Clustering the Perceptions of Labelled Actors of the Vallée de la Gastronomie-France

Vallée de la Gastronomie (VG) is a very complex project due to the inclusion of three administrative regions in France (Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, and Provence-Alps-French Riviera) and simultaneous application of three research fields into destination management: tourism labelling, destination branding, and network collaboration. This complexity makes the VG an interesting phenomenon consisting of these three main perceptions, respectively.

The regional structures have initiated the VG’s labelling process, which was based on selecting wine & gastronomy-related activities, events and offers. The main goal of this process was to establish a new destination brand offering excellent gastronomy and wine experiences (Fumey, 2017). However, this project is also supposed to dynamize collaboration between public structures (regions, departments and Tourism Offices) and labelled actors (restaurants or other gastronomical objects, wineries, wine shops, farmers, and producers) to become a greater, larger, and more visible destination recognized internationally.

The main arguments for tourism labelling and certification in the literature are derived from the signal theory (Cerqua, 2017). Labels play an informative role in tourist perception and can inform tourists of the extraordinary quality of products or services (Troumbis, 1991; Graci & Dodds, 2015; Gossling & Buckley, 2016). Thus, this information influences tourists’ experiences, satisfaction, and perceptions (Chirieleison et al., 2021).

On the other hand, labels serve as a useful tool for certification and the branding of a place or site which has been successfully employed in the studies dedicated to destination management (Jarvis et al., 2010; Haven-Tang & Sedgley, 2014). This perspective underlines the role of image and recognition of a touristic place, site, village, city, route, or destination (Marcotte & Bourdeau, 2012) in the process of creating greater distinctiveness, and also resulting in an increase in visitors’ interest (Kozak & Nield, 2004; Marzano & Scott, 2009).

These two study approaches can be simultaneously found in the context of the VG research which delivers a unique match of labelling, networking, and branding in destination management. So far, the literature has distinguished two major concepts of labelling: either territorial or business networking. The concept of VG cannot be identified with neither of these, because it contains features of both concepts. Thus, its novelty in concept as well as in practice lies in exploring a new meaning of labelling territorial actors (the theoretical concepts based on the territorial brand destination) and networking them to commercialize their offers of unique gastronomy and wine activities (the theoretical concepts based on the tourism business networks). Thus, the VG’s model can be only partly linked with the geographical labelling that is used mainly in destination management (Brouder & Eriksson, 2013), since the valley contains some of the tourism areas located along the Rhône River which are supposed to co-create the brand of a gastronomical valley. However, this logic is not sufficient to explain how the network of diverse tourism actors can function in a dynamic tourism ecosystem and coordinate their actions from a business perspective. Therefore, our research aims to analyze how the labelled actors identify the VG’s perception of label, brand, and network, and also which of these perceptions they consider to be relatively the most beneficial to drive the collective image, and at the same time, their own business.

Mixed methods were used in our research procedures. Qualitative methods allowed us to group the single attributes into aggregated ones of the VG as labelling network or brand perceptions, while clustering methods crossed the attributes in order to extract the actors’ attitudes toward the aforementioned perceptions.

The literature suggests that greater importance should be placed in the business network approach, which is focused on value-creating activities from the actors’ and tourists’ perspectives (Meriläinen & Lemmetyinen, 2011), rather than the brand & labelling approach appropriated by the territorial actors (Hartman et al., 2020).

The results show that the VG’s offerings are considered to be the vitrine products created by the territorial authorities to become more a recognizable brand destination, but are not yet commercialized. Only a few clusters perceive the project entirely positively, but most of them are neutral or negative about value-creating solutions for the tourism business and visitors.

These results contribute to the concept of labels as a tourism business network by identifying the ability of commercialization as a decisive drive for its survival in a long-term perspective. From the label-branding point of view, the results emphasize that a collective destination cannot be branded in the same way as a single place, site, or object. The VG’s classification system has been set up on two kinds of labelling: of actors (objects such as restaurants, wineries, producers, farmers, territorial organizations) and/or their specific proposals (actions), classified into two categories: gourmet offers and outstanding experiences.

