)] was downloaded as the basis for the scientometric analysis. As in Cataldo et al. (2022), Scopus was chosen over other platforms because of its wider coverage of journals (Falagas et al., 2008). In particular, the search string “TITLE-ABS-KEY (wine* AND preference* OR selection*) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))” was adopted to guide the literature research on Scopus. In particular, the string of keywords enabled the collection of all documents that had words starting with “wine” and at least one between “preference” and “selection” in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, the language of documents was limited to English in order to only collect internationally accepted scientific literature. Data was collected up to May 24, 2021. The data pool consisted of 2,846 publications on wine preference and selection published from 1955 to 2021. The time range was limited according to publication availability on Scopus. Subsequently, data was imported into the CiteSpace platform (version 5.8.R1). 116,746 references over the 117,766 (99.13%) cited by the downloaded papers were considered valid for the analysis. Furthermore, when importing data in CiteSpace, irregularity in the citation format may result in anonymous references that are not discarded when data are firstly imported. The data pool of converted references contained 2,698 unusable anonymous references (2.31% of the valid references; 2.29% of the total references). Unusable references are references that are inserted on Scopus following a wrong template and are not recognized by the software. An ad-hoc Python script was implemented to remove these anonymous references from the data pool. At this stage, a data loss of
2.2 Document Co-citation analysis
To gain an insight into the scientific domains that dynamically shaped the knowledge on wine preference and selection, a CiteSpace's Document Co-Citation Analysis (DCA) was implemented in the study. This type of analysis relies on the frequency in which two documents have been co-cited (cited together) by subsequent works. Thus, both the cited references and the citing works – in this case, the ones downloaded from Scopus (Small, 1980; Carollo et al., 2021a) – are of interest for the DCA. With these documents, the DCA results in a network of documents that represent the underlying structure of the scientific field of interest. To generate such a network in the current study, the node selection criteria and its parameters were optimized after several DCAs, as done by Carollo et al. (2021c). In particular, three types of node selection criteria were considered in the optimization procedure. G-index is the “largest number that equals the average number of citations of the most highly cited g publications” (Egghe, 2006; Alonso et al., 2009; Chen, 2016). The other two possible criteria were TOP N and TOP N%. TOP N includes the N documents cited the most in a given time slice in the network. The given time slice was always set at 1 year in this study. On the other hand, TOP N% builds the network by considering the N% most cited documents for each time slice. DCAs were computed with g-index set at 15, 25 and 50; TOP N with N set at 15, 50 and 75; and TOP N% with N set at 10. After examining the structural metrics of all these DCAs, the best node selection criteria to adopt was g-index with k set at 25 (see Figure 1).
2.3 Metrics
The results of a CiteSpace scientometric analysis are interpreted by considering two types of metrics: structural and temporal. Whereas the impact of single nodes in the overall network is assessed using both types of metrics, only the structural ones allow an evaluation of the global network. The structural metrics in CiteSpace are modularity Q, silhouette score and betweenness centrality. Modularity Q is an index in which values range from 0 to 1. It indicates the extent to which the computed network is divisible into single and distinguished modules (also called clusters) (Newman, 2006). The homogeneity of such single clusters is measured using the silhouette score. The silhouette score can take values from −1 to 1, with higher numbers indicating higher homogeneity within the cluster (Rousseeuw, 1987; Aryadoust and Ang, 2019). The other structural metric, betweenness centrality, enables assessing how a single node functions as a bridge in connecting otherwise separate nodes. Values of centrality go from 0 to 1. The higher the value, the more likely the node indicates groundbreaking ideas (Freeman, 1977; Chen, 2014). In terms of temporal metrics, two are of particular interest: citation burstness and sigma. Citation burstness, computed using Kleinberg's algorithm (Kleinberg, 2003), is an index of an abrupt change in the number of citations received by a node within a period of time (Chen, 2017). Possible values of citation burstness go from 0 to infinite. The other temporal metric, sigma, is derived by combining values of betweenness centrality and citation burstness by using the equation (centrality+1)burstness. High values of sigma suggests that the node could be highly novel and influential within the network (Chen et al., 2009).
3. Findings
The computed DCA network consisted of 1,505 nodes and 4,616 links (see Figure 1). This means that, on average, each node of the network was connected to other 3.07 nodes. The structural metrics indicated that the obtained network was highly divisible into modules (modularity Q = 0.8873). On average, each module was highly homogeneous (weighted mean silhouette = 0.9641).
The network was found to be divisible into 7 major co-citations clusters. Cluster IDs rank the clusters in regards to their size. The largest clusters in the network, clusters #0 and #1, included 123 and 119 nodes respectively. Cluster #1 had a higher silhouette value of 0.984, while cluster #0 had a silhouette value of 0.941. The average year in which their references were published was 2011 for cluster #0 and 2015 for cluster #1. Thus, both clusters were recent. Among the clusters, the highest silhouette scores were obtained by cluster #18 (Silhouette score = 0.99; Size = 10; Mean year of publication = 2016), cluster #1 and cluster #6 (Silhouette score = 0.978; Size = 39; Mean year of publication = 1999). In general, the larger clusters consisted of publications published in the 2000 and 2010s, with cluster #18 and #1 being the most recent ones, followed by cluster #5 (Silhouette score = 0.968; Size = 73; Mean year of publication = 2011). All clusters were renamed manually to reflect their scientific contents (see Table 1 for more details). After a qualitative examination of the documents included in the major clusters, two thematic macro-areas were identified. The first one, formed by clusters #0, #3, #5, #6 and #18, which examined the biological and production processes underlying wine making and determining the different wine sensory features. The second one, composed by clusters #1 and #2, with a focus on the attitudes and preferences of wine consumers. The two macro-areas were then called “Methods of wine making” and “Consumers' attitudes and preferences towards wine”, respectively (see Figure 2). Furthermore, according to CiteSpace's Narrative Summary function (Chen and Song, 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Lim et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021), clusters #0 – “Non Conventional Yeasts” – and #1 – “Buyers' Attitudes” – were identified as the meaningful ones in the network.
Within the network, 42 references showed a burst in their citation history, corresponding to their impact in the literature. In particular, the publication authored by Pomarici and Vecchio (2014) was the node with the strongest citation burst, with a value of 12.56 (Start of burstness = 2018; End of burstness = 2021; Burst duration = 3 years). The next three nodes in order of burst strength were Schäufele and Hamm (2017), Lockshin et al. (2006) and Lockshin and Corsi (2012). These publications had citation bursts of 11.69 (Start of burstness = 2018; End of burstness = 2021; Burst duration = 3 years), 10.54 (Start of burstness = 2007; End of burstness = 2014; Burst duration = 7 years) and 10.54 (Start of burstness = 2017; End of burstness = 2021; Burst duration = 4 years), respectively. Among the top three references in terms of citation burstness, two of them, specifically Pomarici and Vecchio (2014) and Schä ufele and Hamm (2017), belonged to cluster #1. Conversely, the node corresponding to Lockshin et al. (2006) was part of cluster #2. This last reference was also the one with the longest burst duration within the network (burst duration = 7 years). Other references with lower burst values also showed a duration of 7 years: Bruwer et al. (2011) (Strength of burstness = 6.84; Start of burstness = 2012; End of burstness = 2019), Comitini et al. (2011) (Strength of burstness = 6.62; Start of burstness = 2012; End of burstness = 2019), Ciani et al. (2010) (Strength of burstness = 5.99; Start of burstness = 2011; End of burstness = 2018) and Bely et al. (2008) (Strength of burstness = 5.26; Start of burstness = 2009; End of burstness = 2016). In Table S1 of the supplementary materials, the values for the main metrics on the 42 publications with a citation burst are reported.
