repertory grid interviews with international tourists visiting Taiwan, a total of 46 GI ..... and create desires through ''pleasurable dramas'' which tourists enjoy in ...
Understanding Gastronomic Image from Tourists’ Perspective: A Repertory Grid Approach
Richard C.Y. Chang, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan Athena H.N. Mak, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan * This is a draft version of the paper. For the full published version, please visit the Tourism Management website: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517718300487 Chang, R. C., & Mak, A. H. (2018). Understanding gastronomic image from tourists’ perspective: A repertory grid approach. Tourism Management, 68, 89-100.
Abstract Gastronomic image (GI) has increasingly been recognized as a valuable and inimitable source of competitive advantage by many destinations. However, little is known as to what attributes constitute GI, especially from tourists’ perspective. This study attempts to explore the salient attributes and dimensions of GI through the repertory grid method and generalized Procrustes analysis. Based on 50 repertory grid interviews with international tourists visiting Taiwan, a total of 46 GI attributes were identified. These attributes were classified into seven categories, namely, attractiveness, flavor profile, familiarity, cooking method and ingredients, distinctiveness, convenience and price, and health and safety. The findings provide useful insights for practice and serve as the basis for future research in the field of GI.
Keywords: gastronomic image, repertory grid method, generalized Procrustes analysis, triadic elicitation technique.
1. INTRODUCTION Tourists’ consumption of food and gastronomy has increasingly been turned into an “attractionized” experience that provides high contrast and symbolic values (Mak et al., 2013). The trend is further fueled by the growth of the “experience economy” (Pine & Gilmore, 2011), whereby tourists actively search for a broad range of cultural experiences that are original and authentic to enrich their cultural capital (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010). Food and gastronomy befittingly serve as the ideal means for tourists to experience the foodways of the host culture through their palates (Scarpato, 2002a).
1
To capitalize on this trend, many destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and national tourism organizations (NTOs) have attempted to create a unique and appealing gastronomic image (hereinafter abbreviated as GI) to enhance the distinctiveness and competitiveness of their destinations (Chang et al., 2010; Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2011; Kivela & Crotts, 2006). Given the rising popularity of the Internet, official tourism website has become one of the most utilized channels for promoting the gastronomic offerings in a destination (Horng & Tsai, 2009; Lepp, Gibson, & Lane, 2010; Okumus, Okumus, & McKercher, 2007). The information, photos and graphics on the official tourism website are particularly important in creating a vicarious experience for tourists, and thus, can directly influence the perceived GI of a destination (Horng & Tsai, 2009).
In recent years, a growing attention has been paid to the importance of GI and its relationship to the overall destination image. For example, Lin, Pearson, and Cai (2011) contend that food serves as a crucial form of destination identity and can be considered an essential element in building a destination brand. They emphasize that food is often intertwined with the social, cultural and natural characteristics of a destination, and thus, carries significant symbolic meanings. Accordingly, GI can play a significant role in shaping the image of a destination. A few studies have provided evidence on the relationship among destination image, GI and visit intention to a destination. For example, Karim and Chi’s (2010) findings indicate a significant positive relationship between GI and tourists’ visit intention. Lertputtarak (2011) further found that destination image and GI can both positively affect tourists’ revisit intention. In this light, GI can be turned into a pull factor to attract tourists to the unique food culture and foodways of a destination and also be utilized to induce an overall favorable and attractive destination image.
Although destination image has been extensively studied for its various dimensions and significance in influencing tourists’ perception, behavior and destination choice (Chon, 1990; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 2003; Gallarza, Saura, & Garcı´a, 2002), studies pertaining to GI are relatively scarce, revealing a gap in understanding this important constituent of destination image. Hence, DMOs and NTOs are often faced with the challenge of deciding which crucial components should be included in their GI promotion in order to effectively encapsulate the salient attributes and the distinct “flavors” of their destinations.
In response to this challenge, a number of studies have attempted to conceptualize the GI construct. For example, Harrington (2007) contends that GI can be manifested in multiple
2
dimensions including ingredients, cooking methods, recipes, and culinary etiquette. Fox (2007) further proposes five approaches in presenting GI, namely, differentiation, aestheticization, authentication, symbolization, and rejuvenation. While these initial conceptualization efforts have provided useful conceptual schemes for constructing GI, they were predominantly focused on the destination side, and more empirical evidence is needed to validate their efficacy.
Another challenge faced by DMOs and NTOs is that the GI formation process is not one-way, only percolating from the destination side to the tourist side. The process is in fact dynamic and reciprocal, and tourists’ perceived GI is of paramount importance and should be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, only a few isolated efforts have been devoted to understand the GI construct from tourists’ perspective. For example, Lertputtarak (2011) found that tourists perceived Thai food image based on two key dimensions: food image and restaurant image. Seo, Yun, and Kim (2014) identified five cognitive Korean food image dimensions, namely, quality and safety, attractiveness, promotion of health, family-oriented, and cooking methods. Both of these two studies adopted a positivist approach and respondents’ responses were based on pre-specified food image dimensions derived from the literature. As a result, subtle nuances might not have been fully captured. Considering that investigations on GI are still in their infancy, more exploratory work is needed to examine the essential constituents of perceived GI.
It is in the above context that this study sets out to generate an in-depth understanding of the GI construct from tourists’ perspective. In an attempt to capture the nuances of the construct, a repertory grid approach was adopted to elicit salient GI attributes from tourists. This approach allows the elicitation of GI attributes based on participants’ own “vocabulary” (Jankowicz, 2004) instead of responding to items pre-specified a priori by the researcher. Taiwan was selected as the research site for this study. The Taiwan Tourism Bureau (TTB), the NTO in Taiwan, has been creating and utilizing GI as one of the major competitive advantages in promoting inbound tourism. However, the lack of knowledge with respect to tourists’ perceived GI has restricted the effective use of GI. The findings of this study are expected to provide useful insights for TTB in discerning perceived GI from tourists’ perspective and serve as the basis for future research in the field of GI.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3
2.1 Gastronomy and Tourism
Gastronomy is etymologically derived from two Greek words: gastros, meaning stomach, and nomos, meaning rule or regulation (Kivela & Crotts, 2006; Santich, 2004). Accordingly, gastronomy refers to rules or norms in respect of eating and drinking, and can be extrapolated to include advice and guidance on what to eat and drink, how, where, when, in which combinations, and in what manner (Santich, 2004). Contemporary gastronomy can be defined as “reflective eating and cooking as well as food preparation, production and presentation in general, maintaining the association with excellence” (Scarpato, 2002b, p. 139). Unlike other forms of travel activities and attractions, gastronomy can be regarded as an art form that gratifies all of the five human senses – vision, tactile, auditory, taste, and olfaction (Kivela & Crotts, 2006). With such an idiosyncratic nature, gastronomic experience is considered a sensory pleasure activity that fulfils the experiential part of a holiday experience (Boyne, Williams, & Hall, 2002).