The VG was designed to find new ways of promoting the territorial excellence of French wine and gastronomy from Dijon to Marseille. This idea set up the labelling classification and its official application process. For that reason, the initial recognition of the VG project is well suited to the classical label perception of a product or service quality increased through labelling, standards, and certifications (Font & Buckley, 2001; Graci & Dodds, 2015). The main purpose of labelling in tourism is to distinguish a product, service, business, or destination from others by creating a specific designation for it (Chirieleison et al., 2021). The identity of a tourism label or certification can vary in terms of the focus, scope, or degree of formality and governance, which are the components of its complexity (Font, 2005; Font & Buckley, 2001; Lesar et al., 2020).

Labels with a narrow focus are oriented toward preserving traditional receipts and products of origin, especially focusing on the AOC systems (Barham, 2003; Fusté-Forné, 2020). On the other hand, the holistic-focus labels can be a combination of product, service, and experience perception. A good representation of the latter is the Michelin star system that singles out restaurant experiences as the following: “worth a special journey,” “worth a detour,” and “worth a stop” (Johnson et al., 2005). At present, the VG’s focus can be classified as wider than the one of Michelin, because it implies not only the classification of gastronomical experience in the strict sense (a visit to a restaurant), but also of gastronomical-related activities and events (e.g., participation in harvests, workshops, festivals, etc.). This means that to apply for the VG’s label, it is not necessary to be a restaurateur. An applicant can be a gastronomy-supplier or a cooperant such as a winery, a wine shop, a farmer, a producer, or an event.

Moreover, the VG classification distinguishes basic activities (gourmand offers) and outstanding activities (remarkable experiences). This strategy corresponds to the rule of exceptionality, based on grouping which certified or labelled actors possess general and outstanding characteristics (Chirieleison et al., 2021). The VG aspires to become a gastronomy brand destination wherein tourists are offered gourmand offers and unforgettable experiences. To execute that, an applicant of the VG label is obliged to be previously classified by at least one of the tourism and/or gastronomy labels that are well-respected in France, such as Michelin, Vignobles & Decouvertes, etc.

The range of certification influence depends on having a global, national, regional or local scope (Font and Buckley, 2001; Font, 2005). In tourism, the effect of labelling can enhance destination branding, development, and performance (Kivela & Crotts, 2006; Lorenzini et al., 2011; Pencarelli et al., 2016). But generally, the more recognizable a label is, the more international respect it can gain (Bouty et al., 2013). For instance, Michelin, thanks to its global respect and brand-alike perception, is so respected by customers that most restaurants and chefs consider it to be the sole genuine label system in gastronomy (Lane, 2014; Daries et al., 2021). In that case, the VG’s label has a regional range, due to the initial idea of promoting the gastronomy and wine activities performed only within the VG’s area. This makes this certification tourism-oriented, irreplaceable, and unmovable in other markets.

Recent studies have also explored the analysis of achieving a competitive advantage in tourism destination marketing through labelling. The Creative Cities label, accredited by UNESCO, has increased the brand value and the number of visitors to those labelled (Yalçın & Turan, 2018). That also proves the importance of cultural and creative tourism expressed by city or regional labels (Henriques & Elias, 2021). To do it effectively, however, a model of multi-level branding and promotion is necessary to adopt and apply to a city strategy (Dubinsky, 2021). If a city label is well-integrated with its tourism policy making, urban planning, and even sustainable and inclusive socio-culture development, it can become the multi-linked network that impacts not only marketing touristic product (Yalçın & Turan, 2018) but also local culture, innovation, and knowledge (Guimarães et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, other studies have underlined the problem of a profusion of labels used by the French event companies (Dornier, 2021). This abundance is also visible in the French tourism industry, influencing label inefficiency in performance (Cerqua, 2017; Klein & Dodds 2018) and lack of tourists’ trust (Chirieleison et al., 2021).

