Price and quality differences between austrian Biodynamic

Price and quality differences between austrian Biodynamic, organic, and conventional wines
BACHELOR PAPER II
submitted at the
IMC Fachhochschule Krems(University of Applied Sciences)
INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE “http://www.imc-krems.ac.at/news-presse/resolveUid/84652613635dc8a4c83aad8e3fef9eaa” * MERGEFORMATINET
Bachelor programme
International Wine Businessby
Katharina MOSERfor the award of the academic degree
Bachelor of Arts in Business (BA)

Supervisor: Dr. Dipl.-Betriebswirt(FH) Albert Franz Stöckl, MASubmitted on: 04.05.2018
Declaration of honour”I declare on my word of honour that I have written this paper on my own and that I have not used any sources or resources other than stated and that I have marked those passages and/or ideas that were either verbally or textually extracted from sources. This also applies to drawings, sketches, graphic representations as well as to sources from the internet.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The paper has not been submitted in this or similar form for assessment at any other domestic or foreign post-secondary educational institution and has not been published elsewhere. The present paper complies with the version submitted electronically.”
Date: 04.05.2018 Katharina Moser
AcknowledgementsI would like to express my great appreciation to Mrs. Petra Bader. Without her generous support this research would not have been possible. The same accounts for my lecturer Mrs. Stefanie Tischler, who helped me a lot with her statistical knowledge, kind support and patience.

I also want to thank Mr. Albert-Franz Stöckl, not only for being the supervisor of my thesis but also for being responsible for the foundation of a study program that brought me so much gain – not only in knowledge but also gave me the opportunity to meet amazing people.

Furthermore, I owe my gratitude to Jan Vavricka and Carlo Scheuermann for their valuable inputs and emotional support.

I also want to thank the “Cherry Bitches”. Those three years of my life would not have been that amazing and enriching without those friends.
Finally, I want to express my gratefulness and love to my family, which is so unique in many ways, and the stereotype of a perfect family in many others.

AbstractThe ambiguous outcomes of previous studies show how diverse the opinions on perceived quality and willingness to pay for organic wines on the consumers´ side are. This study aimed to provide an insight in the fine wine market from a different angle and to compare differences of quality and cellar-door prices of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. This knowledge could reduce prejudices about organic and biodynamic wines.

For this study a content analysis of the Gault&Millau Guides 2015 to 2018 was performed and the census sample of all four guides has been assessed to compare the price and quality differences of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. The analysed data included names of the wineries, their vineyard surface, wine region, rated wines and the points they received, and the corresponding cellar-door prices.
The thesis first gives an overview of the rated wines and wineries and then focusses on price and quality differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. The results show that biodynamic wines in the Gault&Millau Wine Guides 2015 to 2018 are rated higher and have higher cellar-door prices than organic and conventional wines. For a difference between organic and conventional cellar-door prices, no significant evidence was found. The same applies for differences in wine ratings in two of the guides, whereas in the other two guides the ratings show no significant difference between organic and conventional wines.

The outcomes of this study might mitigate certain prejudices of consumer´s towards organic and biodynamic wines and could also support winemakers and vintners in their decision about a possible conversion to a different production method.

Key Words: biodynamic, organic, conventional, wine, wine guides, cellar-door price, quality, rating
Table of Contents TOC o “1-3” h z u
Acknowledgements PAGEREF _Toc512520853 h IAbstract PAGEREF _Toc512520854 h IITable of Contents PAGEREF _Toc512520855 h IIIList of Graphs PAGEREF _Toc512520856 h VList of Tables PAGEREF _Toc512520857 h VIList of Abbreviations PAGEREF _Toc512520858 h VII1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc512520859 h 11.1Background of the study PAGEREF _Toc512520860 h 11.2Aim of the study and research question PAGEREF _Toc512520861 h 21.3Research design PAGEREF _Toc512520862 h 31.4Chapter outline PAGEREF _Toc512520863 h 32Literature Review on Organic and Biodynamic Wines PAGEREF _Toc512520864 h 42.1Organic wines PAGEREF _Toc512520865 h 42.1.1Organic wines – quality and pricing PAGEREF _Toc512520866 h 62.2Biodynamic wines PAGEREF _Toc512520867 h 72.2.1Biodynamic wines – quality and pricing PAGEREF _Toc512520868 h 102.3Possible reasons for organic or biodynamic wine production PAGEREF _Toc512520869 h 113Literature Review on Wine Guides PAGEREF _Toc512520870 h 123.1Wine Ratings – History, Influence, Reliability PAGEREF _Toc512520871 h 123.2Wine Guides in Austria PAGEREF _Toc512520872 h 144Materials and Methods PAGEREF _Toc512520873 h 204.1Sample selection and collection PAGEREF _Toc512520874 h 204.2Data Analysis PAGEREF _Toc512520875 h 224.3Limitations PAGEREF _Toc512520876 h 235Results and Discussion PAGEREF _Toc512520877 h 255.1Gault&Millau Wine Guide Austria – a general overview PAGEREF _Toc512520878 h 255.1.1Wine regions PAGEREF _Toc512520879 h 255.1.2Size of wineries PAGEREF _Toc512520880 h 285.1.3Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries and wines PAGEREF _Toc512520881 h 305.2Price Differences between different production methods PAGEREF _Toc512520882 h 325.2.1Differences of mean cellar-door prices PAGEREF _Toc512520883 h 325.2.2Median and distribution of cellar-door prices PAGEREF _Toc512520884 h 335.2.3Correlation of different production methods and cellar-door prices PAGEREF _Toc512520885 h 355.3Quality Differences between different production methods PAGEREF _Toc512520886 h 365.3.1Differences of mean ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520887 h 365.3.2Median and distribution of ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520888 h 385.3.3Correlation of different production methods and ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520889 h 395.4Correlation between cellar-door prices and quality ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520890 h 406Conclusion and Recommendation PAGEREF _Toc512520891 h 416.1Research aims and findings PAGEREF _Toc512520892 h 416.1.1Price differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines PAGEREF _Toc512520893 h 416.1.2Quality differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines PAGEREF _Toc512520894 h 426.1.3Correlation between cellar-door prices and ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520895 h 436.2Practical implications PAGEREF _Toc512520896 h 446.3Limitations of the research PAGEREF _Toc512520897 h 446.4Suggestions for further research PAGEREF _Toc512520898 h 45List of References PAGEREF _Toc512520899 h 46Annex PAGEREF _Toc512520900 h 53List of Appendicies PAGEREF _Toc512520901 h 54Annex I General overview PAGEREF _Toc512520902 h 60Annex II Cellar-door prices PAGEREF _Toc512520903 h 78Annex III Ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520904 h 88Annex IV Correlation cellar-door prices and ratings PAGEREF _Toc512520905 h 97
List of Graphs
TOC h z c “Graph” Graph 1: Development of surface of organic vineyards in Austria PAGEREF _Toc512428680 h 4Graph 2: Number of organic farms owning vineyards PAGEREF _Toc512428681 h 5Graph 3: Development of agricultural surface under Demeter certification PAGEREF _Toc512428682 h 9Graph 4: Development of number of farms under Demeter certification PAGEREF _Toc512428683 h 10Graph 5: Circulation of Austrian Wine Guides PAGEREF _Toc512428684 h 15Graph 6: Rated wineries per wine region PAGEREF _Toc512428685 h 25Graph 7: Percentage of wineries using different production methods PAGEREF _Toc512428686 h 30Graph 8: Cellar-door prices per production method PAGEREF _Toc512428687 h 33Graph 9: Average rating per Guide and production method PAGEREF _Toc512428688 h 37Graph 10: Average cellar-door prices PAGEREF _Toc512428689 h 42Graph 11: Average ratings of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines PAGEREF _Toc512428690 h 43List of Tables TOC h z c “Table”
Table 1: Overview Austrian Wine Guides PAGEREF _Toc512515814 h 19Table 2: Number of rated wines in Gault&Millau wine guides PAGEREF _Toc512515815 h 21Table 3: Missing cellar-door prices per production method PAGEREF _Toc512515816 h 24Table 4: Rated wineries in the guides per production method PAGEREF _Toc512515817 h 31Table 5: Rated wines per production method in Gault&Millau wine guides PAGEREF _Toc512515818 h 31Table 6: Average cellar-door prices per production method and Guide PAGEREF _Toc512515819 h 32Table 7: Median cellar-door prices per production method PAGEREF _Toc512515820 h 35Table 8: Percental difference to average ratings in the different guides PAGEREF _Toc512515821 h 37Table 9: Median ratings of wines PAGEREF _Toc512515822 h 39
List of Abbreviations%per cent
€Euro
ANOVAanalysis of variance
Corr.correlation
EUEuropean Union
GMOgenetically modified organism
hahectares
IWCInternational Wine Challenge
lt.litre
mgmilligram
ÖWMÖsterreich Wein Marketing GmbH
Sig.significance
Std. Deviationstandard deviation
VATvalue added tax
IntroductionBackground of the studyOrganic viticulture, and oenology have become more and more popular amongst farmers and vintners in Austria. Austria is – compared to its size – a leading country in organic wine growing and production. The surface of organic vineyards is increasing constantly, as well as the number of famers cultivating organic vineyards CITATION Platzhalter2 l 1031 (Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 2016).

Anyway, scientific research about the consumers´ perception of organic wines provides equivocal outcomes. On the one hand the perception is rather positive. Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá et al. CITATION Bru05 p 46
l 1031 (2005, p. 46) discovered that a majority of the participants of their study, that was conducted in Spain, would pay 10% more for an organic wine than for a conventional wine at the same quality level. Ogbeide CITATION Ogb15 p 30
l 1031 (2015, p. 30) was able to observe similar results in Australia.
On the other hand, Stolz and Schmid CITATION Str08 p 2
l 1031 (2008, p. 2), stated that wine drinkers are still sceptic about the quality of organic wines. Also, Delmas and GrantCITATION Del14
l 3079 (2014) found out that as a matter of fact, the wine consumers are sceptic about organic wines and their quality. According to Schmücking CITATION Sch10 p 22
l 1031 (2010, p. 22) Austrians have the prejudice that organic wines are more expensive than conventional ones.

Various studies have examined the opinions of the consumers on quality and willingness to pay for organic wines. However, an insight of the status-quo of the Austrian fine wine market, comparing quality and prices of wines produced by different viticultural and oenological practices (conventional, organic and biodynamic practices) and therefore an insight from the other perspective, is not available yet.
Aim of the study and research questionThe ambiguous outcomes of previous studies show diverse consumers´ opinions on perceived quality and willingness to pay for organic wines. An insight from a different perspective providing information of the status quo of Austria´s fine wine market, comparing differences in quality and prices of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines could reduce prejudices about organic and biodynamic wines. This knowledge could also support managers and owners of Austrian wineries in their decision process about conversion to a different production method.
This study is focussing on two different aspects – quality and pricing – of the fine wine market with special consideration of biodynamic and organic wines.
As mentioned previously in chapter REF _Ref511906745
h 1.1 REF _Ref511906745 h Background of the study, different consumers have different opinions on organic and biodynamic wines. In order to investigate the status quo of Austria´s fine wine market the following research question is to be answered:
Are there quality differences between conventionally, organically and biodynamically produced Austrian wines in the Gault&Millau Wine Guides 2015 to 2018?
As the sales prices can be interpreted as a quality signal CITATION Eri85 p 195 l 3079 (Erickson & Johansson, 1985, p. 195) the second aspect of this study refers to the cellar-door prices of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. Therefore, the second research question to be answered is:
Are there price differences between conventionally, organically and biodynamically produced Austrian wines in the Gault&Millau Wine Guides 2015 to 2018?
Research designFor this study a content analysis of the Gault&Millau Guides 2015 to 2018 was performed and the census sample of all four guides was assessed to compare the price and quality differences of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. The analysed data includes names of the wineries, their vineyard surface, wine region, rated wines and the points they received, and in most cases the cellar-door prices. This data has been provided by Petra Bader, the head publisher of the Gault&Millau Wine Guide, in Microsoft Excel sheets and then was analysed with the statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics.
Chapter outlineThis study begins with a literature review presenting the current status of organic and biodynamic production and sums up various studies that have been conducted on consumers´ perception on organic and biodynamic wines and their willingness to pay for them. Furthermore, an overview over wine guides and wine ratings is provided. After the literature review materials and methods are explained and consequently the results of the statistical analysis are presented and discussed.
The first presented results are a general overview of the rated wines and wineries is given, comparing wine regions, size of wineries and rated organic, biodynamic and conventional wineries. Afterwards the paper focuses on price and quality differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. Furthermore, the correlation between ratings and cellar-door prices is described. This paper finishes with overall conclusions and a summary of the main outcomes. Additionally, recommendation for practical implication and further research are given and limitations of the study are specified.
Literature Review on Organic and Biodynamic WinesOrganic winesOrganic viticulture, and wine production have become more and more popular amongst Austrian vintners. Furthermore, Austria is – compared to its size – a leading country in organic farming, as well as in organic wine growing and production. In 2016 12.5% (5 088 ha) of the winegrowing area in Austria is organic, with an increase of 19% compared to the year 2015 (4 626 ha). As it can be seen in REF _Ref510881372 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 1 and REF _Ref511928260 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 2, the surface of organic vineyards is increasing constantly, as well as the number of famers running organic vineyards CITATION Bun16 l 1031 (Schwaiger, Hofer, Fehrer, & Brier, 2016).

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 1: Development of surface of organic vineyards (ha) in Austria (modified after: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 2016)
The decrease of organic farmers owning viticultural surface (see Graph 2) between 2010 and 2015 might be either due to the fact that the number of winegrowers is decreasing, or that the number of hectares owned per farmer increases CITATION Bun16 p 68 l 1031 (Schwaiger, Hofer, Fehrer, & Brier, 2016, p. 68). Additionally, the vintages in that period were not easy, especially due to heavy rain falls in 2014 CITATION Öst161 l 1031 (Österreich Wein MarketingGmbH, 2016). This might have led many winegrowers to sell their vineyards. Also, Bouzdine-Chameeve CITATION Bou11 p 5
l 1031 (2011, p. 5) stated that organic winegrowers, compared to conventional wineries, face more environmental risks, as well as quality risks since chemical grape treatments are forbidden.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 2: Number of organic farms owning vineyards (modified after: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 2016)Anyway, the term “Organic Wine” is quite new in the European Union. The EU-regulation on organic wine was announced in 2009. Before it was not allowed to produce or import “organic wine” in the EU. It had to be called “wine from organic grapes”. The new EU-regulation adds laws and practices on the work in the cellar and regulates the labelling of “organic wine”. Before that wine producers were only allowed to state “wine from organic grapes” on the bottles CITATION Die09 l 1031 (Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 2009). Compared to conventional wine production, organic wine production underlies some extra regulations. Additives, like egg white or sugar must be certified organic. Clarification with isinglass and casein are prohibited and the maximum sulphur levels are lower than for conventional wine CITATION Inf17 l 1031 (InfoXgen, 2017). The EU regulations for organic farming also apply for viticulture. Therefore, GMOs are prohibited, as well as mineral nitrogen fertilizers CITATION Rat07 l 1031 (Rat der Europäischen Union, 2007), chemical-synthetic fertilizers and pesticides CITATION BIO16 p 10 l 1031 (BIO Austria, 2018, p. 10). Especially for viticulture in Austria the maximum deployment of copper is limited to 3 kg per hectare and year CITATION BIO16 p 35 l 1031 (BIO Austria, 2018, p. 35) and a continuous cover of green manure between the vine rows is obligatory CITATION BIO16 p 34 l 1031 (BIO Austria, 2018, p. 34).
Organic wines – quality and pricingScientific research about the consumers´ perception of organic wines provides equivocal outcomes. On the one hand the perception is rather positive, for example in a study of Wiedmann et al. CITATION Kla p 205
l 1031 (2014, p. 205), the participants rated the organic wines far better than the conventional wines and also stated that they would pay more for the organic wines, if one of them was presented as organic. But as a matter of fact, the perception on organic products in general had an influence on the outcomes. Additionally, Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá et al. CITATION Bru05 p 46
l 1031 (2005, p. 46) discovered that 67% of the participants of their study, that was conducted in Spain, would pay 10% more for an organic wine than for a conventional wine at the same quality level. 10% of their respondents would even pay between 26% and 50% more. Ogbeide CITATION Ogb15 p 30 l 1031 (Ogbeide, 2015, p. 30) was able to observe similar results in Australia.