Furthermore, as gastronomy is an essential aspect in understanding the culture of a society (Fieldhouse, 1986), it comprises a substantial part of the cultural appeal a destination offers. Scarpato (2002a, p. 65) contends that gastronomy satisfies the conventional requirements of cultural tourism products. For example, it significantly adds value to the tourist experience; it fits into the contemporary pattern of consumption tourism where the quest of new experiences yield a high level of satisfaction; and it offers answers to the increasing demand for relatively shorter breaks with added value. Hence, gastronomy can be a major conduit for tourists to appreciate the local culture of a destination. Long (2004) further adds that tourists can experience five aspects of “Otherness” through gastronomy, namely, culture, time, ethos/religion, region and socio-economic class.
Previous research also confirms that gastronomy can be the primary (or one of the primary) motivation to visit a destination (Kivela & Crotts, 2006). In fact, gastronomy is generally accepted as an “attraction” in tourism (Richards, 2002). Mak et al. (2013) further identified four food consumption experiences in the context of tourism, namely, supporting consumer experience, peak touristic experience (contrast), peak touristic experience (symbolic), and “attractionized” experience. In particular, “attractionized” experience refers to gastronomic or dining experiences that are perceived to have a high degree of contrast and bear significant symbolic meanings.
4
2.2 From Destination Image to Gastronomic Image
Destination image is widely acknowledged as an important factor that affects potential tourists’ perception, behavior and destination choice (Chon, 1990; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 2003; Gallarza et al., 2002; Pike, 2002). It can be defined as “the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a destination” (Crompton, 1979, p. 18). Destination image is generally recognized as multidimensional, comprising of both “symbolic” and “tangible” features. Echtner and Ritchie (1991) contend that destination image comprises two components: the holistic and attributes specific to the destination. Furthermore, each of these components comprises functional (or tangible) and psychological (or symbolic/intangible) aspects. Morgan et al. (2002) echo that destination image and identity comprise both “functional” and “non-functional” attributes. Functional attributes include more tangible aspects of a destination such as location and services, whereas non-functional attributes include intangible and emotional aspects such as landscape and atmosphere.
In addition, destination image can be conceptually divided into “cognitive” and “affective” components (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martı´n, 2004; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006 ). Baloglu and McCleary (1999) propose a framework of destination image formation which suggests that destination image is comprised of perceptual/cognitive and affective evaluations. They argue that the destination image concept can be considered as “an attitudinal construct consisting of an individual’s mental representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings, and global impression” about a destination (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999, p. 870). Accordingly, perceptual/cognitive evaluations are the beliefs or knowledge about the attributes of a destination whereas affective evaluation refers to the feelings toward, or attachment to the destination. Eventually, an overall destination image (global) will be developed based on both the perceptual/cognitive and affective evaluations of that destination. In a similar vein, Beerli and Martín (2004) propose a destination image formation model which highlights both cognitive and affective images’ contributions to the overall perceived destination image.
Destination image literature suggests three types of images that individuals hold of a particular destination, namely, organic image, induced image, and complex image (Gunn, 1972). Organic image is developed based on non-tourism information such as news, geography books, or magazine articles. Induced image is derived from tourism-specific information such as official tourism websites, travel blogs, destination or travel agency brochures. Complex image arises from the direct experience of visiting the destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991).
5
Since destination image is multidimensional, it includes various dimensions such as local attraction, climate, scenery and landscape, cultural and heritage, as well as the local food culture and gastronomic products available in the destination. Given the centrality of food and eating in the context of tourism (Chang et al., 2010; Richards, 2002), and the fact that gastronomy constitutes an important cultural element (Scarpato, 2002b), gastronomic image can be regarded as an important constituent of destination image.
It is plausible to apply the concept of destination image to the study of gastronomic image. Following that destination image can be regarded as an attitudinal construct that represents tourists’ knowledge, feeling and overall impression about a destination (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999), “gastronomic image” in the present study is defined as tourists’ holistic impression about a destination’s gastronomic products and food culture. Accordingly, the cognitive components of gastronomic image about a destination can refer to the famous foods/dishes, table manners and etiquette, and eating habits. On the other hand, symbolic meanings of food may belong to the affective aspects of the gastronomic image of a destination.
2.3 Distinguishing Gastronomic Image from Gastronomic Identity
It is germane to point out that gastronomic “image” can be conceptually differentiated from gastronomic “identity” in which the former denotes tourists’ holistic impression of the gastronomic offerings in a destination, while the latter includes projected and manageable attributes that are employed by destination marketers to represent the ideal gastronomic characteristics of a destination.
Most of the existing studies are concerned with exploring how gastronomic “identity” can be projected and marketed. For example, Harrington (2007, p. 61) points out that a destination’s gastronomic identity is determined by “the environment and cultural elements that impact prevailing components, textures, and flavors in wine and food”. Based on Harrington’s (2007) contention, gastronomic identity is largely shaped by cultural and environmental factors. In other words, a destination’s gastronomic identity is closely associated with local food culture and foodways. Food culture refers to the “culinary order whose traits are prevalent among a certain group of people” (Askegaard & Madsen, 1998, p. 550). Foodways encompass the culinary culture of a region or a country that includes its cuisines, the methods of food preparation, the eating practices of its people, and its culinary history and heritage (Axelson, 1986). Nonetheless, in many cases, not every key aspect of the
6
local food culture and foodways has been effectively adopted or fully capitalized in creating a desirable gastronomic identity (Horng & Tsai, 2009; Okumus et al., 2007). Therefore, Harrington (2007) suggests that a destination’s gastronomic identity may be defined by its environment (climate and geography) and culture (religious, historical, level of ethnic, diversity, innovations, capabilities, traditions, beliefs and values).
On the other hand, Fox (2007) advocates that destination marketers should make their gastronomic “identities” available to all to accept or refuse, explain and justify those identities, and create desires through ‘‘pleasurable dramas’’ which tourists enjoy in their imagination even before arriving at the destination. This underscores the need to “commodify” and “spectacularize” gastronomic products to meet tourists’ expectations in the postmodern society which is based on image.