Finally, certifications may differ due to government or non-government organizations (Lesar et al., 2020). The region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes was an integrator of the idea to co-create a project of VG and invited two other regions for collaboration: Bourgogne-Franche-Comté and Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur. Although the organizational competences have been delegated to the Tourism Offices, the further development of labelled offerings and their commercialization still depend on the actions planned by the regional authorities.

Therefore, we assumed that the VG is a label that aspires to become a gastronomical destination and collaborative network, which makes the project very complex and hard to manage by the multi-level structure of the French territorial administrators (Tourism Offices, departments, and regions). Yet, Figure 1 shows how tourism actors, activities, and events were labelled and categorized so that they could be selected by tourists at a single website.

Figure 1.

Nevertheless, the VG in the context of network perception tackles the problem of creating and selling packaged tourism products based on networking the labelled offerings. In the academic literature, no evidence-based research proofing has yet been found to be a definitive success in destination management by having established tourism networks, particularly when these are integrated and led by territorial government (Paget et al., 2010; Zee & Vanneste, 2015). That’s why tourism networks are rather believed to provide benefits for destination actors by taking advantage of natural network-effects (e.g., co-shared costs of destination marketing) or network-image (e.g., being attached as a particle of a greater destination). The problem with tourism network projects is often related to inefficient and non-managerial coordination of territorial public authorities that tend to establish hierarchical and top-down structures (Abrahamsen et al., 2012; Park et al., 2020). The VG project can directly contribute to this literature’s discourse and can bring new light upon tourism networking because it has been put in the three-dimensional context of labelling, branding & multi-destination collaboration. That way of setting up the tourism network has seemed evolutionary, and therefore, it can behave differently than it has been insofar viewed by tourism management scholars.

In summation, the conceptual model was constructed on the integration of the two main theoretical models: branding and networking-based labelling (Fig. 2). In both of them, labelling is a tool for branding destination, cities, places, business actors, etc. But they vary significantly in terms of application, labelling purpose, and organization. From a theoretical standpoint, a success of a branding destination project mainly depends on its integrator. If the certification body is a territorial government, then it is the way to perform tourism policy, while for a network organization, it is one of the means to attain a competitive advantage (e.g., booking.com).

Figure 2.

At the time of researching, the project of Vallee de la Gastronomie-France had just completed its labelling process and it did not yet have any clear strategical plan for further organization and development. Therefore, in practice, this research aimed to determine how the labelled actors perceive the VG’s project to identify and verify its unique model of labelling. We have assumed that the identification of the main labelled actors’ perception can express what the actors really want and expect in this project, and through these lenses, conclude in which theoretical model the VG project should be classified: either territorial management or business networking. Therefore, the conceptual model was aligned to the threefold perceptions of networking, destination, and label. In the literature, the perception of label and destination is aligned to the domain of public management, and networking is attributed to business management. Thus, this research contributes to the literature by verifying whether or not such a complex label project as the VG is capable of enhancing destination marketing (the theoretical concepts related to labelling and branding) and/or creating business tourism products (the theoretical concepts related to networking).

The research design was based on a mixed methodology which uses a qualitative-quantitative-qualitative approach. A quantitative analysis step in between was used for exploring and deepening the analysis of expert focus groups (Muskat et al., 2012). It is for this reason that the mixed research methods were performed in the following order:

Phase 1: Data gathering initiated by the Tourism Offices and based on their internal databases.