On the other hand, various researchers found out that consumers are sceptic about the wine quality of organic wines. A perfect example for that is a study that was conducted in California. It compared the wine pricing of organic wines from California, that are labelled as such, and just organic produced wines that do not show an eco-certification label on the bottle with their reviews at the “The Wine Spectator” homepage. It was found out, that producing a wine under organic regulations makes a price increase of 13%, but as soon as the eco-certification is printed on the label the average retail price is reduced by 20% CITATION Del14 p 35 l 1031 (Delmas & Grant, 2014, p. 35). There are other studies that point out that customers still have a certain doubt about the quality of organic wine, which could explain those price differences. Stolz and Schmid stated that, even though customers perceive that organic wines are much healthier due to the fact that no pesticides are used and there are not that many additives in the wine, people are still sceptic about the quality of organic wines CITATION Str08 p 2
l 1031 (2008, p. 2) and also Delmas and Grant found out that as a matter of fact, the wine consumers are sceptic about organic wines and their quality; even dough organic practises can give an advantage concerning the wine quality CITATION Del14 p 17
l 1031 (2014, p. 17).

Also, a study that was conducted in Austria shows that on the one hand Austrian wine consumers think that organic wine is more healthy and environmental friendly and more innovative. On the other hand, they perceive organic wines as more acidic, less fruity and less full-bodied. Furthermore, the respondents of the study stated that the optimum price of a bottle of organic wine would be 7.50 €. The optimum price for organic affine wine drinkers would be 9.00 € CITATION Der17 l 3079 (Derndorfer & Stöckl, 2017).

According to Schmücking CITATION Sch10 p 22
l 1031 (2010, p. 22) the Austrians have the prejudice that organic wines are more expensive than conventional ones, whereas the author states that this is only true for the entry-level wines. Schmücking furthermore states that there is no price difference between organic and conventional wines in the middle quality segment and that organic wines in the upper quality segment are even cheaper than conventional ones.

Biodynamic winesThe biodynamic production is a philosophic agricultural movement that provides guidelines for food production in a mindful and spiritual way. It is based on the Agricultural Lectures held by the famous Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner in 1924 in Koberwitz CITATION Hur16 p 11 l 1031 (Hurter, 2016, p. 11). The main treatments used in the vineyards are the so-called Horn Manure (preparation 500) and the Horn Silica (preparation 501). 500 is made from cow manure, filled in a cow horn and buried in fertile soil during the winter months aiming to give an impulse towards fertility in the soil. Whereas the 501 preparation is made with silica, also filled into a cow horn but buried in the soil during the summer months. This preparation gives the impulse of light. CITATION Mas16 p 45 l 1031 (Masson, 2016, p. 45). The reasons for winegrowers to use biodynamic methods, according to Meissner CITATION Mei16 p 93
l 1031 (2016, p. 93) are amongst others: improvement of quality, attempts to renounce the use of oenological treatments that influence the individuality of the terroir and an advantage on the wine market.

The first step in the certification process of biodynamic wineries and farms it to work organically according to the EEC regulations 834/2007, 889/2008 and 203/2012. Additionally, for being certified biodynamic it is obligatory to follow the rules of Demeter which can vary from country to country, as Demeter International sets the framework for regulations and each Demeter National Association “must adapt them to its current situation” CITATION Cas17 p 27 l 1031 (Castellini, Mauracher, & Troiano, 2017, p. 27). The guidelines for Demeter wines, published by the Austrian Demeter Board in 2006 therefore, stat all permitted additives: sugar from the sugar beet, at least in organic quality, sulphites, according to the EU organic regulations for wine, bentonite, chalk for de-acidification, activated carbon, only for mouldy grapes, selected yeast strains only for sparkling wine production. This automatically excludes all other additions CITATION Öst06 l 1031 (Österreichischer Demeter-Bund, 2006).

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 3: Development of agricultural surface (ha) under Demeter certification (modified after: Demeter International, 2017)At the moment there are 180 706 hectares from 5 279 farms certified under Demeter. By far the biggest area of biodynamic surface is located in Germany with 77 663 ha and 1 576 farms, followed by France (12 190 hectares, 486 farms) and Spain (8326 hectares, 121 farms), all of them are traditionally wine countries. Remarkable is the steady growth of biodynamic surface as well as of biodynamic farms (see Graph 1 and 2). 5 628 hectares that are biodynamically farmed are located in Austria, cultivated by 169 farms CITATION Dem171 l 1031 (Demeter International, 2017), with 34 of them being winegrowers on 348 hectares CITATION Cas17 l 1031 (Castellini, Mauracher, & Troiano, 2017).

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 4: Development of number of farms under Demeter certification (modified after: Demeter International, 2017)Biodynamic wines – quality and pricingSo far, there has not been done a lot of research investigating differences in pricing of biodynamic wines compared to organic or conventional wines, neither the consumers’ attitude towards biodynamic wine CITATION Cas17 p 29 l 1031 (Castellini, Mauracher, ; Troiano, 2017, p. 29). In fact, consumers are not very familiar with biodynamic wines. Among the respondents of the questionnaire by Delmas CITATION Del08 p 6
l 1031 (2008, p. 6), only 17.8% had heard of “wine from biodynamically grown grapes”. Nevertheless, other studies conducted in Germany found out that the quality of biodynamic wines seems to be better than conventional wines. Especially for wine attributes like “body”, “complexity” and “harmony” it turned out that biodynamic practices in the vineyard are favourable. Nevertheless, biodynamic wines were less “fruity” or “flowery” CITATION Mei15 p 114-116 l 1031 (Meissner, 2015, pp. 114-116). One of the reasons could be that not only the yield from biodynamic vineyards in Germany is much lower but also the sugar levels are higher than in conventional or organic vineyards. This might be favourable for the wine quality CITATION Mei15 p 69 l 1031 (Meissner, 2015, p. 69).

Possible reasons for organic or biodynamic wine productionWinemakers who are converting their production to organic or biodynamic might face certain risks: environmental risks, quality risks, supply chain risks and market risks CITATION Bou11 p 5 l 1031 (Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2011, p. 5) and therefore the conversion of wineries is more a matter of the personal attitude of the owners, rather than financial considerations CITATION Bou11 p 7 l 1031 (Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2011, p. 7).

One of the personal factors for conversion could be the aspect of sustainability. Comparing biodynamic with conventional grape production, conventional practices are in total much more harmful to the environment due to fertilizer and pesticide emissions CITATION Vil14 p 336 l 1031 (Villanueva-Rey, Vázquez-Rowe, Moreira, ; Feijoo, 2014, p. 336). Sustainability is also important to wine consumers. In a study conducted by Forbes et al. more than 75% of the respondents “prefer to drink wines that had been produced using environmentally sustainable practices” CITATION For p 1204
l 1031 (2009, p. 1204). Other research also points out that consumers belief that organic wines are more sustainable and that “the belief that organic products are better for the environment is positively related to the purchase of organic wine” CITATION Ols12 p 59 l 1031 (Olsen, Thach, ; Hemphill, 2012, p. 59).

Even though there were no significant chemical differences found when recent studies compared conventional, organic, and biodynamic grapes and wines CITATION Tas13 p 412 l 1031 (Tassoni, Tango, ; Ferri, 2013, p. 412), there are studies claiming that organic wines and biodynamic wines might taste better than conventional ones CITATION Mei15 p 114-116 l 1031 (Meissner, 2015, pp. 114-116). But of course, those results cannot be generalized. Nevertheless, the quality aspect might be a reason for winemakers to convert to organic and biodynamic methods, like it was for example for Chateau Palmer CITATION Tim15 l 1031 (Time Inc. (UK) Ltd. Decanter, 2015).

Literature Review on Wine Guides
Wine Ratings – History, Influence, ReliabilityThe history of wine ratings basically started with Robert Parker, a lawyer who introduced a 100-point scale in 1978. Before that wine retailers did not pay much attention to wine reviews or ratings which were mostly simple 1-5-point scales. In the 1980s his scale was adopted by one of the most renowned wine magazines, “The Wine Spectator”, in the 1990s other magazines like the “Wine Enthusiast” and “Wine & Spirit” followed. Since then more and more wine retailers as well as wineries used wine ratings to sell their wines CITATION Riv06 l 1031 (Rivlin, 2006).
Wine ratings in general provide information for consumers as “the ability of a consumer to evaluate the wine is limited without tasting the wine”, therefore they rely on information from, for example, wine ratings CITATION Coh09 p 19 l 1031 (Cohen, 2009, p. 19). “high expert ratings indeed have a positive impact on consumer choice” CITATION Mue09 p 6 l 1031 (Mueller, Lockshin, Louviere, Francis, ; Osidacz, 2009, p. 6). Additionally, wine descriptions that are read before tasting a wine increases the positive emotions when tasting and also the willingness to pay for the wine (Danner et al.; 2017, p. 274). Not only Roberts and Reagans found out that “higher quality ratings do command higher prices” CITATION Rob07 p 65
l 1031 (2007, p. 65), but also other studies could verify this fact, e.g. Dressler CITATION Dre p 9
l 1031 (2016, p. 9). The participation at wine guides could be seen as “promotional activity” as Benfratello et al. suggest to wineries to build reputation CITATION Ben09 p 2215
l 1031 (2009, p. 2215) and therefore the consumers’ willingness to pay for the wines CITATION Ben09 p 2212
l 1031 (2009, p. 2212).

In fact, also the webpage www.wineinvestment.com CITATION Win17 l 1031 (Cult Wines – Solutions for Fine Wine, 2017) lists several wine critics to follow stating that
a number of these critics have become extremely influential in their fields …. The ratings of these critics have an observable effect on market prices for fine wine.
The following persons as the most influential wine critics nowadays CITATION Win17 l 1031 (Cult Wines – Solutions for Fine Wine, 2017):
Robert Parker Jr., the first person who used the 100-point system for wine ratings and the publisher of “The Wine Advocate”
James Suckling, a former critic and journalist for “The Wine Advocate” and “The Wine Spectator” who now runs his own webpage
Neal Martin, a wine critic who also writes critics and ratings for erobertparker.com, Robert Parker´s webpage
Tim Atkin, who won several prices for his wine writings and is also tastes for the “International Wine Challenge” and the “Vin de Pays Top 100”
Allen Meadows, a critic who only rates wines from Burgundy
Jancis Robinson, who is seen as a counterpart to Robert Parker in terms of preferred wine styles, published several books and writes a column for the Financial Times
Antonio Galloni, who was also writing for “The Wine Advocate” and now runs his own wine blog called “Vinosus”
Even if there are many advantages of wine ratings and descriptions wine critics are often facing criticism for their work. Schiefer and Fischer CITATION Sch08 p 347
l 1031 (2008, p. 347), for example, state that “the closeness of consumer to expert ratings depends on the consumers´ experience, wine knowledge and also their sensory skills”, meaning that people, who have a lower wine knowledge would sometimes rate the wine totally different than an expert. Furthermore there are also differences between the preferences of wine critics which has already been mentioned by Jancis Robinson in her book “Tasting Pleasure: Confessions of a wine lover”: “Individual wine consumers are better off … following an individual wine critic´s preferences and prejudices and getting to know how they relate to their own” CITATION Rob97
l 1031 (1997). The fact that certain critics have certain preferences was also found out by several scientific studies, e.g. by Oczkowski CITATION Ocz
l 1031 (2017).

Another point when criticising wine guides, especially wine guides that are published by magazines is that their “economic health of publications … wholly depend on the ad space they sell to so many of the same wineries whose bottles they review” CITATION Riv06 l 1031 (Rivlin, 2006). Therefore, the jury might be biased or even forced by financial considerations to rate wines of wineries that paid for advertisement in the magazine better than they actually would have been rated. The financial considerations might also lead to an inflation of wine ratings, as criticized by MooreCITATION Moo17
l 3079 (2017). In her article published at The Telegraph she denounces that a huge percentage of the wines, e.g. 70% of the Decanter tasting in 2015, are winning medals or are recommended by the jury. When Tesco handed in 112 of their wines to the IWC competition in 2015 they had a 98 % success rate. Moore concludes that the high success rate of handed-in wines is caused by financial consideration as the publishing companies do not want to lose their most important clients and financers – the wineries CITATION Moo17 l 1031 (Moore, 2017).