Fox (2007) further proposes five approaches to creating and presenting gastronomic identity: (1) differentiation (to employ gastronomic product as a point of cultural difference), (2) aestheticization (to utilize gastronomic product in a way that will engage tourists’ palate and mind, and will interact with tourists’ personal distinctiveness, feelings, social status, and lifestyles), (3) authentication (to socially construct a destination’s gastronomic authenticity to satisfy tourists’ nostalgia or authenticity needs), (4) symbolization (to culturally assign values to typical ingredients, dishes, menus, and gastronomic processes, so that gastronomic symbols can be created and employed), and (5) rejuvenation (to revive traditional culinary heritage or customs, e.g. by returning to classical ingredients, and traditional ways of food preparation). Fox’s (2007) approaches offer a useful framework for presenting a destination’s gastronomic identity.
Most recently, gastronomic “image” (also referred to as “food image” in some studies) has started to receive some research attention. For example, Lertputtarak (2011) developed 19 items to measure the food image of Pattaya, Thailand. The exploratory factor analysis results indicate that tourists perceived Thai food image based on two key dimensions: food image (e.g., well-known/popular cuisine in the world, variety of food) and restaurant image (e.g., variety of attractive restaurant types, unique serving style of restaurant staff). Their findings also revealed that destination image and GI can both positively affect tourists’ revisit intention to Pattaya.
Seo, Yun, and Kim’s (2014) study is another attempt to explore GI from tourists’
7
perspective. By using data collected through self-administered questionnaires, five “cognitive” food image dimensions were identified, namely, quality and safety (e.g., safe, hygienic), attractiveness (e.g., tastes good, smells good, attractive), promotion of health (e.g., prevent disease), family-oriented (e.g., served in family style, shared with others at table), and cooking methods (e.g., uses various cooking methods). Their findings suggest that GI and preference for destination foods were significant antecedents of intention to eat destination foods.
Based on the aforementioned discussions, gastronomic identity and gastronomic image are significant aspects in destination marketing. The two concepts should be conceptually differentiated, and be examined from the destination’s and tourists’ perspectives respectively. Considering the insufficient understanding of how gastronomy is perceived from the demand side’s perspective, the focus of this study is on exploring gastronomic image from tourists’ point of view.
2.4 Gastronomic Products of Taiwan
In Taiwan, gastronomy has long been adopted as one of the major attractions for international tourists (Horng & Tsai, 2009). According to the statistical data provided by Taiwan Tourism Bureau (TTB), gastronomy is one of the top motivational factors (36.5%) in attracting international tourists to visit Taiwan in 2015 (TTB, 2015). Moreover, nearly half of tourists interviewed (47.3%) considered that the food experience was their most memorable experience when visiting Taiwan (TTB, 2015). These confirm the potential and appeal of the gastronomic products in Taiwan in the international tourism market.
One of the most prominent GI of Taiwan is its night markets. Night markets have a long history in Taiwan, and “tourist night markets” were formally established in 1987 (Hsieh & Chang, 2006). In tourist night markets, a majority of the vendors sell food and beverages, offering tourists a wide variety of food choices (Chang & Hsieh, 2006). Night markets ranked as the top tourist attraction visited by international tourists (83.3%) in 2015 (TTB, 2015). In the official “Welcome to Taiwan” English website, night markets are one of the key gastronomic products that TTB has devoted individual web page and sub-pages to promote under the categories of special interests.
Other than night markets, local delicacies such as local food and snacks are also promoted in the TTB website (TTB, 2012). TTB has devoted an individual web page to promote the
8
gastronomic products in Taiwan – “Tastes of Taiwan”. Under this page, nine most popular local food items are promoted, namely, oyster omelet, soup dumpling, oyster thin noodles, stinky tofu, braised pork rice, Taiwanese meatball, meat rice tamales, danzai noodles, and beef noodles.
Oyster omelet contains oysters, eggs and vegetables that are fried in tapioca starch and served with a sweet and sour sauce. Soup dumpling (xiao long bao) is a thin-skinned steamed bun filled with juicy minced pork. Oyster thin noodles are served in a soup stock with fresh oysters, and flavored with black vinegar, garlic sauce, and cilantro. Stinky tofu is deep-fried fermented tofu which is commonly served with pickled cabbage. Braised pork rice is a popular Taiwanese staple dish. It is made of pork belly that was slowly braised in soy sauce and then served on top of steamed rice. Taiwanese meatball is a deep-fried meatball with an outer wrapper made of tapioca power and rice power. Its filling includes pork, mushroom, and bamboo shoots. Meat rice tamales are glutinous rice wrapped in bamboo leaves, with mushrooms, dried shrimps, and pork as filling. Danzai noodles (literally “shoulder pole noodles”) are traditionally served in a small bowl, and topped with long-simmered minced pork, bean sprouts, shrimp, and a hardboiled egg. Beef noodles consist of stewed or red braised beef, beef broth, vegetables and Chinese noodles.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
This study has adopted the repertory grid method (RGM) to elicit the perceived GI of Taiwan from international tourists’ perspective. RGM is an assessment method derived from Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory (PCT). The fundamental postulate of PCT is that “people act like scientists in the way they evaluate the world around them: formulating, testing, verifying and updating hypotheses about the world and its relationship to themselves” (Gains, 1994, p. 52). In other words, a person’s understanding of the world is achieved through an active and constructive process of erecting “personal theories” (in Kelly’s terms “personal constructs”) which can be revised based on a person’s experience. Accordingly, individuals’ “personal constructs” can provide essential information on how they make sense of the world. PCT further theorizes that individual’s constructs are finite in number and bipolar in nature (Kelly, 1955).
9
The RGM serves as an elicitation method which enables participants to present their “personal constructs” of interpreting the world in a form that can be understood and communicated. The method has three main components: (1) “elements” (the specific subjects of inquiry), (2) “constructs” (the ways participants differentiate between the elements), and (3) “linking mechanisms” (how each element is judged on each construct). Correspondingly, a repertory grid interview typically involves the following five key steps: element selection, construct elicitation, element assessment (participants’ systematic comparison of the elements in terms of the constructs elicited), data analysis and interpretation of results (Jankowicz, 2004). These steps will be described in detail in the ensuing subsections.