Qualitative methods: Interviews, study on the job, and experts’ judgment

Generally, interviews with experts can be included at any stage of research (Moriarty et al., 2008) but the experts should verify valuable knowledge or separate it from the unimportant aspects related to the implied results in the study design. The goal of interviewing experts in this research was to extract the most significant attributes that can describe the perception of labelling, brand destination and business network and reflect them with the perspectives of the VG’ participants . Our synthesis and knowledge of the VG led to the understanding that more information was needed to get a more complex picture of the actors’ specific understanding. For this reason, interviews were conducted with different managers of the VG project who belonged to the territorial tourism organizations (at the level of the Tourism Offices) and had been specifically delegated to work on the issue.

The so-called “expert judgement” methods are classically used to assess content validity in expert interviews (Sánchez-Guardiola et al., 2021). However, we adjusted this to our research context and methodology. In this study, expert analysis was undertaken twice: before extracting the data (to diagnose the key success aspects of the VG’s project) and after doing so (to aggregate the extracted attributes). In addition, the interviews were a part of the participatory study, meaning that its content validity was worked out not through testing but instead through creative meetings and workshops with the Tourism Offices’ managers.

After the co-creation process, the final validation of the perceptive attributes was conducted, and the attributes were selected (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The first perceptive field (P₁, in red) regards the label, including the labelling process or certification, and is attributed by:

dominant previous labels possessed by the VG’s labelled actors – this attribute is helpful for matching the previous experience of having and applying for other labels in France with the VG’s label;

application & certification process – to analyze the difficulty and organization of formal labelling procedure perceived by the VG’s labelled actors;

general perception of the tourism, gastronomy, or wine labels in France – to classify the attitude toward other labels used in gastronomy and tourism in France and thereby suggesting the pre-perception toward VG’s label;

VG’s label perception – to reveal the labelled actor’s mindset toward the identity of the VG’s label as the label itself;

VG’s future perception – to find out the labelled actor’s conviction of the potential scenarios of VG’s development in the context of labelling.

The second perceptive field area (P₂, in blue) was attributed to the brand destination by the following features:

identity of the VG’s actor – to classify the labelled actors according to their organizational identity;

VG’s label perception – to reveal the labelled actor’s mindset toward the identity of the VG’s label as the creation of a new brand destination;

VG’s future perception – to find out the labelled actor’s conviction of the potential scenarios of the VG’s development in a context of branding new destination;

potential scenarios of the VG’s development – to verify the labelled actor’s way of seeing the most likely scenario to happen;

hindrances of the VG’s future development – to verify the labelled actor’s way of seeing the most likely barriers of the VG’s future development.

Finally, the third perceptive area (P₃, in yellow) was related to the network perception and defined by:

dominant partner of collaboration within the public structures – to analyze the main connecting channel between the public and the labelled actor’s structure;

activities of regular collaboration (with the public structures) – to analyze which activities have been practiced on regular basis between the public and labelled actors;

activities in frame of the VG’s collaboration (with the public structures) – to analyze which activities have been done for the sake of the VG project and in doing so so detect any irregularity or new elements in comparison with the previous actions;

VG’s label perception – to reveal the labelled actor’s mindset toward the identity of the VG’s label as the project based on regional collaboration & networking;

VG’s future perception – to find out the labelled actor’s conviction of the potential scenarios of the VG’s development in a context of networking new collaboration;

the most beneficial actors – to identify an actor who can become the most beneficial within the entire ecosystem of the VG project;

benefits of participation in the VG – to identify what kind of benefits are considered by participating in this project.

These attributes were first identified in order to properly group the labelled actors’ expectations, benefits, and hopes toward participation in the VG during the phase of data gathering.

The raw datasets contained 69 attributes (binary values) and 120 objects (rows). We performed an Aiken validation test. In the case of 61 items, the values of the validity index ranged from 0.43 to 0.8. Therefore, according to the interpretation presented by Sabaruddin et al. (2022), these items are characterized by moderate validity. In the case of 8 items, the values of the validity index ranged from 0.81 to 0.88; therefore, these items are very valid. According to experts’ suggestions, the attributes have been grouped into 13 overarching attributes groups. Accordingly, experts have used similarity of meaning as a criterion of aggregation. The aggregation was based on normalization. The range of values of aggregated attributes was 0 to 100. The actors’ perceptions of the VG project varied based on their specific attitudes toward the label, destination, and network perception, designated by the 13 aggregated attributes, and clustered by three methods. The Affinity Propagation method determined eight clusters. The DBSCAN method determined three clusters. After analyzing the clusters determined by all used methods, the Affinity Propagation was chosen due to the specific clusters’ attitudes and behaviours detected in the experts’ analysis (Tables 1 ). .