4. Discussion
A scientometric approach was adopted in the current study in order to explore the available scientific literature on wine selection and preferences. A DCA was computed in order to identify the main domains of research that gave shape to what is known regarding the topic of interest. Two thematic macro-areas were identified when analyzing the contents of papers included in the seven major clusters of the network. As the aim of the current paper is to analyze the trends in the research regarding wine selection and preferences, the first macro-area, “Methods of wine making”, is discussed briefly with a focus on cluster #0 as it was identified as a meaningful cluster by the CiteSpace's Narrative Summary function. Conversely, as the second macro-area, “Consumers' attitudes and preferences towards wine”, aligned more with the current paper's interests, it is discussed in depth. Again, the focus of the discussion for “Consumers' attitudes and preferences towards wine” is cluster #1, as it was meaningful according to the Narrative Summary function. However, some insights on cluster #2 are also provided.
4.1 Macro-area A: “Methods of wine making”
Table S2 of the supplementary materials reports the forty-eight citing documents that gave shape to cluster #0. The main citing document of the cluster, Ciani et al. (2016), focused on reviewing the role of non-conventional species of yeasts enabling winemakers to lower the content of ethanol in wine. The authors suggest that the use of non-conventional yeasts during fermentation could help face challenges related both to the rising sugar content in grape must and the increasing alcohol levels in wine. Although non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts were originally introduced in the wine industry for their effect on the wine sensory profile (Padilla et al., 2016; Jeromel et al., 2019), they also allow for the production of wines with lower alcohol content (Canonico et al., 2016; Maturano et al., 2019). The properties and the effects of non-conventional wine yeasts were examined by many citing (e.g. Comitini et al., 2011; Domizio et al., 2011; Belda et al., 2016; Jara et al., 2016; Masneuf-Pomarede et al., 2016; Mylona et al., 2016; Rollero et al., 2018; Binati et al., 2019; Loira et al., 2020) and cited papers (e.g. Jolly et al., 2006; Viana et al., 2008; Zott et al., 2008; Comitini et al., 2011; Contreras et al., 2015; Englezos et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Benito, 2018).
4.2 Macro-area B: “Consumers' attitudes and preferences towards wine”
Table S3 of the supplementary materials reports the thirty-six citing documents that gave shape to cluster #1. In cluster #1, the majority of citing papers investigated the factors driving consumers' purchasing of and attitudes towards traditional and sustainable wines. Although a wine's taste is an important factor influencing wine consumers' preferences (Lesschaeve et al., 2012; Schmit et al., 2013; Rahman et al., 2014; Culbert et al., 2017), commercial descriptions of wines also directly influence the products' perceived value (Sáenz-Navajas et al., 2013; Danner et al., 2017; Sillani et al., 2017; Verdonk et al., 2017). In fact, extrinsic features of wine, such as wine origin, label aesthetic, bottling, awards and legacy strongly drive consumers' judgment of wine quality (Bernabéu et al., 2012; Sáenz-Navajas et al., 2013, 2014; Thiene et al., 2013; Panzone, 2014; Lanfranchi et al., 2020). In some cases, extrinsic features are even stronger than intrinsic attributes in influencing consumers' preferences. For instance, Vecchio et al. (2019b) studied the role of the wine price and the denomination of origin on influencing the consumer preferences. On the one hand, they documented that in a blind tasting session, price did not determine the consumer preferences. On the other hand, when information on the denomination of origin (i.e. Sangiovese) was given, consumers' willingness to pay increased for wines of all prices. Additionally, information about methods of wine production affects both the sensory profile of the selected wines and the consumers' liking expectations (Wiedmann et al., 2014b; Vecchio et al., 2019a). During a blind test, consumers show higher ratings for wines presented with additional information on the product's production process. Interestingly, consumers even rate “conventional wine” presented as “organic” higher. In this last case, both wine appearance and taste are perceived by consumers to be better and their willingness to pay is higher as well (Lee et al., 2013; Wiedmann et al., 2014b).
However, it is worth noting that individuals act in a significantly different way when they buy a bottle of wine for themselves than when they buy it as a gift. Different wine attributes drive the purchase in the two scenarios (Yang and Paladino, 2015; Boncinelli et al., 2019). For instance, in a gift-giving scenario involving Italian participants, wine's geographical indication was shown to have a marginal role, while brand and claims that the wine is organic strongly impact the decision (Boncinelli et al., 2019). In another study conducted with Chinese wine consumers, product image and gift packaging moderated the effect of wine country of origin on the purchasing behavior (Yang and Paladino, 2015; Dominici et al., 2019). Thus, individuals' motivations need to be also considered to get a complete understanding of people's purchasing choices on wine.
Given the gap in the literature on consumers' attitudes towards wine in emerging wine markets (Lockshin and Corsi, 2012), preferences of consumers from countries such as Canada, Japan, China, India, Korea, Hong Kong, Russia were also examined within the cluster (Somogyi et al., 2011; Williamson et al., 2012; Yoo et al., 2013; Agnoli et al., 2014; Capitello et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015; Galati et al., 2017; Chu et al., 2019; Deodhar et al., 2019; Jantzi and McSweeney, 2019; Kunc, 2019). Culture plays a crucial role in people's wine preferences. For instance, wine price and origin are more important than wine flavor descriptions in influencing Nova Scotian wine consumers' purchasing behavior (Jantzi and McSweeney, 2019). Wine price also plays a role in Chinese wine consumers' purchasing behavior. Even in emerging wine markets such as the Chinese one, both intrinsic and extrinsic factors play a role in a consumer's wine selection. On the one hand, Chinese consumers tend to prefer dry red wine, refreshing and soft tasting wine, still type wine, wine with moderate aroma degree and mellow aroma and sweet wine (Chu et al., 2019). On the other hand, consumer education, wine-related activities, channels of communication, country of origin, quality, price rank, messages about environment and other buyers' reviews strongly influence Chinese consumers' choice of wine (Camillo, 2012; Williamson et al., 2016).
Historical time and life trajectories also determine people's wine preferences too. In fact, different attitudes and preferences towards wine are also found across generations (Charters et al., 2011; Agnoli et al., 2011, 2018; Fountain and Lamb, 2011; Anchor and Lacinová, 2015). Lerro et al. (2019) observed that the Baby Boomers generation is the generation reporting the lowest sparkling wine consumption frequency. Together with Generation X, Baby Boomers also have the highest wine consumption frequency in the $15–19.99 price range. Conversely, Millennials had the highest consumption frequency in the $10–14.99 price range. Within the cluster, several references also explored Millennials' attitudes and preferences towards wine in order to help marketing managers define the best strategies to reach young consumers most effectively (Iazzi et al., 2019). Generally, Millennials appear to drink wine less frequently and their wine consumption happens more often in social on-premise settings (Nassivera et al., 2020). They also typically tend to rely less on geographical cues (e.g. the origin of the wine) to determine the quality of the wine and pay more attention to medals won, label imagery and alcohol content (Atkin and Thach, 2012). When purchasing wine, Millennials are willing to pay more and they tend to prefer carbon-neutral brands or, more generally, eco-certified wines (Gassler et al., 2015; Sogari et al., 2015; Galati et al., 2019; Moscovici et al., 2020; Nassivera et al., 2020). Moreover, social media seems to play a crucial role in increasing consumers' sustainability awareness, consecutively influencing their wine purchasing behavior (Sogari et al., 2017).