A particular strength of RGM is that it allows a systematic elicitation of the constructs that comprise a participant’s cognitive structure (Kelly, 1955). Accordingly, participants are not forced to respond to constructs pre-specified a priori by the researcher, and thus, researcher bias can be considerably reduced (Jankowicz, 2004; Thomson & McEwan, 1988). Another advantage of RGM is that it can be used to elicit qualitative data in the form of attributes as well as quantitative ratings (Heckmann & Burk, 2017). Hence, it is a very useful integrating method that allows the researcher to build bridges between qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Jankowicz, 2004). Besides, the RGM is special in terms of using photographs to represent the elements, which can stimulate participants’ interest and encouraged more discussion during the interview. Pike (2003) contends that RGM is especially suitable for identifying image attributes in tourism studies. In fact, the RGM has been employed in a number of destination image research and has yielded successful results (e.g., Coshall, 2000; Pike, 2003; Pike, 2007; Pike & Kotsi, 2016; Waitt, Lane, & Head, 2003).
3.2 Element Selection
As an element is the specific subject that is the focus of the investigation, the elements adopted in this study were the various types of food promoted by the Taiwan Tourism Bureau (TTB) in their official English website (http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/) (TTB, 2012).
As explained earlier, an individual web page “Tastes of Taiwan” was used to promote the gastronomic products in Taiwan by TTB, featuring nine most popular local food items, namely, oyster omelet, soup dumpling, oyster thin noodles, stinky tofu, braised pork rice, Taiwanese meatball, meat rice tamales, danzai noodles, and beef noodles. It is important to note that no consensus was reached on the most representative food items in Taiwan, these nine types of
10
food items were selected as the elements of the RGM (the photos of the nine food items are presented in Figure 1) for they were regarded as representative Taiwanese food items by TTB.
* Please insert Fig. 1 about here
Besides, choosing these nine food items allowed the facilitation of “triadic elicitation” technique developed by Kelly (1955), which requires the elements to be presented in sets of three at the same time. The technique will be explained in detail in Section 3.4.
3.3 Selection of Participants
Although RGM is able to generate rich data, the key processes of the method involve element presentation, construct elicitation and assessment of the constructs elicited, and would be time-consuming in many cases (a typical RGM interview lasts around 45 minutes). Hence, recruiting participants through an intercept approach at the airport or tourist attractions might be difficult and impractical. Accordingly, a purposive sampling procedure followed by a snowball-sampling technique was employed in this study. First, a recruitment message was posted in the international student office at a Taiwan university to recruit eligible newly arrived international or exchange students. Special attention was given to select participants who had sufficient food consumption experiences at the time of the interview to allow a more detailed reflection on their perceived GI. The criteria for the selection of participants included: participant was above 18 years of age, had consumed some local food items in Taiwan (at least five out of the nine of the local food items presented in Figure 1), and had arrived Taiwan for less than one month (so that eligible participants shared similar characteristics with tourists). Then, the recruited participants were invited to further recommend their friends and families who were visiting Taiwan to participate in the interview. A gift coupon was provided as a token of appreciation as well as an incentive to participate in the interview.
3.4 Constructs Elicitation and Element Assessment
During the construct elicitation, the researcher first explained the purpose and procedures of the interview to the participants. Then each participant was presented with the photos and names of the elements which were color printed on individual cards. The presentation followed the “triadic elicitation” method. With this method, each participant was presented with three elements at a time and was asked to think of ways in which two of the elements presented were
11
alike and at the same time differed from the third (in terms of the perceived GI attributes). This arrangement allowed the participants to contrast the elements in a manner whereby bipolar constructs could also be generated. The triads were presented following an incomplete “Williams Latin Square” order (Jaeger, Rossiter, & Lau, 2005) in which each element was presented exactly twice and in different sequences. The bipolar constructs elicited were recorded on a grid template, with desirable/positive constructs recorded on the right-hand side of the grid (point 7) and the undesirable/negative constructs recorded on the left-hand side of the grid (point 1) (see Appendix 1 for a sample grid template). The participants were subsequently asked to provide ratings for each element based on each of the constructs they had previously provided. Rating was collected on a 7-point scale using the elicited constructs as anchors.
3.5 Data Analysis
Content analysis was first used to examine the constructs (GI attributes) elicited from the participants. The analysis was aided with the NVivo 10 computer program (QSR International, 2010). Then, generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) was used to analyze participants’ ratings of the elements based on the constructs elicited. GPA was introduced by Gower (1975) as an inventive combination of Procrustes rotation and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). It is a multivariate statistical technique for analyzing three-dimensional data matrices and is particularly useful for analyzing repertory grid data collected from many individuals. (Grice & Assad, 2009).
The GPA was carried with the aid of the statistical software Idiogrid, version 2.4 (Grice, 2002). The analysis consisted of three fundamental steps: (1) translation, (2) rotation/reflection, and (3) scaling. The analysis procedures of each step followed those recommended by Grice (2007) and are described as follows.
(1) Translation. In the first step, each participant’s configuration was translated to a common “centroid” (i.e., the origin) to adjust for participants using different parts of the scale. Given that the individual grids differed in their dimensionality (RGM allowed elicitation of different numbers of construct from each participant, e.g., grid #1 could have 6 constructs, whereas grid #2 could have 8 constructs) and in different sequences (e.g., a particular construct could appear as the first construct in grid #1, it could appear as the second construct in grid #2, and it might not appear at all in grid #3), the elements (i.e., types of food) were matched across
12
the grids instead of the constructs (i.e., GI attributes) in the analysis.
(2) Rotation/Reflection. In the second step, variations owing to participants using different constructs to describe the elements were removed by means of rotation and reflection. The unmatched dimensions were treated as essentially arbitrary by GPA, and the individual grids were rotated to maximum similarity by means of Procrustes rotation (Grice & Assad, 2009). Following this, the degree of similarity between the rotated individual configurations was quantified by computing a consensus matrix, which was an average of the rotated matrices of ratings.
(3) Scaling.
In the third step, each participant’s configuration was scaled to unit
variance, corresponding to the configuration size by shrinking and stretching, in order to adjust for participants using different ranges of the rating scale. As recommended by Grice (2007), ANOVA should be carried out to divide the total amount of variability in the rotated ratings into two separate portions: consensus and residual. The total consensus proportion was computed as the ratio of the consensus sum of squares to the total sum of squares in the ANOVA. The consensus proportion specifies the proportion of overlap among the rotated ratings (i.e., the level of agreement among all grids), which is akin to the multiple R2 statistics in regression analysis (ranging from 0 to 1 in value) (Grice & Assad, 2009).