The actors’ perceptions upon the VG’s project vary due to the specific attitudes toward the label, destination and network perception which have been designated by the 13 aggregated attributes and clustered by three methods. The Affinity Propagation method determined eight clusters. The DBSCAN method determined three clusters. After analysing the clusters resulting from all used methods, the Affinity Propagation was chosen due to the experts’ analysis.

The first aggregated attribute (Table 2) ) was to verify the actor’s identity. This aggregation was done according to the following VG classifications: wine & gastronomy activities, wine cellars & wineries, places to visit, restaurants & inns, outstanding experiences.

Most of the VG actors belong to wine and gastronomy activities (Clusters 0-3). This confirms the idea of the narrow-specialized label of the VG, with a dominant presence of the actors offering wine paired with gastronomy. Cluster 4 represents the perspective of wineries and wine cellars exclusively, and Cluster 7 is the unique perception of restaurants and inns. Cluster 5 is co-created by wine and gastronomy activities, places to visit (e.g., topical museums, heritage sites, etc.), together with restaurants and inns.

The results in Table 3 inform what other topical labels used in wine or gastronomy are applied by the clusters of the VG’s labelled actors. For the restaurants (Cluster 7) the most shared labels were the “Michelin,” “Vignobles et Découvertes,” and “Maître Restaurateur,” while the wineries and other wine-related suppliers (Clusters 0-3) were mostly labelled by the “Vignobles et Découvertes”. This attribute also reflects the VG’s label rule, which obligated an applicant to be already labelled by at least one of the French quality labels in wine or gastronomy. Therefore, all of the VG’s actors possess at least one approved label according to the VG’s regulations. On this basis, it can be concluded that the VG as a label project links the previous labels by bringing them together into a single destination brand label.

The next attribute (aggregated attribute no. 3), “Dominant partner of collaboration,” indicates the collaboration between the clustered actors and different levels of the public structures according to the French administration: Tourism Offices, Departments, Regions, and any public organization other than these mentioned (e.g., the Rhone Wine-Makers, etc.). Moreover, Clusters 1, 2, 3 and 6 can be considered truly collaborative, while Clusters 0, 4, 5 and 7 can be considered collaborative enough, because the latter clusters only conduct regular collaboration with the most needed territorial actor — Tourism Offices — but not necessarily with the Departments and Regions.

In Table 5, it is specified what type of collaborative actions are performed together with the territorial public structures on a regular basis. According to this analysis, the most shared action is a promotion on the territory’s website or social media, where a tourism actor can expose and describe a proposed offer or activity. A welcoming journalist was the second most popular form of action. This is based on delivering a remarkable experience to a visiting journalist who later describes it in the most prominent tourism magazines. The other shared actions with public structures are not so popular among the VG’s clusters, beside Cluster 6 which is active also in fieldtrips or workshops organized by TO, and Cluster 2 in fair trades.

What seems interesting is the fact that not all clusters took part in the collaboration for the VG’s application process (except Clusters 1-3). This cannot be linked with participation in the information meetings (where only Clusters 1 and 6 were present), nor with an opportunity to perform common promotion and marketing (which only Clusters 2 and 3 did). Thus, in the first analyzed context of dependence between participation and collaboration, we did not find any significant matches according to the Affinity Propagation method of clustering.