In the cluster, the theme of environmental sustainability does not emerge only in relation to Millennials. In fact, Ghvanidze et al. (2019), with data collected through a survey distributed in the US, the UK and Germany, reported that wine consumers, in general, are typically careful about the environmental problems, the social responsibility of companies and the ethically and sustainably produced products (Kelley et al., 2019). Wine consumers typically adopt healthy lifestyles and control their diets (Higgins and Llanos, 2015). A considerable amount of consumers from all over the world seems to have positive perceptions about different sustainable production processes and reported a higher willingness to pay a premium price for wine with characteristics of sustainable production (D'Amico et al., 2016; Sogari et al., 2016; Schäufele and Hamm, 2017). For instance, the increasing level of consumers' environmental concern towards the impact of food production on water usage led the agriculture sector, the main sector responsible for the freshwater scarcity, to introduce new sustainable practices (Lamastra et al., 2014; Pomarici et al., 2018). In their paper, Pomarici et al. (2018) showed that young consumers of wine are willing to pay higher prices for water saving labeled wines. Willingness to pay for those wines was further positively influenced by other factors such as wine consumption frequency, label trust and use and consumers' environmental-friendly attitude (Ruggeri et al., 2020). The demand for healthier wines due to the presence of natural compounds is also growing. Pappalardo et al. (2019) observed that consumers were willing to consume resveratrol-enhanced wine as they saw it as a source of beneficial and healthy properties. Again, extrinsic (organic label, brand) and intrinsic wine attributes (tannins content), as well as consumer's socio-demographic factors (e.g. gender, age) have a direct effect on the consumers' willingness to consume wine naturally enriched with resveratrol. This suggests that, in the eye of consumers, there are significant differences between a natural enhancement and technological enrichment. Moreover, in recent years, products obtained from organic farming methods (i.e. a system that minimizes pollution and avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) has rapidly increased in wealthier countries, especially in the wine production (Pagliarini et al., 2013; Taghikhah et al., 2020).
Many studies reveal that wine companies' actions towards sustainable development have been generally accompanied with positive attitudes towards organic and sustainable wines among consumers (Pagliarini et al., 2013; Wiedmann et al., 2014b; Truant et al., 2020). However, real sales data indicate that the market share for organic wine is still much lower than the total wine market globally (Barber et al., 2016). In fact, a gap between intentions and behaviors is typically reported in the literature. In this gap, cognitive and affective factors, together with normative cues, seem to play a crucial role and may prompt unplanned and spontaneous purchasing behavior, causing consumers to act against their beliefs (Taghikhah et al., 2021). To address the attitude-behavior-gap, Schäufele and Hamm (2018) and Schäufele et al. (2018) showed that consumers' preferences for organic products and sustainability concerns strongly determine purchases of organic wine (as in Olsen et al. (2012)) and that, generally, consumers' attitudes were in agreement with purchase behavior. Nevertheless, prices for organic wine constitute a barrier for consumers with low-incomes, even when they show positive attitudes towards environment protection (Aschemann-Witzel and Zielke, 2017).
In fact, the growth of organic and sustainable markets is thought to be potentially limited by price premiums. It is worth noting that prices also serve as a quality signal for wine consumers (Almenberg and Dreber, 2011; Oczkowski and Doucouliagos, 2015; Janssen et al., 2020). In general, consumers are willing to pay premiums for either organic or sustainable wines (Sellers, 2016; Sellers-Rubio and Nicolau-Gonzalbez, 2016; Ay et al., 2017; Maesano et al., 2019; Lim and Reed, 2020; Migliore et al., 2020). The study conducted by Schäufele and Hamm (2020) documented that consumers' price sensitivity was low for organic wine, which was predominantly what customers would select over conventional wine. The effect of price as a quality cue or purchase barrier changed between price categories. Price sensitivity was extremely high for organic wine in the low-price segment, while price functioned as a quality signal in both the premium segment for organic and conventional wine. The willingness to pay for an eco labelled wine also depends on the denomination of wine origin. In fact, consumers' are willing to pay higher prices for the ecolabels on wines from less-prestigious regions. Conversely, the willingness to pay for ecolabels is lower for wines from higher-prestige regions (Lim and Reed, 2020). Generally, Migliore et al. (2020) observed that there is a positive association between consumers' willingness to pay for a “natural wine” and their drink frequency and occasion, organic production method, the content of sulfites (since part of the consumers believes that sulfites in wine are the cause of headaches (Costanigro et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2016)), incomes and attitudes towards healthy eating and the environment (D'Amico et al., 2016; Sogari et al., 2016; Amato et al., 2017). The decision to support a premium price for the sustainable wine is strongly influenced by knowledge regarding sustainable production methods (Lanfranchi et al., 2019).
Recently, a number of certification systems for environmental-friendly products have been created (e.g. water-saving labels and fishery sustainable labels) (Mazzocchi et al., 2019). In general, customers seem to be willing to pay a premium price for wine certifications that guarantee sustainability and usage of agricultural methods that protect the biodiversity in the vineyard during the production of grapes for both medium-high price wines and for low-price wines (Mazzocchi et al., 2019; Fanasch and Frick, 2020; Ruggeri et al., 2020; Capitello et al., 2021). Generally, Millennials, women, unmarried individuals, those purchasing eco-certified foods, low-income individuals and those looking to celebrate a special occasion are willing to pay more for eco-certified wines compared to respondents who are older, male, married, do not buy eco-certified goods, have higher incomes and are purchasing the wine for a regular occasion (Moscovici et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the quality of wine and organic certification remain important attributes in expensive wine purchasing choices (Mazzocchi et al., 2019; Ruggeri et al., 2020; Stanco and Lerro, 2020). In fact, when consumers perceive a specific product as high quality, they might be less willing to pay for further environmentally-friendly certifications (Ruggeri et al., 2020). Moreover, it seems that consumers who are aware of the social and environmental impact of their consumption choices pay more attention to the information displayed on the label (Galati et al., 2019).
With the establishment of sustainable certification systems, there is the risk that the prominent use of symbol and icon type labels might obscure individual sustainability attributes and weaken signaling to consumers searching for specific credentials. The use of simplistic symbols and logos makes it difficult for consumers to identify which elements are contained within a scheme. Tait et al. (2019) documented that sustainability attributes influence both the choice of buying Sauvignon blanc and customers' willingness to pay. The weight of sustainability in wine purchase choices depends on the specific environmental and social outcomes. In fact, the authors argued that growers and wineries implementing sustainability programs might benefit from focusing attention on the sustainable attributes that are relevant for the consumers (e.g. pests and disease, water resources) and not on those less valued (e.g. energy and biodiversity management). In this regard, Stanco and Lerro (2020) documented that the most important corporate social responsibility initiatives for a group of Italian wine consumers were “health and food safety”, “sustainable agricultural practices” and “air pollution”. Conversely, the least important for consumers were “energy consumption”, “sustainable packaging” and “fair trade”. Bazzani et al. (2020) highlighted that consumers' health consciousness is an important driver in the use of wine labels. In fact, health information on wine labels seems to be the attribute to which consumers assign greater utility (Annunziata et al., 2016).
Table S4 of the supplementary materials reports the forty-six citing in cluster #2. The main citing document of cluster #2, Casini et al. (2009) applied the best-worst scaling method to assess the wine preferences of an Italian sample of participants, providing insight into the attributes that influence wine choice. The wine attributes driving people's preferences were examined by several other citing and cited documents in the cluster (e.g. Balestrini and Gamble, 2006; Barber et al., 2006; Mueller and Szolnoki, 2010; Gunay and Baker, 2011; Chrysochou et al., 2012; Corsi et al., 2012; Lesschaeve et al., 2012; Chocarro and Cortiñas, 2013; Cicia et al., 2013; Corduas et al., 2013; Thiene et al., 2013; García-Muñoz et al., 2014; Caracciolo et al., 2015; Chamorro et al., 2015; Gustafson et al., 2016), often times by using the same best-worst scaling method (e.g. Marley and Louviere, 2005; Barber et al., 2008; Cohen, 2009; Mueller et al., 2009; Agnoli et al., 2011; Bernabéu et al., 2012; Loose and Lockshin, 2013; de Magistris et al., 2014). As in cluster #1, wine preferences of different generations of consumers were compared and assessed in several documents (e.g. Thach and Olsen, 2006; Olsen et al., 2007; de Magistris et al., 2011; Fountain and Lamb, 2011; Atkin and Thach, 2012; Garcia et al., 2013; Wiedmann et al., 2014a).