But not just the critics and tasters might be influenced but also the winemakers and their wines. “Some fear that the worldwide influence of Mr. Parker, who has been described as the planet’s most powerful critic, will eventually mean a homogenization of wines” (Robinson, cited from Rivlin, 2006), meaning that some winemakers might adapt the style of their wines in order to please a certain wine critic CITATION Riv06 l 1031 (Rivlin, 2006). Despite all this there are many different wine guides and wine rating magazines on the market.
Wine Guides in AustriaIn Austria a big number of wine guides are published online or printed and bound as small booklets or books. One of the best-known guide is the Salon Österreich published by the ÖWM, the Austrian wine marketing board where all winemakers in Austria can hand in their wines for a competition. The 250 best wines and 20 best sparkling wines are presented in the Salon Österreich book, besides various tasting events and fairs that take place CITATION Öst172 l 1031 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2017). Furthermore, it can be distinguished between guides that are made for private wine consumers and wine guides made for sommeliers and restaurant owners. A typical example of a wine guide especially addressing the hospitality sector is Walter Tucek with his Wirt+Winzer guides CITATION Tuc16 p 10
l 1031 (2016, p. 10) who publishes a general wine guide as well as a red wine and a white wine guide CITATION Wir17 l 1031 (Wirt + Winzer, 2017). On the other hand, there are guides targeting wine consumers. Examples would be “Wein kaufen im Supermarkt”, giving an overview over the best wines sold in the supermarket CITATION Jak17 l 1031 (Jakabb, 2017), and “Die Besten Weine Österreichs” CITATION Sie15 l 1031 (Siegl, 2015) explaining general differences between grape varieties besides providing wine ratings and cellar-door prices. But probably the best-known wine guides are the ones published by wine magazines like Á la Carte, Falstaff, Vinaria or Wein.pur and the Austrian Gault&Millau Wein und Schnaps Guide, which will be presented in REF _Ref511732043 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 1 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511732028 h 19) in more detail. REF _Ref511732131 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 5 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511732135 h 15) provides an overview of the circulation numbers of the different wine guides presented below.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 5: Circulation of Austrian Wine GuidesÁ la Carte
Á la Carte is a publisher of a gourmet magazine that is produced four times a year. Furthermore, a wine guide is printed and released every year together with a gourmet guide and a guide for culinary delicacies. The set can be bought for 25€ CITATION Ama l 1031 (Amazon Inc., 2017). For the wine guide, about 3000 wines of 400 wineries are tasted and rated on a 100-point scale by the wine expert Willi Balanjuk. Moreover, a list of around 90 top-wines is created by a panel of renowned sommeliers, wine writers and wine retailers CITATION Ála17 l 1031 (Á la Carte, 2017). A winemaker can send in up to 6 wines and pays 320 € plus 5% levy for advertisement and VAT CITATION Ála15 l 1031 (Á la Carte Wein-Führer, 2015). The Á la Carte Wine Guide has a circulation of 28 000 books plus 7 000 copies of special editions with the logo of their clients on the cover CITATION Gat17 l 1031 (Gattermaier, 2017). Therefore, it is Austria’s second highest circulating wine guide.
FalstaffFalstaff does not only publish the well-known gourmet magazine but also a number of different guides, like a café guide, a wine tavern guide as well as three different wine guides for Austrian wine. The Falstaff wine guide has a circulation of 30.000, the red wine guide has 20.000 prints and the “Ultimate Wine Guide” has a circulation of 10.000 and wine descriptions in English for international readers. The costs for the wineries are 100 € for the first rated wine and 70 € plus VAT for each additional wine handed in CITATION Fal171 l 1031 (Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH, 2017).
With the Falstaff wine guide 2017/2018, the 20th edition was published in July 2017CITATION Fla l 1031 (Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH, 2017). It can be bought for 16.90 € CITATION Fal17 l 1031 (Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH, 2017) and contains ratings of 3 457 wines from 478 wineries in Austria and South Tirol. All the Austrian wines are tasted and rated by Peter Moser, who prefers to know what wine he is tasting and so he does “open tastings”. He rates the wines on a 100-points system where 100-point wines are “not to be surpassed”, wines that can be attributed with “absolute world-class” are rated with 99 to 95 points, and wines that are “excellent wines, among the best of the vintage” are rated with 90 to 94 points. If wines are rated with 85 to 89 points they are “good to very good” whereas wines that are rated underneath 85 points are not represented in the guide. Additionally, each participating winery is rated with one to five stars, according to their long-term performance on “talent, terroir, continuity – maybe also authenticity” CITATION Fal16 p 16 l 1031 (Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH, 2016, p. 16). Gault&MillauLike the previously described wine guides the Gault&Millau Wine and Schnapps guide is published once a year together with a gourmet guide and has a circulation of 23 000 CITATION Pau17 l 1031 (Golger, 2017). The set can be bought for 39 € including VAT CITATION Ama17 l 1031 (Amazon Inc., 2017). 300 wineries per year are invited to hand in 10 wines per winery plus three top-wines of older vintages. The tasting and ratings are for free. Nevertheless, the wineries can decide to have their label printed for a payment of 310 € plus 5 % levy for advertisement and VAT CITATION Bad171 l 1031 (Bader, 2017). The tasters rate on the basis of a 20-point scale. Additionally, the wines are badged with one to four grape symbols, according to their points. The points are staggered the following: Rated with 19 or 20 points a wine also receives four grapes. The jury describes those wines as “world class wines, wines with sovereign charisma, rare greatness, and great ageing potential”. Wines that were rated with 17 or 18 points get 3 grapes and are “great wines that represent the best of the particular vintage and region and reveal the philosophy of the vintner, the character of the grape variety and the soil perfectly”. Two grapes are assigned to wines that received 15 or 16 points and are described as “very good wines that please heart and soul and not only complete a great meal but also enhance it, wines with souls and expression”. Graded with 13 or 14 points, the wines get one grape and are described as “good and charming wines that appeal due to their clearness, fruitiness and directness, wines that can be drunk daily, without losing the fun”. “Clean, easy wines for every occasion” are rated with 12 points and are not attributed with a grape anymore CITATION Gau16 p 7 l 1031 (Gault & Millau, 2016, p. 7). The rating jury consist of twelve members that are mainly sommeliers and wine journalists; whereas a team of three members is rating the wines and only wines that were rated divergently are discussed among the whole jury. All wines are tasted blind CITATION Gau16 p 8-9 l 1031 (Gault & Millau, 2016, pp. 8-9).
Vinaria
The Vinaria “Weinguide” is published by LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH, that also publishes a homonymous wine and gourmet magazine CITATION LWW17 p 8 l 1031 (LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH, 2017, p. 8). The guide was first published in 2000 and has a circulation of 9000 printed books CITATION Sal17 l 1031 (Salvinett, 2017). The wine guide can be bought for 16.90 € CITATION Ama171 l 1031 (Amazon Inc., 2017). Only wineries that are participating at the blind tastings published by the magazine and that are delivering constantly high quality are invited to participate at the wine guide CITATION LWW17 p 8 l 1031 (LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH, 2017, p. 8). The wineries must pay 324 € CITATION LWW171 l 1031 (LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH, 2017) to have their wines described and rated in the guide. The rating system consists of three different columns: at first each handed-in wine is rated in a 1 to 5 stars scale, additionally wines can be marked with several attributes like: “TOP”, for wines that have five stars and are amongst the best, “FUN”, for wines that are easy drinking and more on the fruity side, and “PLV”, for wines with a great price-quality ratio. Furthermore, the wineries and their total performance over the last years are rated with one to five crowns. The wine critics are wine writers and sommeliers and mostly visit the wineries by themselves to taste the wines CITATION LWW17 p 8 l 1031 (LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH, 2017, p. 8).
Wein.pur Best of Austria
The Wein.pur magazine as a part of the “Genuss” magazine is published by Agrarverlag, an Austrian publisher focusing on agriculture. The Wein.pur guide is released once a year since 2007 and has a circulation of 20 000 printed booklets CITATION Pir17 l 1031 (Pirri, 2017). The guide can be bought for 9.90 € CITATION Ama172 l 1031 (Amazon Inc., 2017), whereas the costs for the wineries are 298 € with the additional option to be also listed in the Wein.pur Best of Austria App. The critics come to the winery personally and taste the wines together with the winemaker and then rate the wines on a scale from one to three stars.
Overview of Austrian wine guides
Guide Scale used Costs for wineries (net) Retail Price of Guide
Á la Carte 100-points-scale 320 € 25.00 €
Falstaff 100-points-scale 100 € first wine, each additional wine 70 € 16.90 €
Gault&Millau 20-points-scale plus wines rated with 1 to 4 grapes 310 € if winery wants the label to be printed 39.00 €
Vinaria1 to 5 stars plus winery rating 1 to 3 crowns 324.45 € 16.90 €
Wein.pur1 to 3 stars 298 € 9.90 €
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 1: Overview Austrian Wine GuidesMaterials and MethodsThe following chapter explains the methodology of this case study with the aim to answer the following research questions:
Are there quality differences between conventionally, organically and biodynamically produced Austrian wines in the Gault&Millau Wine Guides 2015 to 2018?
Are there price differences between conventionally, organically and biodynamically produced Austrian wines in the Gault&Millau Wine Guides 2015 to 2018?
Sample selection and collectionOne aim of this case study is to compare the overall quality of different wines that were produced with different practices (conventional, organic, biodynamic). Schiefer and Fischer state expert ratings as an appropriate measurement of quality. “Since wine quality is difficult to assess on an entirely objective basis (i.e. by means of chemical analysis), the results of tasting competitions involving professional wine tasters (“experts”) are often used as quality indicators” CITATION Sch08 p 336
l 3079 (2008, p. 336).

There are many different wine guides published in Austria that could have been used for the quality assessment. Nevertheless, the Gault&Millau Wine and Schnapps Guide serves this study best as a data source out of three reasons. First, the rating jury consists of twelve members that are mainly sommeliers and wine journalists CITATION Gau16 p 8-9 l 1031 (Gault & Millau, 2016, pp. 8-9), therefore professional wines tasters or experts as suggested by Schiefer and Fischer (2008, p. 336) are involved. Secondly, the wineries do not have to pay to have their wines rated and published CITATION Bad171 l 1031 (Bader, 2017), which allows ratings that are not biased by any financial considerations, as criticized for example by RivlinCITATION Riv06
l 3079 (2006). Finally, all the wines are tasted blindCITATION Platzhalter1 p 9 l 1031 (Gault & Millau, 2016, p. 9). Therefore, certain prejudices by the jury against special regions or wineries CITATION Ocz p 64 l 3079 (Oczkowski, 2017, p. 64), or against organic and biodynamic wines CITATION Del14 p 14 l 3079 (Delmas & Grant, 2014, p. 14) are avoided.

Another advantage of the Gault&Millau wine guide is that most of the cellar-door prices are given in the guide itself CITATION Platzhalter1 l 3079 (Gault & Millau, 2016). Therefore, the Gault&Millau wine guide serves also the second aim of the study, which is comparing the cellar-door prices of different wineries with focus on the production method.
The census sample of the last four guides was provided in Microsoft Excel sheets by Petra Bader, the head publisher of the Gault&Millau wine guide after the publication of the Guide 2018 in October 2017. The analysed data include names of the wineries, their vineyard surface, wine region, rated wines and the points they received, and most of the cellar-door prices for those wines. As the wine guide 2015 contains 2,374 ratings, the guide 2016 contains 2,105 ratings; the guide 2017contains 2,017 ratings, and the guide 2018 contains 2,172 ratings, a sample size of 8,667 rated wines is assessed. (see REF _Ref511928104 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 2)
Gault & Millau Wine Guide Number of rated wines
2015 2,374
2016 2,103
2017 2,015
2018 2,175
Total 8,667
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 2: Number of rated wines in Gault&Millau wine guides (author´s table)Anyway, some of the wineries refused to have their cellar-door prices published CITATION Bad18 l 3079 (Bader, personal conversation, 2018), in total for 703 wines. The cellar door prices of 582 of these wines were gathered via phone, by examination of the online shop of the winery and at ProWein 2018 in Düsseldorf by asking vintners or their sales staff personally at the fair. As 121 of the cellar-door prices are missing, the calculation and statistics exclude those wines only when the cellar-door price is relevant. Therefore, the sample size for price related analysis is 8,546 wines. A detailed array of the sample size in the different guides is given in REF _Ref511135586 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 10 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511135592 h 60).

Also, the information about production methods had to be gathered completely from different sources as it was not included in the provided data. Production methods considered this thesis are biodynamic, organic and conventional viticultural and oenological practices. The biodynamic wineries could be found in the members lists of the two biodynamic associations in Austria, Respekt CITATION res17 l 3079 (respekt – BIODYN, 2017) and Demeter CITATION Öst17 l 3079 (Demeter-Bund, 2017). Information about wineries that are not members of neither of those two associations was obtained from the webpage of the ÖWM CITATION Öst l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018) where it is also possible to state organic or biodynamic certifications. The wineries are free to add this information by themselves CITATION Öst18 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018). In case it was observed that the winery´s page was not sufficiently maintained, also the webpage of the winery was reviewed.

Data AnalysisAfter choosing the Gault&Millau guide as the best source of data, a content analysis was performed. Accordingly, Krippendorff CITATION Kri89 p 403
l 3079 (1989, p. 403) states: “Formally, content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid interferences from data to their context”. Also, according to White and Marsh CITATION Whi06 p 27
l 3079 (2006, p. 27) the outcomes of quantitative content analysis are replicable and therefore, “can be subject to independent test and techniques for judging their validity and reliability”.

The quantitative content analysis was chosen since the wines in the Gault&Millau guide are rated on a 20-point scale and as the cellar-door prices of the rated wines are also quantitative data.

According to White and Marsh CITATION Whi06 p 40
l 3079 (2006, p. 40) the use of computer software could serve “as a means for doing quantitative analyses, such as frequency counts and percentages …”. For the purpose of this study the quantitative data will be analysed in the IMB SPPS Statistics program. A basic content analysis using frequency distributions, correlation calculations and other analytical methods for data processing was performed. The outcomes are presented in tables and various graphs.
LimitationsOne of the limitations of this study occurs because Petra Bader could only provide the data of the last four published guides as she was the head publisher only since then. Therefore, the sample size is limited to the wines that were rated in those four guides.
Another issue could be that the wineries which are invited to participate at the Gault&Millau Guides are chosen by the head publisher, Petra Bader, who “precisely observes the scene throughout the year and tastes permanently.” In the beginning of the year she decides who are the 300 wineries to be published in the Gault&Millau Guide. “From time to time wineries, whose ratings got worse through the years, are also replaced. Therefore, there is space for promising new discoveries. But the core of 270 wineries usually remains.” CITATION Bad171 l 3079 (Bader, Gault Millau Daten, 2017). As mentioned by Jancis Robinson, different wine critics have different preferences CITATION Rob97 l 3079 (Robinson, 1997). Petra Bader´s choice of wineries therefore, might be influenced also by her personal wine taste, or even personal sympathy with the winery owners. In that case even the wines that are then rated by the jury would be preselected. A similar effect might occur for the ratings of the tasting jury. As the wines are tasted blind an impact of sympathy for the winery owners can be precluded. Nevertheless, the personal preferences of the jury members might have an impact on the wine ratings and might lead to the fact that the wine quality is not rated objectively.
Also Charter and Peter Pettigrew pointed out that it is very difficult to assess quality of wine, as different groups of people have a different quality perception CITATION Cha07 p 1006
l 3079 (2007, p. 1006). Nevertheless, Schiefer and Fischer named expert ratings as an “often used quality indicators” CITATION Sch08 p 336
l 3079 (2008, p. 336). The awareness of the difficulties to determine quality exists. Nevertheless, the author decided to use the Gault&Millau Guides of the last four years as a quality indicator for the wines and the ratings will serve as a tool to determine the quality of the rated wines. Anyway, it must be pointed out that this research paper is a case study and therefore the outcomes cannot be generalised. Furthermore, this study only assessed Austria´s fine wine market.
Finally, some of the cellar-door prices could not be gathered the wines without prices – in total 121 – have been excluded from the sample for the analysis concerning the cellar-door prices but have been included for all other statistical analysis (see REF _Ref511911853 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 3). The missing cellar-door prices could statistically distort the results. Since the percentage compared to the sample size is with 1.40 % quite low it can be supposed that the outcome is representative anyway.
biodynamic organic conventional
Guide 2015 9 7 25
Guide 2016 8 0 13
Guide 2017 3 4 14
Guide 2018 8 10 20
Total 28 21 72
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 3: Missing cellar-door prices per production method (author´s table)
Results and DiscussionGault&Millau Wine Guide Austria – a general overviewWine regionsWineries rated in the guideIn general, all Austrian wine regions are represented in all four of the analysed Gault&Millau guides.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 6: Rated wineries per wine region (author´s chart)Nevertheless, the number of rated wineries differs from region to region. The wine region Bergland even covers only one winery in Carinthia in the Guides 2015, 2016 and 2018. In the Guide 2017 the wines of a second winery in Tyrol are rated too. Anyway, the wine region Bergland is Austria´s smallest wine region with only 139.67 haCITATION WeinÖFlä18 p 6 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018, p. 6). Wines from the other federal states (Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Upper Austria) are not rated. Also, in the region Weststeiermark there are only two rated wineries in the Guide 2015, increasing to 3 in the Guide 2016 and 4 in the Guide 2015 and then decreasing again to only two rated wineries in the Guide 2018. But also, this wine region is with only 538.42 ha rather small, compared to the other wine regions CITATION WeinÖFlä18 p 6 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018, p. 6).
With only 6 rated wineries in the Guides 2015 to 2017 and 8 in the Guide 2018, also Traisental does not have a lot of wineries rated in the Gault&Millau guides. Nevertheless, those numbers represent the size of the wine region, as there are 814.99 ha of vineyards CITATION WeinÖFlä18 p 6 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018, p. 6). Neusiedlersee and Weinviertel have the most rated wineries (30 to 34 in the different guides). Anyway, those two regions are the biggest wine regions in Austria with a total vineyard surface of 13,875.91 ha in Weinviertel and 7,098.43 ha in the Neusiedlersee regionCITATION WeinÖFlä18 p 6 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018, p. 6). REF _Ref511914489 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 6 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511914465 h 25) provides the counts of rated wineries per wine region for the Guide 2015. The graphs for the other guides are pictured in the Annex (see REF _Ref511927849 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 12, p. PAGEREF _Ref511927956 h 61; REF _Ref511927853 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 13, p. PAGEREF _Ref511927962 h 62; REF _Ref511927854 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 14, p. PAGEREF _Ref511927968 h 64)
Cellar-door prices of rated winesNot only the number of wineries that have their wines rated in the analysed guides differs from wine region to wine region but also the cellar-door prices show remarkable differences (see REF _Ref511654849 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 11, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654919 h 60; REF _Ref511654852 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 12, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654924 h 61; REF _Ref511654854 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 13, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654928 h 62; REF _Ref511654856 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 14, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654932 h 63). One of the regions with the lowest average cellar-door price is Weststeiermark, where the prices are varying in a range between 7.20 € and 8.67 €. Only in the Guide 2017 the average cellar-door price is with 13.78 € a bit higher. The higher average cellar-door price in 2017 occurs because there are two more expensive sweet wines (29.60 € each) included in the sample and also a winery that has more expensive wines than others is only rated in the Guide 2017. A reason for the low price could be the wine style. 49 of the 63 wines rated in all four guides are wines made from the grape variety “Blauer Wildbacher”. As Blauer Wildbacher is described as “… lively, fruity and tingly young wine …” CITATION Ste18 l 3079 (Steirische Spezialitäten Magazin, 2018). The typical style of this wine might have an influence of the cellar-door price. The average price for wines from other grape varieties, which are only 14 in all the guides together, with 13.62 € much higher than the average price of the wines made from Blauer Wildbacher (9.04 €). Anyway, this value is still way below the average cellar-door price of all the wines in total.