Aggregated attribute no. 6 (shown in Table 7) has narrowed the perception of VG’s clusters to a view over the application process. In this case, participation in the information meeting took place from most of the clusters (specifically Clusters 0, 1, 2, 3 & 6). This small change of the context from collaboration to label application has brought out a new outcome: the clusters participating in information meetings regarding the VG label understood the criteria of classification, considering them fair enough to select the best offers and relatively easy to apply.

On the other hand, we can again observe the inconsistency of logic between the participation and application process. If it was logical, then the clusters that did not participate in meetings (Clusters 4, 5, and 7) would not have had the same perception of the application process as the participatory clusters. Most of them also did not consider the VG application process as being unfair, uneasy, or negatively selective. It can be that the labelled actors managed to follow the VG project instinctively and/ or based on their previous experiences with other labels. Yet, to build up the networking capabilities, it might be not enough.

Aggregated attribute no. 7 broadens the clusters’ perception upon labelling and labels in France. The components of the attribute suggest two positive descriptors of labels (as a help of creating an image of quality of products and services) and two oppositions (labels as a marketing product and empty quality). Almost all of the clusters (only excluding Cluster 0) reflected positively upon labels as a mirror of quality of products and services. Additionally, six of them appreciate labels as a good source of information for visitors. Cluster 0 shared neither of these two considerations. But an additional half of clusters considered the labels more skeptically as a marketing tool that often is a kind of product or service with a label of no adequate content.

These results put the light upon the general attitude of the VG actors upon other labels, and their experiences with labels definitely have varied. For example, the label “Michelin” is powerful and respected by customer perception, and also by restaurant managers. But this is not a case for all the labels. A lot of hopeful wine producers were given the label of “Vignobles et Découvertes” which at the time of its beginning seemed to be a very promising project, especially for the French wineries with wine tourism-related services. The effects were not materialized and the quality was never proven, so today it is considered as a symbolic way to participate in the wine tourism movement in France rather than informing visitors of a qualified wine tourism activity. Thus, the general label perception is a reference point to observe which clusters are skeptical, neutral, and supporting of labels, and if that corresponds to similar attitudes toward the VG label.

The attribute of “VG perception” (Table 9) was aggregated to determine the fundamental reasoning of the VG’s labelled actors toward the VG project at the early stage of its unfolding. All clusters emphasized that the VG initiative promotes local experiences and products. Also, five of the eight clusters (Clusters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) identified the VG label as a territorial brand. Only three clusters (Clusters 2, 3, and 4) distinguished new categories of the VG’s label classification (garment offers and outstanding experiences), and the fact that it is a cross-regional project with potential to overcome the administrative borders between Regions, Departments and Tourism Offices’ areas was supported just by one cluster (Cluster 4).

There is no one definition of the VG project according to this attribute’s results. The clusters’ perception is shared in different configurations, but a majority found the VG to be a mix of a potential label, new brand destination, and collective project, and in the case of three clusters (Clusters 1, 5, and 6) all of these three areas were designated at once. As such, it is yet not visible what the VG really means for the labelled actors. At the time of this research, it can be definitively stated that unlike a classical label project, it is based on transformation of the regional and local know-how of the culinary and wine realms into the regional brand.

While the previous attribute’s goal was to verify the body of present perception, the aggregated attribute no. 9’s goal was to get a deeper insight into the VG’s future perception based on taking one of definitive directions in its evolution. It can be observed that the most enthusiastic view concerns the VG as a new destination (which all the clusters agreed on), and it is often believed that it will increase the collaboration between tourism destinations as well as individual business visibility. These results have confirmed the suggestion that the leading perspective of the VG recipients is related with the brand destination.