4.3 General discussion
Overall, the current review highlights that two main domains of research underlie and give shape to the overall existing literature on wine selection and preferences. The first domain is more focused on the traditional aspects of wine research and wine making (e.g. type of yeast); the second domain is more recent and mostly concerns consumer attitudes towards wine than the wine itself. Aside from a wine's biological composition and taste, multiple factors emerged to influence the consumers' wine purchases. These factors act both at the wine level and at the individual level. For instance, wine purchases are influenced by wine bottling, but also by consumers' country of origin, generation and even wine knowledge (Kammer and Rios-Morales, 2016). These findings, which emerged in a data-driven fashion, agree with the multilevel lifespan developmental framework proposed by Setoh and Esposito (2021) to frame the determinants of wine preferences. For Setoh and Esposito (2021), wine liking and preferences is modulated at multiple levels: perceptual, individual, interpersonal and group level. If traditional research on wine preferences has been mostly oriented on the perceptual level, the current scientometric review showed that recent scientific contributions are starting to investigate the factor acting at the individual, interpersonal and group levels. Nevertheless, the identification of the factors acting at the interpersonal and group levels is at its beginning and more research is required. Additionally, while research on factors belonging to all levels is gaining momentum, some aspects to achieve an integration of the levels are missing. For instance, it is not yet clear how factors influence each other both within the same level of influence and between different levels (Werner, 2021). For an integrated multilevel model of factors influencing wine liking and preferences, a dialogue between different disciplines (e.g. oenology, behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, social psychology, behavioral economics and cultural anthropology) is desirable. Insights from interdisciplinary streams of research could help to better understand which attributes in an individual's profile may influence one's wine preference and selection. This, in turn, could bridge the gap between research on wine liking and its application and allow for optimized targeted market strategies or for implementing wine tourism plans (Soós et al., 2019; Festa et al., 2020a). As an example, when considering the importance of moving towards sustainable methods of wine production (Amatucci et al., 2015), evidence-based targeted marketing strategies could potentially help winemakers increase the wine consumer community's propensity to switch to sustainable products in order to safeguard the resources of our planet.
5. Conclusions
In the current paper, a scientometric analysis was conducted on the references cited in 2,846 published works on wine selection and preference. The analysis led to the identification of two thematic macro-areas in the scientific literature: “Methods of Wine Making” and “Consumers' Attitudes and Preferences Towards Wine”. The content of the documents included in the two macro-areas was examined in the paper. Specifically, it emerged that when purchasing a bottle of wine, people are not only influenced by the sensory profile and the intrinsic attributes of wine, which largely depend on the adopted production methods. Conversely, wine choice is also influenced by extrinsic attributes, such as the wine price, country of origin and certification labels. Additionally, different preferences were found in a cross-generational and cross-cultural fashion. The importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors is in line with a recently proposed framework for multilevel lifespan development to reveal the determinants of wine preferences (Setoh and Esposito, 2021). Future studies in this field should integrate multiple factors associated with wine consumption.
The results need to be interpreted by considering the limitations that are intrinsic to the adopted methodology of the scientometric approach (see Carollo et al., 2021a, b, c). First of all, the results of the scientometric analysis largely depend on the initial data collection, both in terms of selected key terms and the selected data source (in this case, Scopus). While the terms used to direct the data collection were broad enough to include the most important documents published in the field of wine selection and preference, future works may extend the insights given by the current review by using data derived from different platforms, such as Web of Science. Secondly, the results of a DCA largely depend on the quantitative, more than qualitative, patterns of citation among documents. The focus on the quantity, more than on the quality, leads to treating all the citations similarly without considering the reasons for which a document was cited (e.g. a document may also be cited because it is controversial and not replicable). Lastly, since the scientometric approach relies on citation patterns, recently published documents, even when highly relevant and influential, might have been ignored or their impact might have been underestimated because they were not yet massively cited by the documents in the data pool. In fact, past documents may have a higher number of citations when compared to more recent ones not only because they are more influential, but also because they have had a longer “lifespan” since their publication date.
Even when considering the aforementioned limitations, future works can build on the insights given by the current scientometric review to help wine makers and sellers target the wine market. For instance, creating and ameliorating eco-friendly methods of wine production together with understanding the attitudes of people (especially young consumers) towards sustainable practices will be of central importance now and in the future years, when more attention will be given to preserving the Earth's resources.
Figures
Summary of the 7 major clusters identified with the Document Co-Citation Analysis (DCA)
| Cluster ID | Size | Silhouette | Mean year | Assigned label | Macro-area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 123 | 0.941 | 2011 | Non Conventional Yeasts | Methods of Wine Making |
| 1 | 119 | 0.984 | 2015 | Buyers' Attitudes | Consumers' Attitudes and Preferences Towards Wine |
| 2 | 112 | 0.974 | 2007 | Consumers' Preferences | Consumers' Attitudes and Preferences Towards Wine |
| 3 | 92 | 0.946 | 2003 | Genetic Factors | Methods of Wine Making |
| 5 | 73 | 0.968 | 2011 | Traditional Yeasts | Methods of Wine Making |
| 6 | 39 | 0.978 | 1999 | Genetic Engineering | Methods of Wine Making |
| 18 | 10 | 0.99 | 2016 | Microorganisms | Methods of Wine Making |
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
References
2020 Wine Production - OIV First Estimate (2020), available at: https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/7541/en-oiv-2020-world-wine-production-first-estimates.pdf.
Acuti, D., Mazzoli, V., Grazzini, L. and Rinaldi, R. (2019), “New patterns in wine consumption: the wine by the glass trend”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8, pp. 2655-2669.
Agnoli, L., Begalli, D. and Capitello, R. (2011), “Generation y’s perception of wine and consumption situations in a traditional wine-producing region”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Agnoli, L., Capitello, R. and Begalli, D. (2014), “Geographical brand and country-of-origin effects in the Chinese wine import market”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 541-558.
Agnoli, L., Boeri, M., Scarpa, R., Capitello, R. and Begalli, D. (2018), “Behavioural patterns in Mediterranean-style drinking: generation y preferences in alcoholic beverage consumption”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 75, pp. 117-125.
Almenberg, J. and Dreber, A. (2011), “When does the price affect the taste? Results from a wine experiment”, Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 111-121.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2009), “h-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 273-289.
Amato, M., Ballco, P., López-Galán, B., De Magistris, T. and Verneau, F. (2017), “Exploring consumers' perception and willingness to pay for ‘non-added sulphite’ wines through experimental auctions: a case study in Italy and Spain”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 146-154.
Amatucci, F.M., Pascale, A.M. and Serluca, M.C. (2015), “Green economy and social responsibility in the Italian agri-food sector: the focus on the wine sector”, International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 234-246.
Anchor, J.R. and Lacinová, T. (2015), “Czech wine consumers: maturing with age?”, E a M: Ekonomie a Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 169-182.
Annunziata, A., Pomarici, E., Vecchio, R. and Mariani, A. (2016), “Nutritional information and health warnings on wine labels: exploring consumer interest and preferences”, Appetite, Vol. 106, pp. 58-69.
Ares, G. and Deliza, R. (2010), “Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 930-937.
Aryadoust, V. and Ang, B.H. (2019), “Exploring the frontiers of eye tracking research in language studies: a novel co-citation scientometric review”, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 898-933.
Aschemann-Witzel, J. and Zielke, S. (2017), “Can't buy me green? A review of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of organic food”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 211-251.
Atkin, T. and Thach, L. (2012), “Millennial wine consumers: risk perception and information search”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 54-62.
Ay, J.-S., Chakir, R. and Marette, S. (2017), “Distance decay in the willingness to pay for wine: disentangling local and organic attributes”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 997-1019.
Balestrini, P. and Gamble, P. (2006), “Country-of-origin effects on Chinese wine consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 396-412.
Barber, N. and Almanza, B.A. (2007), “Influence of wine packaging on consumers' decision to purchase”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 83-98.