Lastly, the transformed data were submitted to principal components analysis (PCA) to establish a reduced dimensionality consensus configuration. The correlations of the consensus grid were analyzed, and the first two principal components were extracted to create the axes of a bi-plot (principal components plot). The next step involved constructing a “concatenated grid” (linking all grids together). This was done by conducting an “extension analysis” on the consensus grid and participants’ rescaled grids (Grice, 2002). All constructs elicited from the participants were mapped into the two-dimensional space formed by the principal components. To allow the most salient constructs to be displayed in the bi-plot, the structure coefficients from the PCA were examined and the cut-point for salience was set at 0.50 (Grice & Assad, 2009). Structure coefficients less than 0.50 in absolute value were omitted, and a bi-plot of the consensus matrix was generated.
3.6 Trustworthiness of Data
A number of measures were employed to reduce researcher bias and to increase the
13
trustworthiness of the findings. First, investigator triangulation was employed. Investigator triangulation is concerned with using multiple investigators to interpret the same body of data, and is recognized as a method of strengthening the credibility of qualitative findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). All GI attributes were classified independently by the principal investigator and another tourism researcher. Percent agreement was used to assess intercoder reliability. The percent agreement among the two coders was 96% (the number of codes that were in agreement divided by the total of number of codes, then multiplied by 100). The remaining attributes were discussed in order to reach an agreement. In addition, member checking was carried out during the interviews. Relevant probing questions were asked in order to assess whether participants’ meanings were interpreted accurately. These strategies collectively contributed to the trustworthiness of data, thus enhancing the rigor of this study.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Profile of the Participants
A total of 50 repertory grid interviews were conducted in Taichung and Taipei. The socio-demographic profile of the participants is summarized in Table 1.
* Please insert Table 1 about here
There were slightly more male participants in the sample (52%). The majority of the sample belongs to the 18-24 age group (60%), followed by 23-34 (18%). The largest nationality group was “Other Asian” (e.g., the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia) (30%), followed by Malaysian (18%), Japanese (12%) and African (12%). The majority of the participants hold an undergraduate degree (44%). An overwhelming majority of them were single (92%), and were visiting Taiwan for the first time (62%). 4.2 Gastronomic Image Attributes and Dimensions
Based on the 50 interviews, a total of 46 “constructs” (i.e. GI attributes) were elicited. Attributes with similar meanings (e.g., looks appetizing and looks delicious) were combined to form a set of 26 attributes. These attributes were subsequently content analyzed and were classified into seven categories: (1) familiarity, (2) flavor profile, (3) attractiveness, (4)
14
distinctiveness, (5) cooking method and ingredients, (6) convenience and price, and (7) health and safety. The classification was predominantly inductive in nature, which allowed for themes to emerge from the data. Existing literature was also used to guide the coding process, including Seo et al.’s (2014) study (five cognitive Korean food image dimensions: quality and safety, attractiveness, promotion of health, family-oriented, and cooking methods) and Lertputtarak’s (2011) study (two key dimensions of Thai food image: food image and restaurant image). Table 2 presents the dimensions and the attributes identified, as well as their frequency of occurrence and percentage.
* Please insert Table 2 about here
1.
Attractiveness. Attractiveness is concerned with GI attributes that reflect the presentation style and appearance of the food, for example, look appetizing (72%), aromatic (58%), attractive presentation (28%), and colorful (16%). The presentation of food, along with aroma and color, are important sensory attributes that affect the perceived attractiveness of the food item. As Rozin (2006) cogently describes, food has becomes a form of “aesthetic satisfaction”, and the development of cuisine represents an attempt to enrich life and produce aesthetic pleasure. This type of attributes also lends support to Fox’s (2007) “aestheticization” and “differentiation” approaches in presenting GI.
2.
Flavor profile.
Flavor profile refers to the sensory attributes of Taiwanese food
perceived by the participants, including tasty (64%), suitable flavor (54%), suitable sauce (18%) and texture (14%). The concept of “flavor principles” is important in understanding this type of attributes, especially tasty and suitable flavor. According to Rozin and Rozin (1981), basic foods, cooking techniques, and flavor principles are three major factors that differentiate a cuisine, and flavor principles refer to the distinctive seasoning combinations which characterize many cuisines. For example, the flavor principles for Taiwanese cuisine typically include seasoning combinations of garlic, spring onion and soya sauce (Wu, 2014). As Fischler (1988) describes, flavor principles are “markers” or “taste motifs” that make a dish recognizable and therefore acceptable even if some of the ingredients are unfamiliar to an individual. These taste motifs together with texture form the GI attributes that reflect culturally specific “flavor principles” of Taiwanese cuisine. 3.
Familiarity. Familiarity refers to foods that were perceived to be familiar by the participants, and thus, matched with their personal preferences. It includes attributes such as matching with personal preference (48%), similar to hometown flavor (38%), familiar
15
food items (24%), and food items that evoke food memory (12%). Perceiving food in terms of familiarity and novelty is one of the most important dichotomies in human food consumption behavior (Mak et al., 2012b). The mechanism underlying such a predilection is food neophobia. According to Pliner and Salvy (2006), food neophobia can be conceptualized as a personality trait involving a relative preference for familiar over novel foods. Because of a higher degree of familiarity, some food items tended to be more preferred and accepted by the participants. On the other hand, foods that resembled participants’ “hometown flavor” provided them with a “reference point” to gauge the new food items in a foreign setting. Furthermore, Holtzman (2006) underscores that the sensuality of food causes it to be a particularly intense and compelling medium for memory. The experience of food evokes cognitive, as well as emotional and physical recollection (Sutton, 2001). 4.
Cooking method and ingredients. GI attributes under this category are related to the cooking methods and ingredients of the food perceived by the participants, such as novel combination of ingredients (38%), rich ingredients (10%), and special cooking methods (10%). As mentioned earlier, apart from flavor principles, basic foods (ingredients) and cooking techniques are the major factors that differentiate a cuisine (Rozin & Rozin, 1981). Novel combination of ingredients such as using oyster and vegetables in oyster omelet as well as special cooking methods such as deep-frying of Taiwanese meatballs, are examples of this type of attributes that participants used to distinguish Taiwanese food.
5.