Another analyzed attribute indicates the most beneficial actors of the VG project’s ecosystem. Clusters 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 indicated that the most frequent customers (visitors) and labelled actors were destined to be the most profitable. Four other clusters (Clusters 0, 1, 6, and 7) indicated the advantage for local tour operators and upcoming agencies which were supposed to be incorporated into the VG project and then design the packaged products addressed for international tourists. Surprisingly, the public structures, as creators of the project ,were only pointed out by two clusters (Clusters 4 and 7). This might suggest that although the labelled actors’ vision was to become a new destination, they do not believe it can be done by the hands of public networks. The vision probably can work if the labelled actors themselves will take care of the business, and it will definitely work if local tour operators are going to take a lead of this project, especially if they prepare the packages. This is why the potential and first profit-makers who will be capable to commercialize the offers are also the most prone to become the greatest beneficiates.

Next, attribute no. 11 (Table 12) reveals the main participatory benefits for the labelled actors. The VG’s participation is the most expected to bring marketing effects such as greater visibility (according to all the clusters except Cluster 1) but not necessary an increase of business profits. Yet, this profit is aimed only by Cluster 6 – the group of actors which have received the category of “outstanding experiences”, and thus reasonably it might have the highest expectations of profiting from the project.

It is evident that almost all of the actors’ clusters are interested in gaining more recognition and visibility instead of “business profit” (understood as financial incomes). The phenomenon of putting more emphasis upon the former than the latter can be explained by a need to improve the communication, marketing, and image of a business which anyways can eventually lead to the business profits, but it can hardly work the other way round.

The result regarding the absence of the “offering packages for customers” according to almost all the clusters in Table 10 is contrary to the data grouped in Table 11. The most beneficial actors (tour operators) are not associated with what they will contribute to the project. The consequential profit of having packaged the products is to offer potential customers an easier way to plan a tour or stay within the VG destination, and of course to have another possibility of using the network marketing. Moreover, the absolute unity of indicating the benefit of cross-destinations collaboration in all clusters’ perception can be seen as the strongest side of this project . Undoubtedly, this proves that the unique co-shared vision is making the VG a recognizable brand destination. And this can be done only through collaboration between the VG’s territories, which is like a basic condition of proposing the compacted solutions and services to customers (e.g., the VG website with one reservation system, or a possibility to book offers).

The next attribute, no. 12, depicts the VG’s development towards the probabilistic scenarios which are believed by the clusters of labelled actors (Table 13). Two scenarios are directed on a fall of the project: either because of some incapability to commercialize the offers or the monopolistic appropriation of this process by tour operators or incoming agencies. There are only two clusters that believe either in the first scenario (Cluster 4 – wineries & wine cellars) or in the second one (Cluster 0 – wine & gastronomy activities). Then, there are other two scenarios: an increasing interest of visitors, and an opportunity to become a gastronomical destination recognized globally. The most frequently envisioned scenario was the second one with the support of all clusters except Cluster 4, and the first one with the support of six clusters (all except Clusters 4 and 0).

In this attribute, the results are consistent and logical. There are two clusters which are skeptical, and the others look at the VG’s development quite enthusiastically. The fact that the skeptical are represented by the wineries and wine cellars can be, however, very unfavourable force. This skepticism can be the effect of their experience with “Vignobles et Découvertes,” leading to low trust to initiatives led by the public structures. On the other hand, the high number of trusting clusters could underpin the VG’s development and definitely push this project forward. For that reason, it would be a huge waste to let this positive potential be lost and so, it is important not to spoil the collective belief in the VG evolution.

Aggregated attribute no. 13, regarding the VG limits, broadens the idea of the VG’s developing from the attribute no. 12. There are no scenarios in Table 14 shared enough by the majority of clusters. There is one scenario identified by half of them, though, and this can be considered as the greatest constraint that might prevent the VG’s development. It regards, once again, the difficulty to co-create a unified and well-operating destination made up from the already existing territorial destinations. It is underlining the problem: if the public structures (Regions, Departments and Tourism Offices) are not able to integrate the VG’s ecosystem into a harmonious entity based on recognizable image and commercialized offers, it will bring nothing but another “good idea and bad realization,” according to the clustered perceptions of the labelled actors.