Barber, N., Almanza, B.A. and Donovan, J.R. (2006), “Motivational factors of gender, income and age on selecting a bottle of wine”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3.
Barber, N., Dodd, T. and Ghiselli, R. (2008), “Capturing the younger wine consumer”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 123-141.
Barber, N.A., Taylor, D.C. and Remar, D. (2016), “Desirability bias and perceived effectiveness influence on willingness-to-pay for pro-environmental wine products”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 3.
Bazzani, C., Capitello, R., Ricci, E.C., Scarpa, R. and Begalli, D. (2020), “Nutritional knowledge and health consciousness: do they affect consumer wine choices? Evidence from a survey in Italy”, Nutrients, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 84.
Belda, I., Conchillo, L.B., Ruiz, J., Navascués, E., Marquina, D. and Santos, A. (2016), “Selection and use of pectinolytic yeasts for improving clarification and phenolic extraction in winemaking”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 223, pp. 1-8.
Bely, M., Stoeckle, P., Masneuf-Pomarède, I. and Dubourdieu, D. (2008), “Impact of mixed torulaspora delbrueckii–saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on high-sugar fermentation”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 122 No. 3, pp. 312-320.
Benito, S. (2018), “The impacts of lachancea thermotolerans yeast strains on winemaking”, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Vol. 102 No. 16, pp. 6775-6790.
Bernabéu, R., Diaz, M., Olivas, R. and Olmeda, M. (2012), “Consumer preferences for wine applying best-worst scaling: a Spanish case study”, British Food Journal, Vol. 114 No. 9.
Binati, R.L., Innocente, G., Gatto, V., Celebrin, A., Polo, M., Felis, G.E. and Torriani, S. (2019), “Exploring the diversity of a collection of native non-saccharomyces yeasts to develop co-starter cultures for winemaking”, Food Research International, Vol. 122, pp. 432-442.
Boncinelli, F., Dominici, A., Gerini, F. and Marone, E. (2019), “Consumers wine preferences according to purchase occasion: personal consumption and gift-giving”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 71, pp. 270-278.
Bruwer, J., Saliba, A. and Miller, B. (2011), “Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: implications for wine product marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Camillo, A.A. (2012), “A strategic investigation of the determinants of wine consumption in China”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 68-92.
Campo, R., Rosato, P. and Battisti, E. (2021), “Multisensory analysis and wine marketing: systematic review and perspectives”, British Food Journal.
Canonico, L., Comitini, F., Oro, L. and Ciani, M. (2016), “Sequential fermentation with selected immobilized non-saccharomyces yeast for reduction of ethanol content in wine”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 7, p. 278.
Capitello, R., Agnoli, L. and Begalli, D. (2015), “Chinese import demand for wine: evidence from econometric estimations”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 115-135.
Capitello, R., Agnoli, L., Charters, S. and Begalli, D. (2021), “Labelling environmental and terroir attributes: young Italian consumers' wine preferences”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 304, 126991.
Caracciolo, F., Di Vita, G., Lanfranchi, M. and D’Amico, M. (2015), “Determinants of Sicilian wine consumption: evidence from a binary response”, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 11, pp. 794-801.
Carollo, A., Balagtas, J.P.M., Neoh, M.J.-Y. and Esposito, G. (2021a), “A scientometric approach to review the role of the medial preoptic area (mpoa) in parental behavior”, Brain Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 393.
Carollo, A., Bonassi, A., Lim, M., Gabrieli, G., Setoh, P., Dimitriou, D., Aryadoust, V. and Esposito, G. (2021b), “Developmental disabilities across the world: a scientometric review from 1936 to 2020”, Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 117, 104031.
Carollo, A., Lim, M., Aryadoust, V. and Esposito, G. (2021c), “Interpersonal synchrony in the context of caregiver-child interactions: a document co-citation analysis”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, p. 2977.
Carvalho, F.R., Wang, Q.J., Van Ee, R. and Spence, C. (2016), “The influence of soundscapes on the perception and evaluation of beers”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 52, pp. 32-41.
Casini, L., Corsi, A.M. and Goodman, S. (2009), “Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying best-worst scaling”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 1.
Cataldo, I., Lieu, A.A., Carollo, A., Bornstein, M.H., Gabrieli, G., Lee, A. and Esposito, G. (2022), “From the cradle to the web: the growth of ‘sharenting’—a scientometric perspective”, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2022, Vol. 2022.
Chamorro, A., Rubio, S. and Miranda, F.J. (2015), “The region-of-origin (roo) effect on purchasing preferences: the case of a multiregional designation of origin”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 820-839.
Chang, K.J., Thach, M.L. and Olsen, J. (2016), “Wine and health perceptions: exploring the impact of gender, age and ethnicity on consumer perceptions of wine and health”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 105-113.
Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2007), “The dimensions of wine quality”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 997-1007.
Charters, S., Velikova, N., Ritchie, C., Fountain, J., Thach, L., Dodd, T.H., Fish, N., Herbst, F. and Terblanche, N. (2011), “Generation y and sparkling wines: a cross-cultural perspective”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2.
Chen, C. (2014), “The citespace manual”, College of Computing and Informatics, Vol. 1, pp. 1-84.
Chen, C. (2016), CiteSpace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature, Nova Science Publishers Hauppauge, NY.
Chen, C. (2017), “Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Data and Information Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-40.
Chen, C. and Song, M. (2019), “Visualizing a field of research: a methodology of systematic scientometric reviews”, PloS One, Vol. 14 No. 10, e0223994.
Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z. and Pellegrino, D. (2009), “Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 191-209.
Chocarro, R. and Cortiñas, M. (2013), “The impact of expert opinion in consumer perception of wines”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 3.
Chrysochou, P., Corsi, A.M. and Krystallis, A. (2012), “What drives Greek consumer preferences for cask wine?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 114 No. 8.
Chu, X., Li, Y., Xie, Y., Tian, D. and Mu, W. (2019), “Regional difference analyzing and prediction model building for Chinese wine consumers’ sensory preference”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Ciani, M., Comitini, F., Mannazzu, I. and Domizio, P. (2010), “Controlled mixed culture fermentation: a new perspective on the use of non-saccharomyces yeasts in winemaking”, FEMS Yeast Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-133.
Ciani, M., Morales, P., Comitini, F., Tronchoni, J., Canonico, L., Curiel, J.A., Oro, L., Rodrigues, A.J. and Gonzalez, R. (2016), “Non-conventional yeast species for lowering ethanol content of wines”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 7, p. 642.
Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T. and Scarpa, R. (2013), “Country-of-origin effects on Russian wine consumers”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 247-260.
Cohen, E. (2009), “Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 1.
Comitini, F., Gobbi, M., Domizio, P., Romani, C., Lencioni, L., Mannazzu, I. and Ciani, M. (2011), “Selected non-saccharomyces wine yeasts in controlled multistarter fermentations with saccharomyces cerevisiae”, Food Microbiology, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 873-882.
Contreras, A., Hidalgo, C., Schmidt, S., Henschke, P., Curtin, C. and Varela, C. (2015), “The application of non-saccharomyces yeast in fermentations with limited aeration as a strategy for the production of wine with reduced alcohol content”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 205, pp. 7-15.
Corduas, M., Cinquanta, L. and Ievoli, C. (2013), “The importance of wine attributes for purchase decisions: a study of Italian consumers' perception”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 407-418.
Corsi, A.M., Mueller, S. and Lockshin, L. (2012), “Let's see what they have what consumers look for in a restaurant wine list”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 110-121.
Costanigro, M., Appleby, C. and Menke, S.D. (2014), “The wine headache: consumer perceptions of sulfites and willingness to pay for non-sulfited wines”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 31, pp. 81-89.
Crisinel, A.-S., Cosser, S., King, S., Jones, R., Petrie, J. and Spence, C. (2012), “A bittersweet symphony: systematically modulating the taste of food by changing the sonic properties of the soundtrack playing in the background”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 201-204.