Also, the wine regions Traisental, Wagram and Weinviertel have much lower cellar-door prices than the average. Especially Bergland is one of the regions whose cellar-door prices statistically deviate upwards with an average cellar door price between 28.00 and 32.00 €, depending on the guide´s year. However, only one winery is rated in three of the guides and only in the Guides 2015, 2016 and 2018. Only in 2017 another winery is rated too. The viticultural surface in this area is limited and the climatic conditions can be difficult CITATION ÖstBL18 p 9 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018, p. 9) which might lead to a certain scarcity of wines from that region and therefore, might increase the prices for the wines.

One more wine region that sticks out is Wachau with an average cellar door price of 21.78 € in the Guide 2015, 24.48 € in 2016, 21.82 € in 2017 and 24.07 € in the Guide 2018. Those higher cellar door prices could occur because of the high level of consumers´ awareness. Jancis Robinson stated that “The Wachau is Austria´s most famous wine region, even though it makes with its 1,350 hectares only three percent of the total vineyard surface” CITATION Joh13 p 250 l 3079 (Johnson & Robinson, 2013, p. 250). Another factor could be that viticulture in Wachau is costly in time and money. The slopes are steep, and mechanisation is not possible in some vineyards as they cannot be accessed with machinery CITATION ÖstWa18 l 3079 (Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH, 2018).

Further, the wine regions Mittelburgenland, Neusiedlersee-Hügelland and Mittelburgenland have higher also average prices than the other wine regions.
In general, the average cellar door price of all wines in all regions, is 15.93 € in Guide 2015, increases to 17.37 € in Guide 2016 and stays stable in the following years (17.35 € in Guide 2017 and 17.34 € in Guide 2018).
Ratings in the different wine regionsDifferences can also be found in the average achieved points at the rating of wines from the different regions (see REF _Ref511654849 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 11, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654919 h 60; REF _Ref511654852 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 12, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654924 h 61; REF _Ref511654854 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 13, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654928 h 62; REF _Ref511654856 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 14, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654932 h 63). Significantly lower are the ratings of the wine region Weststeiermark with an average of 14 points in the Guide 2015, 15.3 in 2016, 14.9 in 2017 and 14.4 in the Guide 2018. Repeatedly, the lower ratings of the wines in Weststeiermark might be due to the typical wine style of the region with simple wines made from the variety Blauer Wildbacher. Having a closer look at the ratings, it can be observed that the average rating in all four guides only for Blauer Wildbacher und Schilcher is with 14.5 points lower than the average rating for wines from other grape varieties (15.2 points). Anyway, there are only 14 wines from different grape varieties than Blauer Wildbacher rated in all four analysed guides together.

Also, the average ratings of the wines from Bergland are interesting. In the Guide 2015 Bergland has the lowest rating with an average of 14 points. In the following guides the wines from Bergland are in average rated the highest (17.5 points in the Guide 2016 and 2017 and 17.3 in 2018).

Also, high ratings in average are achieved by the wines from the region Wachau. The average rating was the third highest in the Guide 2015 with 16.3 points. Only Südburgenland was rated higher with 16.5 points. In the Guide 2016 Wachau reached in average the second highest ratings with 17.5, only 0.1 points below the wines from Bergland. In that year also Südburgenland and Kamptal were rated higher than the average with 16.5 points. In the Guide 2017 Südburgenland and Mittelburgenland pass Wachau (16.8 points) with 17 points in average for both regions. Again, Wachau has the second highest ratings with 16.9 points, followed by Südburgenland (16.8 points).

Size of wineries REF _Ref510889693 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 19 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647079 h 69), REF _Ref510889702 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 20 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647098 h 70), REF _Ref510889704 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 21 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647113 h 719 and REF _Ref510889705 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 22 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647126 h 72) show the mean sizes of the rated wineries per region. In general, the mean size of all wineries is between 26.11 and 26.81 ha in all four years of the Gault&Millau guides. With a total surface of 45,438,79 ha in 2015 and 14,133 grape producers, the average size per winery/grape producer is 3.22 ha. The difference to the average size of the wineries rated in the Gault&Millau Guides is remarkable.

Size of rated wineries in different wine regionsThe average size of the wineries in different region varies between 17 and 42 ha, with no big fluctuations. Nevertheless, three of those wine regions stick out. First the wine region Bergland has only an average size of 3 ha (2.5 ha in the guide 2018). The reason is that in the guides 2015 to 2017 only one winery in Carinthia is rated and in the guide 2018 only two, one in Carinthia and one in Tirol. 72 ha of Austria´s total viticultural surface are located in Carinthia and only 5 ha in Tirol. Therefore, this number seems to be representative for the wine region Bergland Österreich.

Another wine region that sticks out due to the average size of the wineries is Südburgenland with an average size varying from 9.95 to 11.16 ha. Having a closer look at the primary data, no reason for a statistical bias could be found. The statistics published by ÖWM CITATION WeinÖFlä18 p 6
l 3079 (2018, p. 6) show that Südburgenland is the smallest wine region with 418.49 ha besides Bergland Österreich. Also, the structures seem to be small. There are 708 vineyard owners, which makes an average size of 0.6 ha per winery.
Noticeable is also the statistical anomaly of the average size in the region Kremstal. After a closer investigation it was found out that one single winery owns 990 ha of vineyards. If this winery is excluded from the calculations the average winery size is 23.27 ha in the guide 2015, 24.65 ha in 2016, 23.41 ha in 2017 and 21.36 ha in the guide 2018 and these numbers comply with the outcome of the other wine regions.
Size of rated wineries and different production methodsTo find out about possible interferences between the size of the wineries and the used production methods the Pearson´s correlation was calculated for each of the analysed guides separately. The Pearson´s correlation between the production methods and the size of the winery a weak positive result is obtained for all four guides (Guide 2015: r= .035, p= .090, n= 2374; Guide 2016: r= .032, p= .143, n= 2103; Guide 2017: r= .037, p= .096, n= 2015; Guide 2018: r= .033, p= .128, n= 2175). Nevertheless, the outcomes do not show any significance. The same is true for the ANOVA (= analysis of variance) (see REF _Ref512425761 h Table 23, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425837 h 73; REF _Ref512425763 h Table 26, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425842 h 74; REF _Ref512425764 h Table 29, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425848 h 75; REF _Ref512425767 h Table 32, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425852 h 76).

Even though there are differences in the average surface of biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries (see homogenous subsets REF _Ref511896695 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 25, p. PAGEREF _Ref511896703 h 73; REF _Ref511897408 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 28, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897428 h 74; REF _Ref511897410 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 31, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897446 h 75; REF _Ref511897413 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 34, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897464 h 76), no significant results in any of the four analysed guides can be observed (see REF _Ref511896818 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 24, p. PAGEREF _Ref511896832 h 73; REF _Ref511897409 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 27, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897436 h 74; REF _Ref511897412 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 30, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897453 h 75; REF _Ref511897414 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 33, p. PAGEREF _Ref511897470 h 76).
Hence, even though the average sizes of wineries using different production methods differ, there is no significant evidence that the size of the winery has an influence on the choice of production method.
Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries and winesThe number of rated wineries using different production methods is quite stable (see REF _Ref512426170 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 7, p. PAGEREF _Ref511898501 h 30). The percentage of biodynamic wineries lies between 11.26 % and 10.10 % with a slightly increasing tendency. Also, the percentage of organic wineries has an increasing tendency with a percentage between 13.75 % and 12.98 %. Conventional wineries still represent the biggest part of the Gault&Millau Guides of the last four years with percentages between 76.84 % and 75.25 %, tendency decreasing. REF _Ref511898369 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 4 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511898364 h 31) shows the rated wineries in the different guides divided to production methods.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 7: Percentage of wineries using different production methods (author´s chart)Biodynamic Organic Conventional
Guide 2015 29 37 219
Guide 2016 31 40 230
Guide 2017 32 40 219
Guide 2018 33 39 221
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 4: Rated wineries in the guides per production method (author´s table)The comparison between the number of organic and biodynamic wineries in the guides and the organic vineyard surface in Austria shows that organic wineries are overrepresented in the guides. In 2015 10.2 % of the vineyard surface was certified organically, in 2016 12.5 % CITATION Bun16 l 3079 (Schwaiger, Hofer, Fehrer, & Brier, 2016). – Those numbers also include biodynamic surfaces. More recent numbers are not available at the time the study was conducted.
REF _Ref510868455 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 5 shows that not only the number of biodynamic wineries is increasing, but also the number of rated biodynamic and organic wines, meaning that the number of rated wines per biodynamic winery is increasing. The number of organic wines is quite stable, whereas the number of rated conventional wines is decreasing, due to less rated wines per conventional winery.
Rated wines Biodynamic Organic Conventional Total
Guide 2015 222 302 1,850 2,374
Guide 2016 226 284 1,593 2,103
Guide 2017 229 291 1,495 2,015
Guide 2018 251 303 1,621 2,175
Total 928 1,180 6,559 8,667
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 5: Number of rated wines per production method in Gault&Millau wine guides (author´s chart)Furthermore, it occurs that some of the wine regions seem to be hotspots for biodynamic and organic wineries, such as Neusiedlersee region with up to 10 biodynamic and 5 organic wineries in the Guide 2017 (see REF _Ref510894197 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 17, p. PAGEREF _Ref510865783 h 67).
On the other hand, biodynamic and organic wineries are highly underrepresented in other regions like Wachau with only one biodynamic producer and Traisental with only one organic winery. In some regions only conventional wines are rated: Weststeiermark, Südburgenland, Carnumtum in the Guides 2015 and 2016 and Wachau in the Guide 2015 (see REF _Ref511654481 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 15, p. PAGEREF _Ref511654531 h 65; REF _Ref510894273 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 16, p. PAGEREF _Ref510894329 h 66; REF _Ref510894197 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 17, p. PAGEREF _Ref510865753 h 67; REF _Ref510894277 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 18, p. PAGEREF _Ref510894361 h 68).

Price Differences between different production methodsDifferences of mean cellar-door pricesThe average cellar-door prices for each production method and the average of all rated wines are listed in REF _Ref511134153 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 6. It can be observed that the average biodynamic wine is more expensive than the average organic and conventional wine that was rated in the four analysed Gault&Millau wine guides.
Cellar-door price (€) Guide 2015 Guide 2016 Guide 2017 Guide 2018
biodynamic 19.12 20.93 20.85 20.62
organic 15.75 16.85 17.53 16.76
conventional 15.59 16.98 17.04 17.07
Total average 15.93 17.37 17.54 17.43
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 6: Average cellar-door prices per production method and Guide (author´s table)In the Guide 2015 the average cellar-door price of biodynamic wines is 19.12 € and therefore the highest, followed by organic wines with an average price of 15.75 €. Conventional wines in the Guide 2015 are the cheapest with a mean of 15.59 €. The same pattern applies for the mean prices in the Guide 2017. Biodynamic wines have the highest mean price (20.85 €), organic wines have the second highest mean price (17.53 €) and conventional wines have the lowest average cellar-door price (17.04 €).