Distinctiveness. GI attributes under this category are associated with perceived uniqueness (16%), representativeness of local flavors (6%), and traditional Taiwanese food (4%). The “common-unique” destination image dichotomy proposed by Echtner and Ritchie (1993) can be extended to understand this type of attributes. Similar to a destination image that can have unique cognitive attributes; GI attributes can be perceived as unique and can only be found in the destination. Distinctiveness is also concerned with whether the food can authentically represent Taiwan. This corroborates with the “authentication” approach in presenting GI proposed by Fox (2007).
6.
Convenience and Price. Attributes under this category are predominantly linked to perceived convenience and price, for example, inexpensive (10%) and convenient to eat (6%). These GI attributes are based on the essentiality of food consumption in tourism, or in Mak et al.’s (2012a) term, the “obligatory” facet of the encounter of food in foreign destinations. As Mak et al. (2012a) describe, tourist food consumption can be seen as the “tourist’s paradox”, an oscillation between fulfilling the “obligatory” and the “symbolic”
16
facets of the encounter of food in foreign destinations. Hence, GI in a destination can be assessed based on the essential aspects of food consumption in the tourism context. 7.
Health and Safety. GI attributes in this category are concerned with tourists’ perceived healthiness (6%) and safety (6%) of the gastronomic products in the destination. As previously stated, there is an “obligatory” aspect of the encounter of food in unfamiliar settings. This GI category is particularly germane when there is a large cultural distance between tourists’ native food culture and the host food culture. Moreover, this GI category lends support to the “quality and safety” (e.g., safe, hygienic) and “health” (e.g., prevent disease) dimensions identified by Seo et al. (2014).
4.3 Generalized Procrustes Analysis Results
GPA was conducted based on the steps described in Section 3.5. After then translation and rotation/reflection steps were performed with the aid of the Idiogrid software (version 2.4), ANOVA was carried out to examine the level of agreement among all grids. The total consensus was found to be 50.29 and the residual was 49.71 (see Table 3). The consensus proportion equaled 0.60 (p < 0.01), indicating a moderate agreement among the 50 grids.
* Please insert Table 3 about here
Next, PCA with orthogonal varimax rotation was performed on the transformed data. The first two components explained 66.2% of the variance in the consensus grid. To allow the most salient constructs to be displayed in the bi-plot, the structure coefficients from the PCA were examined and the cut-point for salience was set at 0.50 (Grice & Assad, 2009). Structure coefficients less than 0.50 in absolute value were omitted, and a bi-plot of the consensus matrix was generated (see Figure 2).
As indicated by Figure 2, the first component (the horizontal axis) explained 39.7% of the variance in the consensus grid. It was spanned between stinky tofu with a high positive score and soup dumping with high negative score. The perceptions relative to the first component were explored by examining the “salient constructs” included in the bi-plot. The graph revealed that the first component differentiated the elements based on perception categories such as distinctiveness, familiarity and attractiveness.
* Please insert Fig. 2 about here 17
The second component (the vertical axis) explained 26.5% of the variance. It was spanned between soup dumpling with a high positive score and oyster omelet and oyster thin noodles with high negative scores. Judging from the salient constructs included in the bi-plot, the second component differentiated the elements based on the perception categories such as flavor profile and cooking method/ingredients.
The clustering of the elements in the consensus matrix also reveals different perceptions of the gastronomic products by the participants. For example, oyster thin noodles and oyster omelet clustered together in quadrant 4 (bottom right) of the consensus matrix, indicating that participants perceived these two gastronomic products as distinctive Taiwanese local foods. Soup dumpling, braised pork rice and meat rice tamales clustered closely in quadrant 2 (top left), reflecting that participants perceived them to be similar in terms of familiarity, attractiveness and flavor profile. Beef noodles and danzai noodles formed a distinct group in quadrant 3 (bottom left), closer to the perception categories of familiarity and attractiveness. Stinky tofu stood alone in the farthest edge of quadrant 4, revealing that it evoked a unique perception among the participants.
5. CONCLUSION
While destination image has been extensively studied in the tourism literature, GI has been a largely neglected area. This study is one of the first few attempts to empirically explore the dimensions of GI from international tourist’s perspective. Seven GI categories were identified, namely, attractiveness, flavor profile, familiarity, cooking method and ingredients, distinctiveness, convenience and price, and health and safety. The findings lend support to some of the “cognitive” food image dimensions identified by Seo et al.’s (2014) and provide evidence that flavor profile, familiarity, distinctiveness, and convenience and price are important GI dimensions. This reflects that tourists may use flavor principles as “taste motifs” (Fischler, 1988) to recognize and appreciate unfamiliar local foods. Besides, tourists may use their past experience as a “reference point” to gauge the new gastronomic offerings in a foreign destination. GI may also be perceived based on the “common-unique” dimension (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993), comparable to a destination image that can have unique cognitive attributes. Finally, GI can be assessed based on the “obligatory” aspects of food consumption
18
in tourism (Mak et al., 2012a).
From the international tourists’ perspective, they considered that Taiwanese foods were distinctive, familiar, attractive, and unique. For example, oyster thin noodles and oyster omelet were perceived as distinctive Taiwanese local foods. On the contrary, soup dumpling, braised pork rice and meat rice tamale were perceived to be similar in terms of familiarity, attractiveness and flavor profile. Beef noodles and danzai noodles were perceived as attractive and yet relatively familiar.
Due to time and resource constraints, this study has only selected Taiwan as the context of the study. The generalizability of findings, particularly on the dimensions of GI, can be further enhanced if the study can be replicated in other settings. Besides, the sample obtained by purposive and snowball sampling methods may not represent the population and could limit the generalization of the findings. Moreover, this study is of an exploratory nature and the findings need further validation. Future studies may apply the findings of this study in a large-scale survey to quantitatively examine the dimensions of GI and their roles in affecting tourists’ destination choice and food consumption behavior.
Effective promotion and marketing of gastronomic products requires destination marketers to have a good knowledge of the local cuisine, the local foods and food culture (Horng & Tsai, 2009; Okumus et al., 2007), as well as a clear understanding of the constituents of GI. Hence, the research outcomes of this study offer destination marketers and tourism and hospitality businesses with practical insights into the development and promotion of gastronomic products, and in building a strong and distinctive GI that can contribute to a more competitive and sustainable tourism industry in Taiwan. Furthermore, the findings of this study are believed to provide theoretical contributions with respect to GI, an area which has not received adequate research attention so far. In particular, an advanced understanding of the constituents of GI provides valuable theoretical groundwork for further studies on tourists’ subsequent food consumption behavior in destinations.