Culbert, J.A., Ristic, R., Ovington, L., Saliba, A.J. and Wilkinson, K.L. (2017), “Influence of production method on the sensory profile and consumer acceptance of Australian sparkling white wine styles”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-178.
Danner, L., Johnson, T.E., Ristic, R., Meiselman, H.L. and Bastian, S.E. (2017), “‘i like the sound of that!’ wine descriptions influence consumers' expectations, liking, emotions and willingness to pay for Australian white wines”, Food Research International, Vol. 99, pp. 263-274.
De Luca, M., Campo, R. and Lee, R. (2019), “Mozart or pop music? Effects of background music on wine consumers”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 3.
de Magistris, T., Groot, E., Gracia, A. and Albisu, L.M. (2011), “Do millennial generation’s wine preferences of the ‘new world’ differ from the ‘old world’? A pilot study”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2.
de Magistris, T., Royo, A.G. and Aguado, L.M.A. (2014), “Wine consumers preferences in Spain: an analysis using the best-worst scaling approach”, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 529-541.
Delwiche, J. (2004), “The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 137-146.
Deodhar, S.Y., Singh, S. and Tank, N. (2019), “Grapevine or informed selection: significance of quality attributes in India's emerging wine market”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Dominici, A., Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F. and Marone, E. (2019), “Consumer preference for wine from hand-harvested grapes”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Domizio, P., Romani, C., Lencioni, L., Comitini, F., Gobbi, M., Mannazzu, I. and Ciani, M. (2011), “Outlining a future for non-saccharomyces yeasts: selection of putative spoilage wine strains to be used in association with saccharomyces cerevisiae for grape juice fermentation”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 147 No. 3, pp. 170-180.
D'Amico, M., Di Vita, G. and Monaco, L. (2016), “Exploring environmental consciousness and consumer preferences for organic wines without sulfites”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 120, pp. 64-71.
Egghe, L. (2006), “Theory and practise of the g-index”, Scientometrics, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 131-152.
Englezos, V., Rantsiou, K., Torchio, F., Rolle, L., Gerbi, V. and Cocolin, L. (2015), “Exploitation of the non-saccharomyces yeast starmerella bacillaris (synonym candida zemplinina) in wine fermentation: physiological and molecular characterizations”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 199, pp. 33-40.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A. and Pappas, G. (2008), “Comparison of pubmed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses”, The FASEB Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 338-342.
Fanasch, P. and Frick, B. (2020), “The value of signals: do self-declaration and certification generate price premiums for organic and biodynamic wines?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 249, 119415.
Festa, G., Cuomo, M.T., Foroudi, P. and Metallo, G. (2020a), “Wine tourism as a non-core business strategy for small wineries”, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 149-164.
Festa, G., Rossi, M., Kolte, A. and Situm, M. (2020b), “Territory-based knowledge management in international marketing processes–the case of ‘made in Italy’ smes”, European Business Review.
Fountain, J. and Lamb, C. (2011), “Generation y as young wine consumers in New Zealand: how do they differ from generation x?”, International Journal of Wine Business Research.
Freeman, L.C. (1977), “A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness”, Sociometry, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-41.
Gaggero, G., Bonassi, A., Dellantonio, S., Pastore, L., Aryadoust, V. and Esposito, G. (2020), “A scientometric review of alexithymia: mapping thematic and disciplinary shifts in half a century of research”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 11, p. 1405.
Galati, A., Crescimanno, M., Abbruzzo, A., Chironi, S. and Tinervia, S. (2017), “The premium price for Italian red wines in new world wine consuming countries: the case of the Russian market”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 181-193.
Galati, A., Schifani, G., Crescimanno, M. and Migliore, G. (2019), “‘Natural wine’ consumers and interest in label information: an analysis of willingness to pay in a new Italian wine market segment”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 227, pp. 405-413.
Gao, C., Yuan, Y. and Zhang, C. (2021), “Literature review of corporate social responsibility from the perspective of stakeholder theory”, 2021 5th International Seminar on Education, Management and Social Sciences (ISEMSS 2021), Atlantis Press, pp. 1036-1050.
García-Muñoz, S., Muñoz-Organero, G., Fernández-Fernández, E. and Cabello, F. (2014), “Sensory characterisation and factors influencing quality of wines made from 18 minor varieties (vitis vinifera l.)”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 32, pp. 241-252.
Garcia, T., Barrena, R. and Grande, I. (2013), “The wine consumption preferences of young people: a Spanish case study”, International Journal of Wine Business Research.
Gassler, B. (2015), “How green is your ‘grüner’? Millennial wine consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for eco-labeled wine”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie, Vol. 24, pp. 131-140.
Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T.H. and Oldewage-Theron, W. (2019), “Are sustainable consumers health conscious? A segmentation study of wine consumers”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 690-711.
Giacomarra, M., Galati, A., Crescimanno, M. and Vrontis, D. (2020), “Geographical cues: evidences from new and old world countries' wine consumers”, British Food Journal.
Goldsmith, R.E. and d’Hauteville, F. (1998), “Heavy wine consumption: empirical and theoretical perspectives”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 4.
Gunay, G.N. and Baker, M.J. (2011), “The factors influencing consumers’ behaviour on wine consumption in the Turkish wine market”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 6 No. 3.
Gustafson, C.R., Lybbert, T.J. and Sumner, D.A. (2016), “Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: experimental results for wine”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 85-94.
Higgins, L.M. and Llanos, E. (2015), “A healthy indulgence? Wine consumers and the health benefits of wine”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Iazzi, A., Scorrano, P., Rosato, P. and Grandhi, B. (2019), “Millennial generation preferences for rosé wine: an exploratory study of the Italian and French markets”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Janssen, M., Schäufele, I. and Zander, K. (2020), “Target groups for organic wine: the importance of segmentation analysis”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 79, 103785.
Jantzi, H.A. and McSweeney, M.B. (2019), “An overview of wine consumers in nova scotia, Canada: a conjoint analysis study”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 48-61.
Jara, C., Laurie, V.F., Mas, A. and Romero, J. (2016), “Microbial terroir in Chilean valleys: diversity of non-conventional yeast”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 7, p. 663.
Jeromel, A., Korenika, A.-M.J. and Tomaz, I. (2019), “An influence of different yeast species on wine aroma composition”, Fermented Beverages, Elsevier, Cambridge, pp. 171-285.
Jolly, N., Augustyn, O. and Pretorius, I. (2006), “The role and use of non-saccharomyces yeasts in wine production”, South African Society for Enology and Viticulture.
Jover, A.J.V., Montes, F.J.L. and Fuentes, M.d. M.F. (2004), “Measuring perceptions of quality in food products: the case of red wine”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 453-469.
Kammer, C. and Rios-Morales, R. (2016), “Wine labels: the impact of a module in wine knowledge”, International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Kelley, K., Bruwer, J., Zelinskie, J., Gardner, D., Govindasamy, R., Hyde, J. and Rickard, B. (2019), “Wine consumers’ willingness to adopt environmentally friendly packaging practices at tasting rooms: an echaid analysis”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 1.
Kleinberg, J. (2003), “Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 373-397.
Kunc, M. (2019), “Market analytics of the rice wine market in Japan: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 3.
Lamastra, L., Suciu, N.A., Novelli, E. and Trevisan, M. (2014), “A new approach to assessing the water footprint of wine: an Italian case study”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 490, pp. 748-756.
Lanfranchi, M., Schimmenti, E., Campolo, M.G. and Giannetto, C. (2019), “The willingness to pay of Sicilian consumers for a wine obtained with sustainable production method: an estimate through an ordered probit sample-selection model”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 203-215.
Lanfranchi, M., Alibrandi, A., Zirilli, A., Sakka, G. and Giannetto, C. (2020), “Analysis of the wine consumer’s behavior: an inferential statistics approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 3.