In the Guides 2016 and 2018 conventional and organic wines show a different pattern. In those two guides the mean cellar-door prices of biodynamic wines are again the highest (20.93 € in Guide 2016 and 20.62 € in Guide 2018). Nevertheless, conventional wines have a higher mean price (16.85 € in Guide 2016 and 17.07 € in Guide 2018) and organic wines in average have the lowest price (16.85 € in Guide 2016 and 16.76 € in Guide 2017).
REF _Ref511904057 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 8 provides a visual overview over the structure of the cellar-door prices of different production methods. In general, the price for biodynamic wines is between 18.30 and 20.50 % higher than the average of all wines. The rated conventional wines are between 2.07 and 2.85 % lower than the average of all wines and organic wines are 0.06 to 2.99 % cheaper than the average (see REF _Ref511912157 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 37, p. PAGEREF _Ref511912196 h 78)

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 8: Cellar-door prices (€) per production method (author´s chart)Median and distribution of cellar-door pricesThe boxplots in the annex ( REF _Ref511647166 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 15, p. PAGEREF _Ref511647225 h 78 REF _Ref511921361 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 16, p. PAGEREF _Ref511921406 h 79; REF _Ref511921362 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 17, p. PAGEREF _Ref511921410 h 80; REF _Ref511921364 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 18, p. PAGEREF _Ref511921416 h 81) show the distribution of the cellar door prices of the rated wines.
The median for the cellar-door price in Guide 2015 is 16.00 € for biodynamic wines, 14.00 € for organic wines and 13.00 € for conventional wines. The boxes of conventional and biodynamic wines are skewed right, meaning that the variance in the second half is bigger than the ones in the first half of the total price range, while the 2nd and 3rd quartiles of organic wines are symmetric. All three types of wines have outliers to the top. However, conventional wines have by far the most outliers. The most expensive conventional wine costs 132.00 € and the maximum cellar-door price for an organic wine is 54.00 €. The lowest cellar-door prices for wines rated in the Guide 2015 is 4.50 € for conventional wines, 4.90 € for organic wines and 6.50 for biodynamic wines. The statistical values of the cellar door prices in the Guide 2015 are summed up in REF _Ref511388911 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 38 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511924046 h 79).
The medians of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2016 are equal to the ones in Guide 2016: 16.00 € for biodynamic wines, 14.00 € for organic wines and 13.00 € for conventional wines. Again, the cellar-door prices show many outliers on the right sight. Further, the 2nd and 3rd quartiles of biodynamic and conventional wines are again skewed right, whereas the 2nd and 3rd quartiles of organic wines are skewed left. Therefore, the variance of the cheaper half of organic wines shows a bigger variance than the more expensive 50 %. The variances in cellar-door prices show the opposite for conventional and biodynamic wines. The maximum values are 120.00 € for conventional wines, 111.00 € for organic wines and 90.00 € for biodynamic wines. The smallest cellar-door prices of conventional (5.00 €) and organic (5.50 €) wines went up, compared to the Guide 2015. The cheapest biodynamic wine rated in the Guide 2016 is still 6.50 €. The statistical values for the Guide 2016 are given in REF _Ref511388914 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 39 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511388965 h 80).

In the Guide 2017 the median for biodynamic cellar-door prices again is the highest (18.00 €), followed by the mean price of organic wines (15,25 €). Repeatedly conventional wines have the lowest median (14.00 €). The skewness of the prices of the different production methods are similar to the previous years: The 2nd and 3rd quartiles of conventional and biodynamic wines is right-skewed, the ones of organic wines are skewed to the left. The most expensive wine in the in the Guide 2017 is biodynamic (125.00 €). The maximum value for conventional is 90.00€ and 68.00 € for organic production, whereas conventional wines again have the most outliers to the right. Minimum values are 4.70 € for conventional wines, 5.50 € for organic wines, and 6.15 for biodynamic wines (see REF _Ref511388916 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 41, p. PAGEREF _Ref511388920 h 82).

The median cellar-door price in the Guide 2018 are repeatedly the highest for biodynamic wines (18.00 €). Organic wines have a median of 15.00 € and conventional wines a median cellar-door price of 14.20 €. Alike the pattern in the Guide 2015 the median of biodynamic and conventional wines is skewed right, and the median of organic wines is symmetric. The lowest cellar-door price is 4.70 € for a conventional wine. The cheapest organic wine can be bought for 5.30 € and the cheapest biodynamic wine for 6.15 €. The most expensive wine rated in the Guide 2018 is a biodynamic wine for 125.00 €. The cellar-door price for the most expensive conventional wine is 120.00 € and the most expensive organic wine is 60.00 €. The statistical values are provided in REF _Ref511388916 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 41 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511388920 h 82).

In general, it can be observed that the conventional wines have much more outlier than organic and conventional wines and that the distribution of cellar-door prices of conventional wines is much broader than the ones of biodynamic and especially organic wines. Furthermore, the median of the cellar-door prices of biodynamic are the highest in all four guides, followed by the median price of organic wines. Conventional wines have the lowest median prices (see REF _Ref511923864 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 7). The cheapest biodynamic wines are still more expensive than the cheapest organic and conventional wines and also the cheapest organic wines are more expensive than the cheapest conventional wines.

Median (€) biodynamic organic conventional
Guide 2015 16.00 14.00 13.00
Guide 2016 16.00 14.00 13.00
Guide 2017 18.00 15.25 14.00
Guide 2018 18.00 15.00 14.20
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 7: Median cellar-door prices (€) per production method (author´s table)Correlation of different production methods and cellar-door pricesThe mean and median cellar-door prices suggest that there is an influence of the production method and the cellar-door price. In order to prove that the Pearson´s correlation was performed. The outcomes are highly significant, and a very weak negative correlation can be observed in all four of the guides (Guide 2015: r= -.089, p< .001, n= 2333, Guide 2016: r= -.093, p< .001, n= 2082; Guide 2017: r= -.105, p< .001, n= 1994; Guide 2018: r= -,087, p< .001, n= 2137).

In order to gather a deeper insight to the correlations an ANOVA was conducted for the four analysed guides. The outcomes show that there are highly significant (p< .001) differences in the mean cellar-door prices of the different production methods (see REF _Ref512425480 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 42, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425525 h 83; REF _Ref512425482 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 45, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425529 h 84; REF _Ref512425457 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 48, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425534 h 85; REF _Ref512425460 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 51, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425541 h 86).

The multiple correlations show that in all four guides there is indeed a highly significant difference mean cellar-door price (p< 0.001) between biodynamic and conventional wines in all four of the guides. The mean prices of biodynamic wines are higher in all four of the guides. The same is true for the relation between biodynamic and organic wines and biodynamic wines are significantly more expensive than organic wines (p< 0,05). Relating organic and conventional wines, there is no significant difference in the mean cellar-door price (p> 0.05). REF _Ref512290187 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 43 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290270 h 83), REF _Ref512290189 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 46 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290280 h 84), REF _Ref512290191 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 49 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290298 h 85), and REF _Ref512290193 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 52 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290304 h 86) provide the detailed outcomes of the multiple comparisons and mean differences of the cellar-door prices between different production methods. REF _Ref512290412 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 44 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290598 h 83), REF _Ref512290390 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 47 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290608 h 84), REF _Ref512290392 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 50 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290613 h 85), and REF _Ref512290423 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 53 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512290619 h 86) show the mean cellar door prices of the wineries using different production methods for the different guides.
Quality Differences between different production methodsDifferences of mean ratings REF _Ref510881376 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 9 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511899103 h 37) shows the average ratings of wines produced with different production methods in the different guides. It is remarkable that in all four years that have been analysed, biodynamic wines, in average are rated higher with a mean rating of 16 points (+ 2.56 % compared to the mean of all rated wines) in the Guide 2015, 16.7 points (+ 3.09 %) in the Guide 2016 and 16.8 points in the Guides 2017 and 2018 (+ 2.44 % in 2017 and + 3.07 % in 2018).
This also applies for organic wines in the Guides 2015 with an average of 15.7 points (+ 0.64 % compared to the mean of all rated wines) and in the Guide 2017 with an average rating of 16.5 points (+ 0.61 %). In the Guide 2016 the ratings of organic wines are with an average 16.1 points are 0.61 % lower than the average rating of all wines. Still this might be due to the high ratings of biodynamic wines in this year, moving the mean upwards. In the Guide 2018 (0 %) the average for the whole sample is the same as for the average rating of organic wines.

Average ratings
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 9: Average rating per Guide and production method (author´s chart)Conventional wines got slightly lower ratings in three of the four analysed guides (15.5 points (- 0.64 %) in 2015; 16.1 points % (- 0.62 %) in 2016; 16.3 points (- 0.61) in 2017). Only in the guide 2018 the average ratings are the same. REF _Ref510886483 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 35 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511646751 h 77) provides an overview over the percental differences between the ratings.
Having a closer look at the ratings in detail it is to be pointed out that the lowest ratings for wine is 13 for the guides 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the guide 2014 12 points is the lowest rating. This means that the scale is not ranging from 0 to 20 but to 12 or 13 to 20. Readapting the scale to an 8-points scale for 2015 and a 7-points scale for the other guides the percentages are much higher (see REF _Ref511929648 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 8).
Difference in ratings Guide 2015 Guide 2016 Guide 2017 Guide 2018
biodynamic 11.11 % 15.63 % 11.76 % 15.15 %
organic 2.78 % -3.13 % 2.94 % 0 %
conventional -2.78 % -3.13 % -2.94 % 0 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 8: Percental difference to average ratings (points) in the different guides (author´s table)Median and distribution of ratings REF _Ref511646889 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 19 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647155 h 88), REF _Ref511647162 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 20 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647184 h 89), REF _Ref511647164 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 21 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647205 h 90) , REF _Ref511647165 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 22 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647215 h 91), REF _Ref511647166 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 15 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511647225 h 78) show the distribution of the ratings in boxplot graphs.
The distribution of the ratings for the Guide 2015 (see REF _Ref511646889 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 19, p. PAGEREF _Ref511837772 h 88) shows that the median for biodynamic and organic wines is equal with 16.0 points, whereas the median rating for conventional wines is 15.5 points. The distribution of ratings of organic wines is skewed left, therefore the ratings are not normally distributed and the third quartile only has a variation of 0.5 points and 25 % of all organic wines are rated either 16 of 16.5 points. The highest points in the Guide 2015 has been achieved by three conventional wines with 20 points. 19 points was the highest rating for organic and biodynamic wines for two wines each. The minimum of 12 points in the Guide 2015 was achieved by one biodynamic, one organic and ten conventional wines. The boxplots picture that even some of the conventional wines are rated higher, the median and mean of biodynamic and organic wines in average are rated higher. The statistical values of the ratings of the Guide 2015 are given in REF _Ref511917602 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 55 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511917606 h 89).

In the Guide 2016 (see REF _Ref511647162 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 20, p. PAGEREF _Ref511647184 h 89) the median of biodynamic wines is 17.0 points and therefore the highest compared to conventional and organic wines, both categories have a median rating of 16.0 points. The 2nd and 3rd quartiles are symmetric for conventional and organic wines, but the distribution of organic wines is skewed left. 25 % of the biodynamic wines are rated between 17.0 and 17.5 points. The minimum ratings are 13 points for 15 different conventional and 3 different organic wines. One biodynamic wine achieved a rating of 13.5 points, which is the minimum for biodynamic wines. The maximum rating in the Guide 2016 of 19.5 points was achieved by one organic, two biodynamic and nine conventional wines. The statistical values of the ratings of the Guide 2016 are given in REF _Ref511918114 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 56 (p. PAGEREF _Ref511918117 h 90).
The median ratings in the Guide 2017 (see REF _Ref511647164 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 21, p. PAGEREF _Ref511647205 h 90) are different for all three categories of wines. Biodynamic wines have a median rating of 17.0, followed by organic wines with a median rating of 16.5. The median for conventional wines is 16.0. Organic wines have a symmetric distribution in the 2nd and 3rd quartiles, whereas the middle 50 % of biodynamic wines are skewed left and the middle 50 % of conventional wines is skewed right. The minimum rating for one biodynamic wine and two organic wines is 13.5 points. Two conventional wines are rated with only 13 points, which is the minimum rating in the Guide 2017.
A similar distribution pattern as in the Guide 2017 is found in the Guide 2018 (see REF _Ref511647165 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 22, p. PAGEREF _Ref511647215 h 91). The median rating of biodynamic wines is 17 points, the median for organic wines is 16.5 points and the median for conventional wines is 16. Again, the ratings of organic wines do not show any skewness, whereas the biodynamic ratings are skewed left and ratings for conventional wines are skewed right. The minimum rating for biodynamic wines is 14 points, which was achieved by 8 biodynamic wines. 13.5 was the lowest rating for 6 organic wines. 3 conventional wines were rated with 13 points, which is the lowest rating for the whole Guide 2018.
All in all, it can be observed that in average the median points of biodynamic tend to be the highest, followed by the median organic wines. The median rating of conventional wines tends to be lower (see REF _Ref511916782 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 9).
biodynamic organic conventional
Guide 2015 16.0 16.0 15.5
Guide 2016 17.0 16.0 16.0
Guide 2017 17.0 16.5 16.0
Guide 2018 17.0 16.5 16.0
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 9: Median ratings (points) of wines (author´s table)Correlation of different production methods and ratingsTo prove that there is a correlation between the production method and the ratings achieved in the four analysed wine guides a Pearson´s correlation was performed. All outcomes are highly significant (p< 0.001). Anyway, in the Guide 2015 a very weak positive correlation can be observed, whereas the outcomes in the other three guides show very weak negative correlations (Guide 2015: r= 0.103, p< .001, n= 2374; Guide 2016: r= -.128, p< .001, n= 2103; Guide 2017: r= -.146, p< .001, n= 2015; Guide 2018: r= -.131, p< .001, n= 2175). The ANOVAs for all four guides show highly significant (p< .001) differences between the mean ratings of the differently produced wines (see REF _Ref512425167 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 59, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425241 h 93; REF _Ref512425170 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 62, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425259 h 94; REF _Ref512425175 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 65, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425266 h 95; REF _Ref512425183 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 68, p. PAGEREF _Ref512425272 h 96).

Anyway, the outcomes of the multiple comparisons for the Guide 2015 show a different pattern than for the other guides. In Guide 2015 biodynamic wines are rated higher than conventional ones, showing a high significance (p< .001). Furthermore, conventional wines are significantly (p< .05) rated lower than organic wines.
The patterns in the Guides 2016 to 2018 are similar to each other. In all three guides biodynamic wines, in average, achieved more points than organic wines. The outcomes are highly significant (p< .001) in the Guides 2016 and 2018 and significant in the Guide 2017 (p< .05). Biodynamic wines are rated higher than organic wines too, showing a high significance in all those three guides. The multiple comparisons do not show any significant difference in mean ratings between conventional and organic wines in the Guides 2016 and 2017 (p> .05). Anyway, in Guide 2017 the average rating of organic wines was better than the average rating for conventional wines. This outcome is significant too (p< 0.5).
Correlation between cellar-door prices and quality ratingsThe scatter diagrams (see REF _Ref512264100 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 23, p. PAGEREF _Ref512264720 h 97; REF _Ref512264332 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 24, p. PAGEREF _Ref512264726 h 98; REF _Ref512264334 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 25, p. PAGEREF _Ref512264733 h 99; REF _Ref512264336 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 26, p. PAGEREF _Ref512264740 h 100) provide a visual overview over the relation between cellar-door prices and ratings for all wines, without respect of the production method. The pattern of all the analysed guides indicate a positive correlation.
To provide further insight, a Spearman´s correlation was run to determine the relationship between cellar-door prices and ratings for the different production methods in the different years. The outcomes can be seen in REF _Ref512253646 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 71 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512264573 h 100). The significant Spearman´s correlation coefficient values show a moderate positive correlation in the Guide 2015 between rating and price for all the different production methods. Also, a moderate positive correlation can be observed for biodynamic wines in Guide 2017. In Guide 2017 organic and conventional wines show a strong positive correlation. A strong positive correlation can also be observed in the Guides 2016 and 2018 for all the wines. Thus, there is a strong statistical evidence that higher ratings are associated with higher prices.
Conclusion and RecommendationResearch aims and findingsThe aim of this research paper was to provide an insight of the status quo of the prices and quality differences of wines rated in the Gault&Millau Gudies 2015 to 2018 with special consideration of differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines.
Price differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional winesThe first research question was seeking to find out about possible price differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines. According to Schmücking CITATION Sch10 p 22
l 1031 (2010, p. 22) the Austrians have the prejudice that organic wines are more expensive than conventional ones, whereas the author states that this is only true for the entry-level wines and organic wines in the upper quality segment are even cheaper than conventional ones. Schmücking´s hypothesis was approved in the case of rated wines in the Gault&Millau wine guides 2015 to 2018.