Finally, from a methodological perspective, this study utilizes the RGM to elicit the perceived GI attributes based on participants’ own “vocabulary” (Jankowicz, 2004; Kelly, 1955). A key advantage of RGM is that it allows for systematic elicitation and evaluation of personal constructs that comprise participants’ cognitive structures. Participants are not forced to respond to constructs pre-specified a priori by the researcher (Thomson & McEwan, 1988),
19
and thus, the interference or bias from the researcher can be significantly reduced. Nonetheless, RGM is an underutilized method in tourism research (Pike, 2002), and this study has demonstrated how this method can be utilized in studying GI.
References Askegaard, S., & Madsen, T. K. (1998). The local and the global: exploring traits of homogeneity and heterogeneity in European food cultures. International Business Review, 7(6), 549-568. Axelson, M. K. (1986). The Impact of Culture on Food-related Behavior. Annual Reviews in Nutrition, 6, 345-363. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897. Beerli, A., & Martı´n, J.D. (2004). Factors Influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681. Boyne, S., Williams, F., & Hall, D. (2002). On the trail of regional success: tourism, food production and the Isle of Arran Taste Trail. In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 91-114). London: Routledge. Chang, J., & Hsieh, A. T. (2006). Leisure motives of eating out in night markets. Journal of Business Research, 59, 1276-1278. Chang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A.H.N. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 989-1011. Chang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A.H.N. (2011). Attributes that Influence the Evaluation of Travel Dining Experience: When East meets West. Tourism Management, 32(2), 307-316. Chon, K.S. (1990). The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion. Tourism Review, 45(2), 2-9. Coshall, J.T. (2000). Measurement of Tourists' Images: The Repertory Grid Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 85-89. doi: 10.1177/004728750003900111 Crompton, J.L. (1979). An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location upon the Image. Journal of Travel Research, 18(4), 18-23. Echtner, C.M., & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12. Echtner, C.M., & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993). The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3-13. Echtner, C.M., & Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37-48. Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006 ). Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality 20
to Tourism Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127-139. Fakeye, P.C., & Crompton, J.L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 10-16. Fieldhouse, P. (1986). Food and Nutrition: Customs and Culture. New Hampshire: Croom Helm. Fischler, C. (1988). Food, Self and Identity. Social Science Information, 27, 275-292. Fox, R. (2007). Reinventing the gastronomic identity of Croatian tourist destinations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 546-559. Gains, N. (1994). The repertory grid approach. In H. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences (pp. 51-76). London: Blackie Academic and Professional. Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., & Garcı´a, H.C. (2002). Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78. Gower, J.C. (1975). Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33-51. Grice, J.W. (2002). Idiogrid: Software for the management and analysis of repertory grids. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 338-341. Grice, J.W., & Assad, K.K. (2009). Generalized Procrustes Analysis: A tool for exploring aggregates and persons. Applied Multivariate Research, 13(1), 93-112. Grice, James W. (2007). Generalized procrustes analysis example with annotation. Manuscript at http://psychology. okstate. edu/faculty/jgrice/personalitylab/GPA_Idiogrid_Example. pdf. Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscapes: Designing Tourists Regions. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Harrington, R. J. (2007). Food and Wine Pairing: A Sensory Experience. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wile & Sons. Heckmann, Mark, & Burk, Lukas. (2017). Gridsampler–A Simulation Tool to Determine the Required Sample Size for Repertory Grid Studies. Journal of Open Research Software, 5(1). Holtzman, Jon D. (2006). Food and memory. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 361-378. Horng, J. S., & Tsai, C. T. (2009). Government websites for promoting East Asian culinary tourism: A cross-national analysis. Tourism Management, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.009. Hsieh, A. T., & Chang, J. (2006). Shopping and Tourist Night Markets in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27, 138-145. Jaeger, S.R., Rossiter, K.K., & Lau, K. (2005). Consumer perceptions of novel fruit and familiar fruit: a repertory grid application. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85, 480-488. Jankowicz, D. (2004). The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Karim, Shahrim, & Chi, Christina Geng-Qing. (2010). Culinary tourism as a destination attraction: An empirical examination of destinations' food image. Journal of hospitality 21
marketing & management, 19(6), 531-555. Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Kivela, J., & Crotts, J.C. (2006). Tourism and Gastronomy: Gastronomy's Influence on How Tourists Experience a Destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 30(3), 354-377. Lepp, Andrew, Gibson, Heather, & Lane, Charles. (2010). Image and perceived risk: A study of Uganda and its official tourism website. Tourism Management, In Press, Corrected Proof. Lertputtarak, Sarunya. (2011). The relationship between destination image, food image, and revisiting Pattaya, Thailand. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(5), 111-121. Lin, Yi-Chin, Pearson, Thomas E., & Cai, Liping A. (2011). Food as a form of destination identity: A tourism destination brand perspective. Tourism Hospitality Research, 11(1), 30-48. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Long, L.M. (2004). Culinary Tourism: A Folkloristic Perspective on Eating and Otherness. In L. M. Long (Ed.), Culinary Tourism (pp. 20-50). Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M., & Eves, A. . (2012a). Globalisation and Food Consumption in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 171-196. Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, Margaret, Eves, Anita, & Chang, R.C. Y. (2013). An application of the repertory grid method and generalised Procrustes analysis to investigate the motivational factors of tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 327-338. Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, Margaret, Eves, Anita, & Chang, R.C.Y. (2012b). Factors influencing tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 928-936. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (Eds.). (2002). Destination Branding. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Okumus, B., Okumus, F., & McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating Local and International Cuisines in the Marketing of Tourism Destinations: The cases of Hong Kong and Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(1), 253-261. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis - a reviewof 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management, 23, 541–549. Pike, S. (2003). The Use of Repertory Grid Analysis to Elicit Salient Short-Break Holiday Destination Attributes in New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 41(3), 315-319. doi: 10.1177/0047287502239054 22
Pike, Steven. (2007). Repertory grid analysis in group settings to elicit salient destination image attributes. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 378-392. Pike, Steven, & Kotsi, Filareti. (2016). Stopover destination image—Using the Repertory Test to identify salient attributes. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 68-73. Pine, B Joseph, & Gilmore, James H. (2011). The experience economy: Harvard Business Press. Pliner, P., & Salvy, S.J. (2006). Food Neophobia in Humans. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds.), The Psychology of Food Choice. (pp. 75-92). Oxfordshire: CABI. QSR International. (2010). NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 10. Richards, G. (2002). Gastronomy: An Essential Ingredient in Tourism Production and Consumption? In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 3-20). London: Routledge. Rozin, E., & Rozin, P. (1981). Culinary themes and variations. Natural History, 90, 6-14. Rozin, P. (2006). The Integration of Biological, Social, Cultural and Psychological Influences on Food Choice. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds.), The Psychology of Food Choice (pp. 19-39). Oxfordshire: CAB International. Santich, B. (2004). The study of gastronomy and its relevance to hospitality education and training. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 15-24. Scarpato, R. (2002a). Gastronomy as a Tourist Product: The Perspective of Gastronomy Studies. In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 51-70). London: Routledge. Scarpato, R. (2002b). Sustainable gastronomy as a tourist product. In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 132-152). London: Routledge. Seo, Sunhee, Yun, Nara, & Kim, Og Yeon. (2014). Destination food image and intention to eat destination foods: a view from Korea. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-22. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sutton, David E. (2001). Remembrance of repasts: an anthropology of food and memory. Thomson, D.M.H., & McEwan, J.A. (1988). An application of the repertory grid method to investigate consumer perceptions of foods. Appetite, 10(3), 181-193. TTB. (2012). Tastes of Taiwan. Retrieved Nov, 20, 2012, from http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNO=0000206 TTB. (2015). 2015 Visitors Consumption and Tendency Survey. Retrieved Apr, 21, 2017 Waitt, Gordon, Lane, Ruth, & Head, Lesley. (2003). The boundaries of nature tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 523-545. Wu, David Y.H. (2014). Cantonese Cuisine (Yue-cai) in Taiwan and Taiwanese Cuisine (Tai-cai) in Hong Kong. The Globalisation of Chinese Food, 86-99.