Lee, S.-J. and Lee, K.-G. (2008), “Understanding consumer preferences for rice wines using sensory data”, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 690-698.
Lee, W.-C.J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K.M. and Wansink, B. (2013), “You taste what you see: do organic labels bias taste perceptions?”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-39.
Lerro, M., Vecchio, R., Nazzaro, C. and Pomarici, E. (2019), “The growing (good) bubbles: insights into us consumers of sparkling wine”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Lesschaeve, I., Bowen, A. and Bruwer, J. (2012), “Determining the impact of consumer characteristics to project sensory preferences in commercial white wines”, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 487-493.
Lim, K.H. and Reed, M. (2020), “Do ecolabels cheapen wines?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, 118696.
Lim, M., Carollo, A., Chen, S.A. and Esposito, G. (2021), “Surveying 80 years of psychodrama research: a scientometric review”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 12, 780542.
Liu, P.-T., Lu, L., Duan, C.-Q. and Yan, G.-L. (2016), “The contribution of indigenous non-saccharomyces wine yeast to improved aromatic quality of cabernet sauvignon wines by spontaneous fermentation”, LWT-Food Science and Technology, Vol. 71, pp. 356-363.
Liu, J., Fan, L. and Yin, H. (2020), “A bibliometric analysis on cognitive processing of emotional words”, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 353-365.
Lockshin, L. and Corsi, A.M. (2012), “Consumer behaviour for wine 2.0: a review since 2003 and future directions”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d'Hauteville, F. and Perrouty, J.-P. (2006), “Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards in wine choice”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 166-178.
Loira, I., Morata, A., Bañuelos, M.A. and Suárez-Lepe, J.A. (2020), “Isolation, selection, and identification techniques for non-saccharomyces yeasts of oenological interest”, Biotechnological Progress and Beverage Consumption, Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, pp. 467-508.
Loose, S.M. and Lockshin, L. (2013), “Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 230-242.
Lukacs, P. (2012), Inventing Wine: A New History of One of the World’s Most Ancient Pleasures, WW Norton & Company, New York, NY.
Maesano, G., Carra, G. and Peri, I. (2019), “How do consumers perceive sustainable wine? A review”, Calitatea, Vol. 20 No. S2, pp. 351-357.
Marley, A.A. and Louviere, J.J. (2005), “Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 464-480.
Martínez, L.M.-C., Mollá-Bauzá, M.B., Gomis, F.J.D.C. and Poveda, Á.M. (2006), “Influence of purchase place and consumption frequency over quality wine preferences”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 315-327.
Masneuf-Pomarede, I., Bely, M., Marullo, P. and Albertin, W. (2016), “The genetics of non-conventional wine yeasts: current knowledge and future challenges”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 6, p. 1563.
Maturano, Y.P., Mestre, M.V., Kuchen, B., Toro, M.E., Mercado, L.A., Vazquez, F. and Combina, M. (2019), “Optimization of fermentation-relevant factors: a strategy to reduce ethanol in red wine by sequential culture of native yeasts”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 289, pp. 40-48.
Mazzocchi, C., Ruggeri, G. and Corsi, S. (2019), “Consumers' preferences for biodiversity in vineyards: a choice experiment on wine”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 155-164.
McGovern, P.E., Zhang, J., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., Hall, G.R., Moreau, R.A., Nuñez, A., Butrym, E.D., Richards, M.P. and Wang, C.-S. (2004), “Fermented beverages of pre-and proto-historic China”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 101 No. 51, pp. 17593-17598.
Mejia, C., Wu, M., Zhang, Y. and Kajikawa, Y. (2021), “Exploring topics in bibliometric research through citation networks and semantic analysis”, Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Vol. 6, 742311.
Migliore, G., Thrassou, A., Crescimanno, M., Schifani, G. and Galati, A. (2020), “Factors affecting consumer preferences for ‘natural wine’: an exploratory study in the Italian market”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Moscovici, D., Rezwanul, R., Mihailescu, R., Gow, J., Ugaglia, A.A., Valenzuela, L. and Rinaldi, A. (2020), “Preferences for eco certified wines in the United States”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 33 No. 2.
Mueller, S. and Szolnoki, G. (2010), “The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: consumers differ in their responsiveness”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 774-783.
Mueller, S., Francis, I. and Lockshin, L. (2009), “Comparison of best–worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of consumer wine preferences”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 205-215.
Mylona, A., Del Fresno, J., Palomero, F., Loira, I., Bañuelos, M., Morata, A., Calderón, F., Benito, S. and Suárez-Lepe, J.A. (2016), “Use of schizosaccharomyces strains for wine fermentation—effect on the wine composition and food safety”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 232, pp. 63-72.
Nassivera, F., Gallenti, G., Troiano, S., Marangon, F., Cosmina, M., Bogoni, P., Campisi, B. and Carzedda, M. (2020), “Italian millennials’ preferences for wine: an exploratory study”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Newman, M.E. (2006), “Modularity and community structure in networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103 No. 23, pp. 8577-8582.
North, A.C. (2012), “The effect of background music on the taste of wine”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 293-301.
Oczkowski, E. and Doucouliagos, H. (2015), “Wine prices and quality ratings: a meta-regression analysis”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 103-121.
Olsen, J.E., Thach And, L. and Nowak, L. (2007), “Wine for my generation: exploring how us wine consumers are socialized to wine”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Olsen, J., Thach, L. and Hemphill, L. (2012), “The impact of environmental protection and hedonistic values on organic wine purchases in the us”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 1.
Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972), “Cue utilization in the quality perception process”, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 167-179.
Padilla, B., Gil, J.V. and Manzanares, P. (2016), “Past and future of non-saccharomyces yeasts: from spoilage microorganisms to biotechnological tools for improving wine aroma complexity”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 7, p. 411.
Pagliarini, E., Laureati, M. and Gaeta, D. (2013), “Sensory descriptors, hedonic perception and consumer's attitudes to Sangiovese red wine deriving from organically and conventionally grown grapes”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 4, p. 896.
Panzone, L.A. (2014), “Why are discounted prices presented with full prices? The role of external price information on consumers' likelihood to purchase”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 31, pp. 69-80.
Pappalardo, G., Di Vita, G., Zanchini, R., La Via, G. and D’Amico, M. (2019), “Do consumers care about antioxidants in wine? The role of naturally resveratrol-enhanced wines in potential health-conscious drinkers’ preferences”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8.
Pickering, G. and Cullen, C. (2008), “The influence of taste sensitivity and adventurousness on generation Y’s liking scores for sparkling wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Pickering, G.J. and Hayes, J.E. (2017), “Influence of biological, experiential and psychological factors in wine preference segmentation”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 154-161.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E. and Spence, C. (2012), “Is it the plate or is it the food? Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on the perception of the food placed on it”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 205-208.
Pomarici, E. and Vecchio, R. (2014), “Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: an exploratory study on Italian consumers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 66, pp. 537-545.
Pomarici, E., Asioli, D., Vecchio, R. and Næs, T. (2018), “Young consumers' preferences for water-saving wines: an experimental study”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
Pozo-Bayón, M.Á., Muñoz-González, C. and Esteban-Fernández, A. (2016), “Wine preference and wine aroma perception”, Wine Safety, Consumer Preference, and Human Health, Springer, Cham, pp. 139-162.
Rahman, I., Stumpf, T. and Reynolds, D. (2014), “A comparison of the influence of purchaser attitudes and product attributes on organic wine preferences”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 127-134.
Ranjbari, M., Esfandabadi, Z.S., Gautam, S., Ferraris, A. and Scagnelli, S.D. (2022), “Waste management beyond the covid-19 pandemic: bibliometric and text mining analyses”, Gondwana Research, ahead of print.
Rollero, S., Bloem, A., Ortiz-Julien, A., Camarasa, C. and Divol, B. (2018), “Altered fermentation performances, growth, and metabolic footprints reveal competition for nutrients between yeast species inoculated in synthetic grape juice-like medium”, Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 9, p. 196.