The lowest prices for the rated organic wines were always higher than the lowest prices for the rated conventional wines. CITATION Bou11 p 5 l 1031 (Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2011, p. 5) stated that organic winegrowers, compared to conventional wineries, face more environmental risks, as well as quality risks since chemical grape treatments are forbidden. The aim to cover the costs of those risks might be a reason why also the cheapest organic wines are more expensive than the conventional wines. However, the most expensive organic wines rated in the four analysed guides were still cheaper than the most expensive conventional wines (see REF _Ref512158526 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 54, p. PAGEREF _Ref512294700 h 87).

Biodynamic wines have the highest minimum values in the cellar-door price in all four guides. The most expensive biodynamic wine is more expensive than all other organic and conventional wines in the Guides 2017 and 2018 whereas in the Guides 2015 and 2016 the most expensive biodynamic wine is cheaper than the most expensive conventional wine.
However, the mean cellar-door price of biodynamic wines is significantly higher in all four analysed guides. Comparing the mean cellar-door prices of organic and conventional wines, small differences were observed (see REF _Ref512159720 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 10). Anyway, there is no significant difference between the average cellar-door price of organic and conventional wines.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 10: Average cellar-door prices (€) (author´s chart)In the last years there was a huge trend towards biodynamic production in Austria. Besides the Demeter certification, which certifies different agricultural products, in 2007 a special association only for biodynamic wines was founded CITATION res15 l 3079 (respekt-BIODYN, 2015). Many biodynamic wineries that joined Demeter and especially Respekt within the last few years are quite renowned. Those well-known wineries might have higher cellar-door prices. This could have had a huge impact on the outcomes of this study.

Quality differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional winesThe second aim of the study was to find out about possible quality differences between biodynamic, organic and conventional wines and to compare the ratings achieved by the different wines.

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 11: Average ratings of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines (author´s chart)As mentioned before, possible reasons to convert to biodynamic methods could be improvement of quality CITATION Mei16 p 93 l 1031 (Meissner, 2016, p. 93). In fact, it could be observed that the average ratings of biodynamic wines are indeed the highest (see REF _Ref512161950 h * MERGEFORMAT Graph 11, p. PAGEREF _Ref512296607 h 43). Conventional wines achieved worse ratings than organic wines in the Guides 2015 and 2017. The other two guides do not show any significant difference in that matter.

Hence, it can be said that the quality of organic wines rated in the Gault&Millau guides 2015 and 2017, in average is higher than the quality of conventional wines and there is no difference in the Guides 2016 and 2018.

As discussed above, there are a lot of renowned wineries that converted to biodynamic production. This could have had an impact not only on the cellar-door prices of the rated wines but also on the ratings itself as it can be assumed that those well-known wineries also produce wines of high quality.

Correlation between cellar-door prices and ratingsA Spearman´s correlation was run to determine the relationship between cellar-door prices and ratings for the different production methods in the different years. The outcomes can be seen in REF _Ref512253646 h * MERGEFORMAT Table 71 (p. PAGEREF _Ref512264573 h 100). The significant Spearman´s correlation coefficient values show a moderate positive correlation in the Guide 2015 between rating and price for all the different production methods and therefore, Also, a moderate positive correlation can be observed for biodynamic wines in Guide 2017. In Guide 2017 organic and conventional wines show a strong positive correlation. A strong positive correlation can also be observed in the Guides 2016 and 2018 for all the wines. Thus, there is a strong statistical evidence that higher ratings are associated with higher prices.
Practical implicationsThe outcomes of this study could support winemakers and vintners with their decision about a possible conversion to a different production method. Better ratings, as well as an average higher cellar-door price for the wines rated in the analysed Gault&Millau guides might be an incentive for winemakers to apply biodynamic methods in vineyards and cellar.
Furthermore, the overview about the status quo can be supportive for the pricing strategy of wineries and help them in their own self-assessment according to their ratings and cellar-door prices.
In the end this paper could also provide facts and figures and therefore disproves prejudices that consumers and maybe even winemakers have towards organic and biodynamic wines.

Limitations of the researchFurthermore, some factors that might be influencing the wine ratings as well as the cellar-door prices were not considered in the statistical analysis:
The types of wines (red, white, rosé, sweet)
The vintage of the wines
The reputation of the producing winery
Additionally, the differences in regulations between the two associations Demeter and Respekt were not examined and members of both have been labelled as “biodynamic winery”.
Suggestions for further researchThis study gives only an overview over wines rated in the Gault&Millau Wein and Schnapps Guide 2015 to 2018. It might be interesting to gather a deeper insight about the changes and trends of the Gault&Millau Guides and therefore, analyse a bigger number of guides published in different years.
Furthermore, a statistical overview of other Austrian wine guides could be conducted to compare the different guides with each other and to possibly find out about certain preferences the jury or head publisher of the guides have. As the Gault&Millau wine guide is published in other countries also the comparison between different countries would be interesting to find out about preferences and trends in those countries.
List of ReferencesBIBLIOGRAPHYÁ la Carte. (2017). Mediadaten. Retrieved from www.alacarte.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Mediadaten/AlaCarte_Media_2016_klein.pdf, on 03.04.2018.

Á la Carte Wein-Führer. (2015). Anschreiben an Österreichische Weingüter für Wein-Führer 2016.
Amazon Inc. (2017). Gault&Millau Österreich 2018: Restaurant- und Weinguide. Retrieved from www.amazon.de/Gault-Millau-%C3%96sterreich-2018-Restaurant/dp/3950405321/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1513771473&sr=8-3&keywords=gault+%26+millau, on 08.07.2017.

Amazon Inc. (2017). Österreichs Gourmet-Führer A la Carte 2016: Die besten Restaurants Österreichs inkl. Delikatessen-Führer und Wein-Führer 2016. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.de/%C3%96sterreichs-Gourmet-F%C3%BChrer-Carte-2016-Delikatessen-F%C3%BChrer/dp/3902469609, on 20.12.2017.

Amazon Inc. (2017). VINARIA Weinguide 2017/18: Die 3600 besten Weine Österreichs. Retrieved 20.12.2017, from https://www.amazon.de/VINARIA-Weinguide-2017-18-%C3%96sterreichs/dp/395041634X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513771755&sr=8-1&keywords=vinaria+weinguide.

Amazon Inc. (2017). wein.pur Best of Austria 2016. Retrieved 20.12.2017, from https://www.amazon.de/wein-pur-Best-Austria-2016/dp/3704024937.

Bader, P. (2017). Gault Millau Daten. Retrieved 19.09.2017, via E-Mail from [email protected]

Bader, P. (2018). personal conversation.

Benfratello, L., Piacenza, M., & Sacchetto, S. (2009). Taste or reputation: what drives market prices in the wine industry? : estimation of a hedonic model for Italian premium wines. In In: Applied Economics 41/17 (pp. 2197-2209).

BIO Austria. (2018). Produktionsrichtlinien, Fassung März 2018. Retrieved from http://www.bio-austria.at/app/uploads/BIO-AUSTRIA_Produktionsrichtlinien_201803.pdf, on 03.04.2018.

Bouzdine-Chameeva, T. (2011). More risks or/and more benefits? Prospect theory application to the analysis of the bio wines evolution in France. 6th AWBR International Conference.
Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá, M. M.-C. (2005). Determination of the surplus that consumers are willing to pay for an organic wine. In Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research (pp. 43-51).

Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. (2016). Grüner Bericht.
Castellini, A., Mauracher, C., & Troiano, S. (2017). An overview of the biodynamic wine sector. In International Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 9 (pp. 23-33).

Charter, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2007). The dimensions of wine quality. In Food Quality and Preference 18 (pp. 997-1007).

Cohen, E. (2009). Applying best?worst scaling to wine marketing. In International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 Issue: 1 (pp. 8-23).

Cult Wines – Solutions for Fine Wine. (2017). Wine Critics. Retrieved 18.12.2017, from http://www.wineinvestment.com/wine-investment/wine-critics.

Danner, L., Johnson, T. E., Ristic, R., Meiselman, H. L., & Bastian, S. E. (2017). “I like the sound of that!” Wine descriptions influence consumers’ expectations, liking, and willingness to pay for Australian white wine. In Food Research International, Vol. 99 (pp. 263-274).

Delmas, M. (2008). Perception of Eco-Labels: Organic and Biodynamic Wines.
Delmas, M. A., & Grant, L. E. (2014). Eco-Labelling Strategies and Price-Premium: A Wine Industry Puzzle. In Business and Society Vol 53(1) (pp. 6-44).

Demeter International. (2017). Statistics. Retrieved 09.07.2017, from http://www.demeter.net/statistics.

Demeter-Bund, Ö. (2017). Vertragslandwirte/-Imker. Retrieved from www.biodynamisch.at/tl_files/listen/landwirte.pdf, on 15.01.2018.

Dressler, M. (2016). Strategic winery reputaion management – exploring German wine guides. In International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 28 Issue: 1, (pp. 4-21).

Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. (1985). The Role of Price in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 12, pp. 195-199.

Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH. (2016). Weinguide 2016/17.
Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH. (2017). Anmeldung für Weingüter. Retrieved on 18.12.2017, from https://simplebiz.falstaff.at.

Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH. (2017). Falstaff Guides und Bücher. Retrieved from https://www.falstaff.at/guides, on 08.07.2017.

Falstaff-Verlags-GesmbH. (2017). Mediadaten.
Forbes, S. L., Cohen, D. A., Cullen, R., Wratten, S. D., & Fountain, J. (2009). Consumer Attitudes Regarding Environmentally Sustainable Wine: An Exploratory Study of the New Zealand Marketplace. In Journal of Cleaner Production 17(13) (pp. 1195-1199).

Gattermaier, K. (2017). Mediadaten. Retreived 10.07.2017, via E-Mail from [email protected]

Gault & Millau. (2016). Wein- und Schnaps-Guide zum Gault & Millau Österreich 2016.
Gault & Millau. (2016). Wein- und Schnaps-Guide zum GaultMillau Österreich 2016.
Golger, P. (2017). Mediadaten. Retreived 12.07.2017, via E-Mail from [email protected]

Hurter, U. (2016). Zur Geschichte des biodynamischen Impulses. In U. Hurter, Agrikultur für die Zukunft (pp. 11-22). Der Verlag am Goetheanum.

InfoXgen. (2017). Herstellung von Bio-Wein/Richtlinien 2017. Retrieved from www.infoxgen.com/images/stories/HerstellungBioWein2018.pdf, on 03.04.2018.

Jakabb, A. (2017). Wein kaufen im Supermarkt 2018. Wien: Hubert Krenn VerlagsgesmbH.

Johnson, H., & Robinson, J. (2013). World Atlas of Wine – 7th edition. London: Octupus Publishing Group Ltd.

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. (2009). Verordnung (EG) Nr. 606/2009 der Kommission.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. Worth, & L. Gross, International encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1) (pp. 403-407). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH. (2017). Rechnung, Weingut Mantlerhof.

LW Werbe- und Verlags GmbH. (2017). Vinaria Weinguide.
Masson, P. (2016). Die biologisch-dynamischen Präparate. In U. Hurter, Agrikultur für die Zukunft (pp. 44-62). Der Verlag am Goetheanum.

Meissner, G. (2015). Untersuchungen zu verschiedenen Bewirtschaftungssystemen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der biologisch-dynamischen Wirtschaftsweise und des Einsatzes der biologisch-dynamischen Präparate.
Meissner, G. (2016). Fragen des biodynamischen Weinbaus. In U. Hurter, Agrikultur für die Zukunft (pp. 92-102). Der Verlag am Goetheanum.

Moore, V. (2017). The truth about wine awards: why medals don’t mean great bottles. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/11617630/The-truth-about-wine-awards-why-medals-dont-mean-great-bottles.html, on 18.01.2018. Retrieved from Retrieved on 18.12.2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/11617630/The-truth-about-wine-awards-why-medals-dont-mean-great-bottles.html
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Louviere, J., Francis, L., & Osidacz, P. (2009). How does shelf information influence consumers’ wine choice?
Oczkowski, E. (2017). The preferences and prejudices of Australian wine critics. In Journal of Wine Research, 28:1 (pp. 56-67).

Ogbeide, O. A. (2015). Consumer Willingness to Pay a Premium for Organic Wine: Discriminant analysis. In Mayfair Journal of Agribusiness Management 1(1) (pp. 24-42).

Olsen, J., Thach, L., & Hemphill, L. (2012). The impact of environmental protection and hedonistic values on organic wine purchases in the US. In International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 24, Issue 1 (pp. 47-67).

Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2017). Salon Konzept 2017.
Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2018). Anschreiben Winzer-Admin. letter to Weingut Sepp Moser.

Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2018). Betriebe. Retrieved from www.oesterreichwein.at/suche/betriebe, on 29.03.2018.

Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2018). Österreich Wein Intensiv. Retrieved from www.oesterreichwein.at/presse-multimedia/broschueren/schulungsunterlagen, on 16.04.2018.

Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2018). Wachau – Steile Terrassen, edle Rebsorten, monumentale Weine. Retrieved from www.oesterreichwein.at/unser-wein/weinbaugebiete/niederoesterreich/wachau, on 21.04.2018.

Österreich Wein Marketing GmbH. (2018). Weingartenfläche und Flächenanteile der Rebsorten nach Weinbaugebieten. In Dokumentation Österreich Wein 2016/2017 (pp. 4-32). Retrieved from www.oesterreichwein.at/presse-multimedia/statistik, on 07.03.2018.

Österreich Wein MarketingGmbH. (2016). Austria’s Vintages 1986-2016. Retrieved from www.austrianwine.com/our-wine/austrias-vintages-1986-2016/, on 20.07.2017.

Österreichischer Demeter-Bund. (2006). Rahmenrichtlinien Demeter Kellereiwesen Österreich.
Pirri, A. (2017). Jubiläumsausgabe wein.pur Guide „Best of Austria”. Retrieved 18.12.2017, via E-Mail, [email protected]

Rat der Europäischen Union. (2007). VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 834/2007 DES RATES.
respekt – BIODYN. (2017). Unsere Mitglieder. Retrieved from www.respekt-biodyn.bio/de/unsere-mitglieder.html, on 15.01.2018.

Rivlin, G. (2006). In Vino Veritas? – Wine Ratings Might Not Pass the Sobriety Test. New York Times.

Roberts, P. W., ; Reagans, R. (2007). Critical Exposure and Price-Quality Relationships for New World Wines in the U.S. Market. In Journal of Wine Economics, Volume 2, Number 1 (pp. 56-69).

Robinson, J. (1997). Tasting pleasure: Confessions of a wine lover. London: Penguin Books Limited.

Salvinett, C. (2017). VINARIA 2018 Mediadaten. Retrieved via E-Mail from [email protected], on 04.12.2017.