23
Table 1.
Socio-demographic
Socio-demographic Profile of the Participants
N
Percentage
Gender
Socio-demographic
N
Percentage
Education Level
Female
24
48.0%
High school
16
32.0%
Male
26
52.0%
College
9
18.0%
Total
50
100.0%
Undergraduate degree
22
44.0%
Master’s / PhD degree
3
6.0%
50
100.0%
46
92.0%
Married without children
2
4.0%
Married with children
2
4.0%
50
100.0%
Total
Age 18-24
30
60.0%
25-34
9
18.0%
35-44
8
16.0%
45-54
3
6.0%
Total
50
100.0%
Marital Status Single
Total Nationality Japanese
6
12.0%
No. of Times Visited Taiwan
Malaysian
9
18.0%
First time to Taiwan
31
62.0%
Korean
5
10.0%
Visited once
8
16.0%
15
30.0%
Visited 2 times
4
8.0%
North American
5
10.0%
Visited 3-4 times
3
6.0%
Europeans
4
8.0%
Visited 5 times or more
4
8.0%
African
6
12.0%
50
100.0%
50
100.0%
Other Asian
Total
Total
24
Table 2.
GI Attributes Elicited from the Repertory Grid Interviews
N
% of
N
Participants
1. Attractiveness
% of Participants
2. Flavor Profile
Look appetizing
36
72%
Tasty
32
64%
Aromatic
29
58%
Suitable flavor
27
54%
Attractive presentation
14
28%
Suitable sauce
9
18%
Colorful
8
16%
Preferred texture
7
14%
Look fresh
3
6%
Not greasy
5
10%
Subtotal
90
Subtotal
80
4. Cooking Method and
3. Familiarity
Personal Preference
Ingredients 24
48%
Novel combination of ingredients
19
38%
Hometown flavor
19
38%
Rich ingredients
5
10%
Familiar food items
12
24%
Special cooking methods
5
10%
Evoke food memory
6
12%
Interesting dining etiquette
1
2%
Subtotal
57
Subtotal
30
5. Distinctiveness
6. Convenience and Price
Taiwan’s unique food
8
16%
Represent local flavor
3
Taiwan traditional food
2
Subtotal
Inexpensive
5
10%
6%
Convenient to eat
3
6%
4%
Convenient to buy
2
4%
Subtotal
10
13
7. Health and Safety Safe to eat
3
6%
Healthy
3
6%
Balanced nutrition
3
6%
Subtotal
9
25
Table 3.
Elements
GPA Results: ANOVA Source Table for Matched Figures
Consensus
Residual
Total
1.
Oyster Omelet
5.27
4.90
10.17
2.
Soup Dumpling
7.26
5.04
12.30
3.
Oyster Thin Noodles
3.08
4.99
8.08
4.
Stinky Tofu
14.85
6.95
21.80
5.
Braised Pork Rice
5.51
5.02
10.53
6.
Taiwanese Meatball
3.93
5.52
9.45
7.
Meat Rice Tamale
4.47
5.12
9.59
8.
Danzai Noodles
1.13
4.97
6.11
9.
Beef Noodles
4.78
7.20
11.98
Total Sum of Square
50.29
49.71
100.00
26
Figure 1.
Photographs Adopted as the Elements of the Repertory Grid Interview (Source: TTB, 2012)
27
Component 2 (26.53%) Flavor Profile - Tasty - Suitable flavor - Suitable sauce
Comp 2 5.32 Soup Dumpling Braised Pork Rice 3.55 Meat Rice Tamales
Familiarity - Personal preference - Hometown flavor - Familiar food items Attractiveness - Look appetizing - Aromatic - Attractive presentation
Component 1 (39.69%)
1.77
-5.32
-3.55
-1.77
Beef Noodles
1.77 Danzai Noodles -1.77
3.55
5.32
Comp 1
Distinctiveness - Taiwan’s unique food - Traditional food - Represent local flavor
TW Meatballs
Oyster Thin Noodles Oyster Omelet -3.55
Stinky Tofu
-5.32
Cooking Method/Ingredients - Novel combination of ingredients - Rich ingredients
Figure 2.
Bi-plot of the Consensus Matrix Generated by Generalized Procrustes Analysis
28
Appendix 1 Appendix 1.
2
5
Beef Noodles 9.
Taiwanese Meatballs 6.
Danzai Noodles
Braised Pork Rice 5.
8.
Stinky Tofu 4.
4
Meat Rice Tamales
Oyster Thin Noodles 3.
3
7.
Soup Dumpling
1.
1
2.
Participant ID: ____________, Interview Date: ______________
Oyster Omelet
Grid #: _______,
Repertory Grid Interview Template
6
7
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
29