Rousseeuw, P.J. (1987), “Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis”, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 20, pp. 53-65.
Ruggeri, G., Mazzocchi, C. and Corsi, S. (2020), “Drinking biodiversity: a choice experiment on Franciacorta sparkling wines”, British Food Journal.
Sáenz-Navajas, M.-P., Campo, E., Sutan, A., Ballester, J. and Valentin, D. (2013), “Perception of wine quality according to extrinsic cues: the case of burgundy wine consumers”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 44-53.
Sáenz-Navajas, M.-P., Ballester, J., Peyron, D. and Valentin, D. (2014), “Extrinsic attributes responsible for red wine quality perception: a cross-cultural study between France and Spain”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 35, pp. 70-85.
Schäufele, I. and Hamm, U. (2017), “Consumers' perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147, pp. 379-394.
Schäufele, I. and Hamm, U. (2018), “Organic wine purchase behaviour in Germany: exploring the attitude-behaviour-gap with data from a household panel”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 63, pp. 1-11.
Schäufele, I. and Hamm, U. (2020), “Wine consumers' reaction to prices, organic production and origins at the point of sale: an analysis of household panel data”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 261-273.
Schäufele, I., Pashkova, D. and Hamm, U. (2018), “Which consumers opt for organic wine and why? An analysis of the attitude-behaviour link”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 8.
Schmit, T.M., Rickard, B.J. and Taber, J. (2013), “Consumer valuation of environmentally friendly production practices in wines, considering asymmetric information and sensory effects”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Sellers, R. (2016), “Would you pay a price premium for a sustainable wine? The voice of the Spanish consumer”, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Vol. 8, pp. 10-16.
Sellers-Rubio, R. and Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J.L. (2016), “Estimating the willingness to pay for a sustainable wine using a heckit model”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 96-104.
Setoh, P. and Esposito, G. (2021), “Determinants of liking: a call for multilevel assessment of wine preferences–a commentary on Werner and colleagues 2021”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 94, 104317.
Sillani, S., Miccoli, A. and Nassivera, F. (2017), “Different preferences for wine communication”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Small, H. (1980), “Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 36 No. 3.
Snopek, L., Mlcek, J., Sochorova, L., Baron, M., Hlavacova, I., Jurikova, T., Kizek, R., Sedlackova, E. and Sochor, J. (2018), “Contribution of red wine consumption to human health protection”, Molecules, Vol. 23 No. 7, p. 1684.
Sogari, G., Corbo, C., Macconi, M., Menozzi, D. and Mora, C. (2015), “Consumer attitude towards sustainable-labelled wine: an exploratory approach”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 27 No. 4.
Sogari, G., Mora, C. and Menozzi, D. (2016), “Factors driving sustainable choice: the case of wine”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 3.
Sogari, G., Pucci, T., Aquilani, B. and Zanni, L. (2017), “Millennial generation and environmental sustainability: the role of social media in the consumer purchasing behavior for wine”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 10, p. 1911.
Somogyi, S., Li, E., Johnson, T., Bruwer, J. and Bastian, S. (2011), “The underlying motivations of Chinese wine consumer behaviour”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 4.
Soós, G., Csernák, J., Lakatos, L., Zsófi, Z. and Palotás, A. (2019), “Cognitive disposition to wine consumption: how the brain is wired to select the perfect bottle with a novel musical twist”, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Vol. 13, p. 1157.
Stanco, M. and Lerro, M. (2020), “Consumers' preferences for and perception of csr initiatives in the wine sector”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 13, p. 5230.
Taghikhah, F., Voinov, A., Shukla, N. and Filatova, T. (2020), “Exploring consumer behavior and policy options in organic food adoption: insights from the Australian wine sector”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 109, pp. 116-124.
Taghikhah, F., Voinov, A., Shukla, N. and Filatova, T. (2021), “Shifts in consumer behavior towards organic products: theory-driven data analytics”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 61, 102516.
Tait, P., Saunders, C., Dalziel, P., Rutherford, P., Driver, T. and Guenther, M. (2019), “Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: a discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon blanc purchasers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 233, pp. 412-420.
Tang, V.C.M., Tchetchik, A. and Cohen, E. (2015), “Perception of wine labels by Hong Kong Chinese consumers”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 12-21.
Thach, E.C. and Olsen, J.E. (2006), “Market segment analysis to target young adult wine drinkers”, Agribusiness: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 307-322.
Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Galletto, L. and Boatto, V. (2013), “Sparkling wine choice from supermarket shelves: the impact of certification of origin and production practices”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 44 Nos 4-5, pp. 523-536.
Truant, E., Broccardo, L. and Kolte, A. (2020), “The role of organic districts in supporting companies' sustainable development”, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, Vol. 12 Nos 3-4, pp. 265-283.
Veale, R. and Quester, P. (2008), “Consumer sensory evaluations of wine quality: the respective influence of price and country of origin”, Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-29.
Vecchio, R., Lisanti, M.T., Caracciolo, F., Cembalo, L., Gambuti, A., Moio, L., Siani, T., Marotta, G., Nazzaro, C. and Piombino, P. (2019a), “The role of production process and information on quality expectations and perceptions of sparkling wines”, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 124-135.
Vecchio, R., Rinaldi, A. and Moio, L. (2019b), “Does the denomination taste better than the wine?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 121 No. 12.
Verdonk, N., Wilkinson, J., Culbert, J., Ristic, R., Pearce, K. and Wilkinson, K. (2017), “Toward a model of sparkling wine purchasing preferences”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 29 No. 1.
Viana, F., Gil, J.V., Genovés, S., Vallés, S. and Manzanares, P. (2008), “Rational selection of non-saccharomyces wine yeasts for mixed starters based on ester formation and enological traits”, Food Microbiology, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 778-785.
Wang, Q.J., Mielby, L.A., Junge, J.Y., Bertelsen, A.S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C. and Byrne, D.V. (2019), “The role of intrinsic and extrinsic sensory factors in sweetness perception of food and beverages: a review”, Foods, Vol. 8 No. 6, p. 211.
Werner, C.P. (2021), “Rejoinder to ‘determinants of liking: a call for multilevel assessment of wine preferences-a commentary on Werner and colleagues 2021’”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 94, 104318.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Behrens, S., Klarmann, C. and Hennigs, N. (2014a), “Customer value perception: cross-generational preferences for wine”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 7.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., Behrens, S.H. and Klarmann, C. (2014b), “Tasting green: an experimental design for investigating consumer perception of organic wine”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 2.
Williamson, P., Robichaud, J. and Francis, I. (2012), “Comparison of Chinese and Australian consumers' liking responses for red wines”, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 256-267.
Williamson, P.O., Lockshin, L., Francis, I.L. and Loose, S.M. (2016), “Influencing consumer choice: short and medium term effect of country of origin information on wine choice”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 51, pp. 89-99.
Wolf, M.M., Wolf, M. and Lecat, B. (2022), “Wine market segmentation by age generations in the western us: expectations after the covid-19 pandemic”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 34 No. 3.
Yang, Y. and Paladino, A. (2015), “The case of wine: understanding Chinese gift-giving behavior”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 335-361.
Yoo, Y.J., Saliba, A.J., MacDonald, J.B., Prenzler, P.D. and Ryan, D. (2013), “A cross-cultural study of wine consumers with respect to health benefits of wine”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 531-538.
Zott, K., Miot-Sertier, C., Claisse, O., Lonvaud-Funel, A. and Masneuf-Pomarede, I. (2008), “Dynamics and diversity of non-saccharomyces yeasts during the early stages in winemaking”, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 197-203.
Acknowledgements
Author contribution: Conceptualization: A.C., G.E.; Data curation: A.C., G.G; Formal analysis: A.C.; Investigation: A.C.; Supervision: G.E.; Writing – original draft: A.C., S.F.; Writing – review and editing: A.C., S.F., G.G., C.M., G.E. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.