Schiefer, J., ; Fischer, C. (2008). The gap between wine expert ratings and consumer preferences. In International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 20 Iss 4 (pp. 335-351).

Schmücking, J. (2010). Grüne Welle am Bio-Weinmarkt. Ökologie ; Landbau, 21-23.

Schwaiger, M., Hofer, O., Fehrer, R., ; Brier, K. (2016). Grüner Bericht. Wien: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.

Siegl, V. (2015). Die besten Weine Österreichs. Wien: Braumüller GmbH.

Steirische Spezialitäten Magazin. (2018). Schilcher (Blauer Wildbacher). Retrieved from www.steirische-spezialitaeten.at/wein/rotwein/schilcher-blauer-wildbacher.html, on 16.04.2016.

Stolz, H., ; Schmid, O. (2008). Consumer attitudes and expectations of organic wine. 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress. Modena.

Tassoni, A., Tango, M., ; Ferri, N. (2013). Comparison of biogenic amine and polyphenol profiles of grape berries and wine obtained following conventional, organic and biodynamic agricultural and oenological practices. In Food Chemistry 139 (pp. 405-413).

Time Inc. (UK) Ltd. Decanter. (2015). Chateau Palmer to be certified biodynamic by 2017. Retrieved from www.decanter.com/wine-news/chateau-palmer-to-be-certified-biodynamic-by-2017-1009, on 29.07.2017.

Tucek, W. (2016). Österreichs beste Weissweine. Wien: Wirt + Winzer.

Villanueva-Rey, P., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Moreira, M. T., ; Feijoo, G. (2014). Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 330-341.

White, M. D., ; Marsh, E. (2006). Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology. In Library Trends; Vol. 55, No.1 (“Research Medhods”, edited by Lynda M. Baker) (pp. 22-45). The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois.

Wiedmann, K. P., Hennings, N., Behrens, S., ; Klarmann, C. (2014). Tasting green: an experimental design for investigating consumer perception of organic wine. British Food Journal, 197-211.

Wirt + Winzer. (2017). Die Wein Guides – Für die Gastronomie! Retrieved from www.wuw.co.at/die-wein-guides, on 18.12.2017.

AnnexList of AppendiciesAnnex I General overview
Graphs
Graph 12: Rated wineries per wine region, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428691 h 611
Graph 13: Rated wineries per wine region, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428692 h 622
Graph 14: Rated wineries per wine region, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428693 h 644
Tables
Table 10: Sample size for price-relevant analysis PAGEREF _Toc512428716 h 600
Table 11: Mean cellar-door price and rating per wine region, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428717 h 600
Table 12: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428718 h 611
Table 13: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428719 h 622
Table 14: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428720 h 633
Table 15: Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428721 h 655
Table 16: Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428722 h 666
Table 17: Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428723 h 677
Table 18: Biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries, Guide 201868
Table 19: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Guide 201569
Table 20: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428726 h 700
Table 21: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428727 h 711
Table 22: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428728 h 722
Table 23: ANOVA of size of wineries between different production methods, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428729 h 733
Table 24: Multiple comparisons: winery size and production method, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428730 h 733
Table 25: Mean size of wineries per production method, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428731 h 733
Table 26: ANOVA of size of wineries between different production methods, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428732 h 744
Table 27: Multiple comparisons: Winery size and production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428733 h 744
Table 28: Mean size of wineries per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428734 h 744
Table 29: ANOVA of size of wineries between different production methods, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428735 h 755
Table 30: Multiple comparisons: Winery size and production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428736 h 755
Table 31: Mean size of wineries per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428737 h 755
Table 32: ANOVA of size of wineries between different production methods, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428738 h 766
Table 33: Multiple comparisons: Winery size and production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428739 h 766
Table 34: Mean size of wineries per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428740 h 766
Table 35: Difference between average rating of all wines and average rating of different production methods in percent PAGEREF _Toc512428741 h 777
Table 36: Average rating with adjusted rating scale PAGEREF _Toc512428742 h 777
Annex II Cellar-door prices
Graphs
Graph 15: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 201578
Graph 16: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 201679
Graph 17: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428696 h 800
Graph 18: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428697 h 811
Tables
Table 37: Difference between average cellar-door price and average cellar-door price of different production methods7 PAGEREF _Toc512428743 h 78Table 38: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 201579Table 39: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428745 h 800
Table 40: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428746 h 811
Table 41: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428747 h 822
Table 42: ANOVA of cellar-door prices between different production methods, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428748 h 833
Table 43: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428749 h 833
Table 44: Mean cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428750 h 833
Table 45: ANOVA of cellar-door prices between different production methods, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428751 h 844
Table 46: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428752 h 844
Table 47: Mean cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428753 h 844
Table 48: ANOVA of cellar-door prices between different production methods, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428754 h 855
Table 49: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428755 h 855
Table 50: Mean cellar-door price per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428756 h 855
Table 51: ANOVA of cellar-door prices between different production methods, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428757 h 866
Table 52: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428758 h 866
Table 53: Mean cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428759 h 866
Table 54: Highest and lowest cellar-door prices of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines in the different Guides PAGEREF _Toc512428760 h 877
Annex III Ratings
Graphs
Graph 19: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 201588Graph 20: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 20168 PAGEREF _Toc512428699 h 89Graph 21: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428700 h 900
Graph 22: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428701 h 911
Tables
Table 55: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 20158 PAGEREF _Toc512428761 h 89Table 56: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428762 h 900
Table 57: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428763 h 911
Table 58: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428764 h 922
Table 59: ANOVA of ratings between different production methods, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428765 h 933
Table 60: Multiple comparisons: Wine ratings per production method, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428766 h 933
Table 61: Mean ratings per production method, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428767 h 933
Table 62: ANOVA of ratings between different production methods, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428768 h 944
Table 63: Multiple comparisons: Wine ratings per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428769 h 944
Table 64: Mean ratings per production method, Guide 2016 PAGEREF _Toc512428770 h 944
Table 65: ANOVA of ratings between different production methods, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428771 h 955
Table 66: Multiple comparisons: Wine ratings per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428772 h 955
Table 67: Mean ratings per production method, Guide 2017 PAGEREF _Toc512428773 h 955
Table 68: ANOVA of ratings between different production methods, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428774 h 966
Table 69: Multiple comparisons: Wine ratings per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428775 h 966
Table 70: Mean ratings per production method, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428776 h 966
Annex IV Correlation cellar-door prices and ratings
Graphs
Graph 23: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings and cellar-door prices, Guide 2015 PAGEREF _Toc512428702 h 977
Graph 24: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings and cellar-door prices, Guide 201698
Graph 25: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings and cellar-door prices, Guide 201799
Graph 26: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings and cellar-door prices, Guide 2018 PAGEREF _Toc512428705 h 1000
Tables
Table 71: Spearman´s correlation between cellar-door prices and ratings per production method PAGEREF _Toc512428777 h 100Annex I General overviewGault ; Millau Wine Guide Number of rated wines Cellar-door prices missing
2015 2,333 41
2016 2,082 21
2017 1,994 21
2018 2,137 38
Total 8,546 121
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 10: Sample size for price-relevant analysis (author´s table)Price (€) Rating
Mean Mean
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 28,00 14,8
Carnumtum 15,27 15,4
Kamptal 16,88 15,8
Kremstal 13,51 15,5
Mittelburgenland 17,77 15,9
Neusiedlersee 17,87 15,7
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 18,29 15,7
Südburgenland 15,11 16,5
Südoststeiermark 14,30 15,3
Südsteiermark 18,15 15,8
Thermenregion 14,56 15,2
Traisental 11,01 15,5
Wachau 21,78 16,3
Wagram 11,65 15,2
Weinviertel 11,67 14,9
Weststeiermark 8,33 14,0
Wien 14,20 15,2
Total average 15.93 15.6
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 11: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2015 (author´s table)Price (€) Rating
Mean Mean
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 30,00 17,5
Carnumtum 18,05 16,1
Kamptal 17,55 16,5
Kremstal 13,98 16,0
Mittelburgenland 20,28 16,3
Neusiedlersee 19,70 16,3
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 19,18 16,1
Südburgenland 16,73 16,5
Südoststeiermark 14,75 15,6
Südsteiermark 18,70 16,0
Thermenregion 15,84 15,8
Traisental 12,45 15,8
Wachau 24,48 17,4
Wagram 13,08 15,9
Weinviertel 12,02 15,7
Weststeiermark 8,67 15,3
Wien 15,16 15,6
Total average 17.37 16.2
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 12: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2016 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 12: Rated wineries per wine region, Guide 2016 (author´s chart)Price (€) Rating
Mean Mean
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 32,00 17,5
Carnumtum 17,34 16,1
Kamptal 17,64 16,3
Kremstal 15,31 16,2
Mittelburgenland 20,91 17,0
Neusiedlersee 20,68 16,8
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 18,29 16,4
Südburgenland 16,44 17,0
Südoststeiermark 16,24 15,9
Südsteiermark 19,70 16,4
Thermenregion 17,71 16,1
Traisental 12,32 15,7
Wachau 21,82 16,8
Wagram 12,48 16,3
Weinviertel 12,69 16,0
Weststeiermark 13,78 14,9
Wien 17,02 15,7
Total average 17.35 16.4
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 13: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2017 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 13: Rated wineries per wine region, Guide 2017 (author´s chart)Price Rating
Mean Mean
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 31,25 17,3
Carnumtum 16,69 16,1
Kamptal 18,94 16,7
Kremstal 15,77 16,2
Mittelburgenland 19,37 16,6
Neusiedlersee 18,16 16,3
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 18,94 16,6
Südburgenland 16,28 16,8
Südoststeiermark 15,11 15,6
Südsteiermark 19,37 16,4
Thermenregion 16,78 16,4
Traisental 13,18 16,1
Wachau 24,07 16,9
Wagram 12,55 16,2
Weinviertel 13,20 15,5
Weststeiermark 7,20 14,4
Wien 17,41 15,9
Total average 17.34 16.3
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 14: Mean cellar-door price (€) and rating per wine region, Guide 2018 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 14: Rated wineries per region, Guide 2018 (author´s chart)Guide 2015 Biodynamic Organic Conventional Total
Bergland 1 1
Carnumtum 1 14 15
Kamptal 1 1 16 18
Kremstal 3 21 24
Mittelburgenland 2 3 17 22
Neusiedlersee 9 4 20 33
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 3 4 17 24
Südburgenland 8 8
Südoststeiermark 1 2 5 8
Südsteiermark 4 4 17 25
Thermenregion 1 6 10 17
Traisental 1 5 6
Wachau 23 23
Wagram 3 2 9 14
Weinviertel 3 4 26 33
Weststeiermark 2 2
Wien 2 2 8 12
Total 29 37 219 285
Percentage 10.18 % 12.98 % 76.84 % 100 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 15: Number of biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries in Gault;Millau Guide 2015 (author´s table)Guide 2016 Biodynamic Organic Conventional Total
Bergland 1 1
Carnumtum 1 14 15
Kamptal 2 2 16 20
Kremstal 1 3 24 28
Mittelburgenland 1 1 19 21
Neusiedlersee 8 5 21 34
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 2 6 18 26
Südburgenland 11 11
Südoststeiermark 1 2 6 9
Südsteiermark 4 5 19 28
Thermenregion 1 6 9 16
Traisental 1 5 6
Wachau 1 23 24
Wagram 4 3 8 15
Weinviertel 4 4 22 30
Weststeiermark 3 3
Wien 2 1 11 14
Total 31 40 230 301
Percentage 10.30 % 13.29 % 76.41 % 100 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 16: Number of biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries in Gault;Millau Guide 2016 (author´s table)Guide 2017 Biodynamic Organic Conventional Total
Bergland 1 1
Carnumtum 14 14
Kamptal 2 2 16 20
Kremstal 3 24 27
Mittelburgenland 1 2 18 21
Neusiedlersee 10 5 18 33
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 2 6 18 26
Südburgenland 9 9
Südoststeiermark 1 2 6 9
Südsteiermark 5 3 16 24
Thermenregion 1 6 8 15
Traisental 1 5 6
Wachau 1 22 23
Wagram 4 4 8 16
Weinviertel 3 5 22 30
Weststeiermark 4 4
Wien 2 1 10 13
Total 32 40 219 291
Percentage 10.10 % 13.75 % 75.25 % 100 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 17: Number of biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries in Gault;Millau Guide 2017 (author´s table)Guide 2018 Biodynamic Organic Conventional Total
Bergland 2 2
Carnumtum 14 14
Kamptal 2 1 15 18
Kremstal 1 5 24 30
Mittelburgenland 1 2 15 18
Neusiedlersee 9 3 19 31
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 2 6 19 27
Südburgenland 10 10
Südoststeiermark 1 2 6 9
Südsteiermark 4 3 18 25
Thermenregion 1 7 8 16
Traisental 1 7 8
Wachau 1 23 24
Wagram 4 4 7 15
Weinviertel 5 4 24 33
Weststeiermark 2 2
Wien 2 1 8 11
Total 33 39 221 293
Percentage 11.26 % 13.31 % 75.43 % 100 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 18: Number of biodynamic, organic and conventional wineries in Gault;Millau Guide 2018 (author´s table)Gault;Millau Guide 2015 Mean Size (ha)
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 3,00
Carnumtum 17,89
Kamptal 35,97
Kremstal 72,59
Mittelburgenland 36,22
Neusiedlersee 25,03
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 23,81
Südburgenland 11,16
Südoststeiermark 24,13
Südsteiermark 30,50
Thermenregion 21,07
Traisental 15,91
Wachau 33,27
Wagram 17,22
Weinviertel 20,46
Weststeiermark 35,78
Mean: 26.78 Wien 31,20
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 19: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Gault;Millau Guide 2015 (author´s table)Gault;Millau Guide 2016 Mean Size (ha)
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 3,00
Carnumtum 19,25
Kamptal 34,57
Kremstal 58,95
Mittelburgenland 40,86
Neusiedlersee 24,66
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 18,35
Südburgenland 9,97
Südoststeiermark 23,08
Südsteiermark 28,73
Thermenregion 28,61
Traisental 17,84
Wachau 36,24
Wagram 21,78
Weinviertel 21,96
Weststeiermark 32,15
Mean: 26.59 Wien 32,03
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 20: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Gault;Millau Guide 2016 (author´s table)Gault;Millau Guide 2017 Mean Size (ha)
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 3,00
Carnumtum 20,30
Kamptal 35,98
Kremstal 59,02
Mittelburgenland 41,67
Neusiedlersee 26,00
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 17,34
Südburgenland 9,95
Südoststeiermark 23,54
Südsteiermark 30,06
Thermenregion 30,47
Traisental 20,98
Wachau 37,91
Wagram 21,15
Weinviertel 23,88
Weststeiermark 21,74
Mean: 26.81 Wien 32,80
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 21: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Gault;Millau Guide 2017 (author´s table)Gault;Millau Guide 2018 Mean Size (ha)
Wine Region Bergland Österreich 2,00
Carnumtum 19,66
Kamptal 36,85
Kremstal 48,51
Mittelburgenland 41,40
Neusiedlersee 24,88
Neusiedlersee-Hügelland 22,88
Südburgenland 11,13
Südoststeiermark 22,81
Südsteiermark 29,63
Thermenregion 29,12
Traisental 17,91
Wachau 32,34
Wagram 23,24
Weinviertel 22,59
Weststeiermark 25,69
Mean: 26.11 Wien 32,72
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 22: Mean size of the wineries per wine region, Gault;Millau Guide 2017 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 20108,741 2 10054,370 1,877 ,153
Within Groups 12702689,534 2371 5357,524 Total 12722798,275 2373 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 23: ANOVA of size of wineries (ha) between different production methods, Guide 2015 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in ha (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 1,601 6,471 ,970
conventional -6,037 5,199 ,510
organic biodynamic -1,601 6,471 ,970
conventional -7,638 4,543 ,243
conventional biodynamic 6,037 5,199 ,510
organic 7,638 4,543 ,243
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 24: Multiple comparisons of winery size (ha) and production method, Guide 2015 (author´s table)Guide 2015 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
Mean (ha)
organic 302 23,69
biodynamic 222 25,29
conventional 1850 31,33
Sig. ,376
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 25: Mean size of wineries per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 18667,087 2 9333,544 1,969 ,140
Within Groups 9953761,789 2100 4739,887 Total 9972428,876 2102 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 26: ANOVA of size of wineries (ha) between different production methods, Guide 2016 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in ha (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 4,317 6,137 ,781
conventional -4,096 4,894 ,705
organic biodynamic -4,317 6,137 ,781
conventional -8,413 4,435 ,166
conventional biodynamic 4,096 4,894 ,705
organic 8,413 4,435 ,166
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 27: Multiple comparisons of winery size (ha) and production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)Guide 2016 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
Mean (ha)
organic 284 22,89
biodynamic 226 27,21
conventional 1593 31,30
Sig. ,271
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 28: Mean size (ha) of wineries per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 20465,251 2 10232,625 2,083 ,125
Within Groups 9882795,903 2012 4911,926 Total 9903261,153 2014 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 29: ANOVA of size of wineries (ha) between different production methods, Guide 2017 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in ha (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 2,932 6,191 ,894
conventional -5,444 4,973 ,549
organic biodynamic -2,932 6,191 ,894
conventional -8,376 4,491 ,176
conventional biodynamic 5,444 4,973 ,549
organic 8,376 4,491 ,176
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 30: Multiple comparisons of winery size (ha) and production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)Guide 2017 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
Mean (ha)
organic 291 24,04
biodynamic 229 26,97
conventional 1495 32,41
Sig. ,283
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 31: Mean size (ha) of wineries per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12468,281 2 6234,141 1,577 ,207
Within Groups 8586969,593 2172 3953,485 Total 8599437,874 2174 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 32: ANOVA of size of wineries (ha) between different production methods, Guide 2018 (author´s chart)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in ha (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 1,539 5,366 ,960
conventional -4,582 4,265 ,562
organic biodynamic -1,539 5,366 ,960
conventional -6,120 3,935 ,299
conventional biodynamic 4,582 4,265 ,562
organic 6,120 3,935 ,299
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 33: Multiple comparisons of winery size (ha) and production method, Guide 2018 (author´s table)Guide 2018 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1
organic 303 24,35
biodynamic 251 25,89
conventional 1621 30,47
Sig. ,407
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 34: Mean size (ha) of wineries per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s table)Differences in ratings Guide 2015 Guide 2016 Guide 2017 Guide 2018
biodynamic 2.56 % 3.09 % 2.44 % 3.07 %
organic 0.64 % -0.62 % 0.61 % 0 %
conventional -0.64 % -0.62 % -0.61 % 0 %
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 35: Difference between average rating of all wines and average rating of different production methods in percent (author´s table)Ratings new scale Guide 2015 Guide 2016 Guide 2017 Guide 2018
biodynamic 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8
organic 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.3
conventional 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.3
general 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.3
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 36: Average rating with adjusted rating scale (author´s table)Annex II Cellar-door pricesDifference in price (%) Guide 2015 Guide 2016 Guide 2017 Guide 2018
biodynamic 20.03 20.50 18.87 18.30
organic -1.13 -2.99 -0.06 -3.84
Conventional -2.13 -2.25 -2.85 -2.07
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 37: Difference between average cellar-door price and average cellar-door price of different production methods in percent (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 15: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s chart)Guide 2015 biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 213 295 1,825 2,333
Missing 9 7 25 41
Mean 19.12 15,75 15.59 15.92
Median 16.00 14.00 13.00 13.50
Minimum 6.50 4.90 4.50 4.50
Maximum 79.96 54.00 132.00 132.00
Skewness 1.879 1.321 3.184 2.896
Percentiles 25 11.60 9.50 8.90 9.00
50 16.00 14.00 13.00 13.50
75 24.00 19.50 19.00 19.80
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 38: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2015 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 16: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s chart)Guide 2016 biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 218 284 1,580 2,082
Missing 8 0 13 21
Mean 20.93 16.84 16.98 17.38
Median 18.00 15.25 14.00 14.50
Minimum 6.5 5.50 5.00 5.00
Maximum 90.00 111.00 120.00 120.00
Skewness 2.002 3.571 2.306 2.402
Percentiles 25 12.00 9.93 9.50 9.58
50 18.00 15.25 14.00 14.50
75 27.00 19.80 21.50 22.00
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 39: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2016 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 17: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s chart)Guide 2017 biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 226 287 1,481 1,994
Missing 3 4 14 21
Mean 20.85 17.53 17.04 17.54
Median 18.05 16.00 14.50 15.00
Minimum 6.15 5.50 4.70 4.70
Maximum 125.00 68.00 90.00 125.00
Skewness 3.404 1.707 1.966 2.225
Percentiles 25 12.50 10.00 9.50 9.90
50 18.05 16.00 14.50 15.00
75 25.00 21.00 22.00 22.00
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 40: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2017 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 18: Boxplot of the cellar-door prices per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s chart)Guide 2018 biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 243 293 1,601 2,137
Missing 8 10 20 38
Mean 20.62 16.76 17.07 17.43
Median 18.00 15.00 14.20 15.00
Minimum 6.15 5.30 4.70 4.70
Maximum 125.00 60.00 120.00 125.00
Skewness 3.275 1.609 2.479 2.560
Percentiles 25 12.40 9.80 9.50 9.90
50 18.00 15.00 14.20 15.00
75 25.00 20.45 21.95 22.00
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 41: Statistical values of the cellar-door prices in Guide 2018 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2395,993 2 1197,996 12,004 ,000
Within Groups 232524,734 2330 99,796 Total 234920,727 2332 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 42: ANOVA of cellar-door prices (€) between different production methods, Guide 2015 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in € (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 3,37566* ,89823 ,001
conventional 3,53588* ,72333 ,000
organic biodynamic -3,37566* ,89823 ,001
conventional ,16022 ,62688 ,968
conventional biodynamic -3,53588* ,72333 ,000
organic -,16022 ,62688 ,968
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 43: Multiple comparisons between cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s table)Guide 2015 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
conventional 1825 15,5866 organic 295 15,7468 biodynamic 213 19,1224
Sig. ,978 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 44: Mean cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3080,288 2 1540,144 12,929 ,000
Within Groups 247655,259 2079 119,122 Total 250735,546 2081 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 45: ANOVA of cellar-door prices (€) between different production methods, Guide 2016 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in € (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 4,08006* ,98279 ,000
conventional 3,95031* ,78856 ,000
organic biodynamic -4,08006* ,98279 ,000
conventional -,12975 ,70345 ,983
conventional biodynamic -3,95031* ,78856 ,000
organic ,12975 ,70345 ,983
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 46: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)Guide 2016 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
organic 284 16,8493 conventional 1580 16,9791 biodynamic 218 20,9294
Sig. ,988 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 47: Mean cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2848,241 2 1424,120 12,962 ,000
Within Groups 218755,180 1991 109,872 Total 221603,420 1993 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 48: ANOVA of cellar-door prices (€) between different production methods, Guide 2017 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in € (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 3,32019* ,93220 ,002
conventional 3,81127* ,74856 ,000
organic biodynamic -3,32019* ,93220 ,002
conventional ,49108 ,67603 ,768
conventional biodynamic -3,81127* ,74856 ,000
organic -,49108 ,67603 ,768
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 49: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)Guide 2017 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
conventional 1481 17,0403 organic 287 17,5314 biodynamic 226 20,8515
Sig. ,826 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 50: Mean cellar-door price (€) per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2811,155 2 1405,578 12,278 ,000
Within Groups 244291,912 2134 114,476 Total 247103,067 2136 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 51: ANOVA of cellar-door prices (€) between different production methods, Guide 2018 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference in € (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic 3,86105* ,92833 ,000
conventional 3,54908* ,73661 ,000
organic biodynamic -3,86105* ,92833 ,000
conventional -,31196 ,67986 ,900
conventional biodynamic -3,54908* ,73661 ,000
organic ,31196 ,67986 ,900
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 52: Multiple comparisons of cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s table)Guide 2018 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
organic 293 16,7577 conventional 1601 17,0696 biodynamic 243 20,6187
Sig. ,925 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 53: Mean cellar-door prices (€) per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s table)biodynamic organic conventional
Guide 2015 max. 79.96 54.00 132.00
min. 6.50 4.90 4.50
Guide 2016 max. 90.00 111.00 120.00
min. 6.50 5.50 5.00
Guide 2017 max. 6.15 5.50 4.70
min. 125.00 68.00 90.00
Guide 2018 max. 125.00 60.00 120.00
min. 6.15 5.30 4.70
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 54: Highest and lowest cellar-door prices (€) of biodynamic, organic and conventional wines in the different Guides (author´s table)Annex III Ratings

Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 19: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s chart)biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 222 302 1850 2374
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 15.960 15.725 15.497 15.570
Median 16.0 16.0 15.5 15.5
Minimum 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Maximum 19.0 19.0 20.0 20.0
Skewness -.205 -.067 .306 .208
Percentiles 25 15.0 15.0 14.5 14.5
50 16.0 16.0 15.5 15.5
75 17.0 16.5 16.5 16.5
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 55: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2015 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 20: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s chart)biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 226 284 1,593 2,103
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 16.748 16.081 16.103 16.170
Median 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Minimum 13.5 13.0 13.0 13.0
Maximum 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5
Skewness -.091 .131 .185 .122
Percentiles 25 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
50 17.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
75 17.5 17.0 17.0 17.0
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 56: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2016 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 21: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s chart)biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 229 291 1,495 2,015
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 16.821 16.46 16.263 16.35
Median 17.0 16.5 16.0 16.5
Minimum 13.5 13.5 13.0 13.0
Maximum 19.0 19.0 20.0 20.0
Skewness -.198 .110 .184 .111
Percentiles 25 16.0 15.5 15.5 15.5
50 17.0 16.5 16.0 16.5
75 17.5 17.5 17.0 17.0
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 57: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2017 (author´s table)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 22: Boxplot of ratings per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s chart)biodynamic organic conventional all wines
N Valid 251 303 1,621 2,175
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 16.765 16.292 16.213 16.288
Median 17.0 16.5 16.0 16.5
Minimum 14.0 13.5 13.0 13.0
Maximum 20.0 19.0 20.0 20.0
Skewness -.214 -.155 .137 .050
Percentiles 25 16.0 15.5 15.5 15.5
50 17.0 16.5 16.0 16.5
75 17.5 17.0 17.0 17.0
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 58: Statistical values of the ratings in Guide 2018 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 50,907 2 25,453 12,829 ,000
Within Groups 4704,145 2371 1,984 Total 4755,052 2373 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 59: ANOVA of ratings (points) between different production methods, Guide 2015 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference of Ratings (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic ,2352 ,1245 ,168
conventional ,4632* ,1000 ,000
organic biodynamic -,2352 ,1245 ,168
conventional ,2280* ,0874 ,034
conventional biodynamic -,4632* ,1000 ,000
organic -,2280* ,0874 ,034
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 60: Multiple comparisons of wine ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s table)Guide 2015 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
conventional 1850 15,497 organic 302 15,725 15,725
biodynamic 222 15,960
Sig. ,095 ,082
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 61: Mean ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2015 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 84,792 2 42,396 24,918 ,000
Within Groups 3573,024 2100 1,701 Total 3657,816 2102 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 62: ANOVA of ratings (points) between different production methods, Guide 2016 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference of Ratings (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic ,6668* ,1163 ,000
conventional ,6445* ,0927 ,000
organic biodynamic -,6668* ,1163 ,000
conventional -,0223 ,0840 ,965
conventional biodynamic -,6445* ,0927 ,000
organic ,0223 ,0840 ,965
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 63: Multiple comparisons of wine ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)Guide 2016 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
organic 284 16,081 conventional 1593 16,103 biodynamic 226 16,748
Sig. ,975 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 64: Mean ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2016 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 65,554 2 32,777 22,557 ,000
Within Groups 2923,632 2012 1,453 Total 2989,185 2014 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 65: ANOVA of ratings (points) between different production methods, Guide 2017 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference of Ratings (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic ,3605* ,1065 ,003
conventional ,5577* ,0855 ,000
organic biodynamic -,3605* ,1065 ,003
conventional ,1973* ,0772 ,039
conventional biodynamic -,5577* ,0855 ,000
organic -,1973* ,0772 ,039
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 66: Multiple comparisons of wine ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)Guide 2017 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
conventional 1495 16,263 organic 291 16,460 biodynamic 229 16,821
Sig. ,094 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 67: Mean ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2017 (author´s table)ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 66,259 2 33,130 21,964 ,000
Within Groups 3276,106 2172 1,508 Total 3342,365 2174 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 68: ANOVA of ratings (points) between different production methods, Guide 2018 (author´s table)(I) Production Method (J) Production Method Mean Difference of Ratings (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

biodynamic organic ,4729* ,1048 ,000
conventional ,5521* ,0833 ,000
organic biodynamic -,4729* ,1048 ,000
conventional ,0792 ,0769 ,588
conventional biodynamic -,5521* ,0833 ,000
organic -,0792 ,0769 ,588
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 69: Multiple comparisons of wine ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s table)Guide 2018 N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
conventional 1621 16,213 organic 303 16,292 biodynamic 251 16,765
Sig. ,674 1,000
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 70: Mean ratings (points) per production method, Guide 2018 (author´s chart)Annex IV Correlation cellar-door prices and ratings
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 23: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings (points) and cellar-door prices (€), Guide 2015 (author´s chart)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 24: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings (points) and cellar-door prices (€), Guide 2016 (author´s chart)Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 25: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings (points) and cellar-door prices (€), Guide 2017 (author´s chart)
Graph SEQ Graph * ARABIC 26: Scatter diagram: Relation between ratings (points) and cellar-door prices (€), Guide 2018 (author´s chart)biodynamic organic conventional
r p r p r p
Guide 2015 .561 ; .001 .583 ; .001 .571 ; .001
Guide 2016 .662 ; .001 .603 ; .001 .630 ; .001
Guide 2017 .518 ; .001 .612 ; .001 .610 ; .001
Guide 2018 .644 ; .001 .618 ; .001 .660 ; .001
Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 71: Spearman´s correlation between cellar-door prices (€) and ratings (points) per production method (author´s table)

x

Hi!
I'm Belinda!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out