destination images

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 56-78, 2002 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/01/$22.00www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

PII: S0160-7383(01)00031-7

DESTINATION IMAGETowards a Conceptual Framework

Martina G. GallarzaFacultad de Estudios de la Empresa, Spain

Irene Gil SauraHaydee Calderon Garcıa

Universitat de Valencia, Spain

Abstract: This paper presents a review and discussion of the concept and measurementof destination image, within an intradisciplinary marketing perspective. Both theoretical andmethodological aspects of this concept and measurement are treated. Based on the existenceof three dimensions of object, subject and attributes, previous studies are analyzed. A tax-onomy of the methodological and statistical procedures for measuring the image of thedestinations is also proposed in order to help researchers to capture and measure the imageconstruct. The paper proposes a conceptual model featuring its complex, multiple, relativis-tic and dynamic nature as a more comprehensive framework of destination image. Keywords:destination image, perceptions measurement, statistical research procedures, conceptualmodel. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Image de destination: vers un cadre conceptuel. Cet article presente une revisioncritique et une discussion du concept et du mesurage de l’image de destination a partird’une perspective intradisciplinaire de marketing. On discute des aspects theoriques etmethodologiques de ce concept et du mesurage. En se basant sur l’existence des trois dimen-sions de l’objet, du sujet et des attributs, on analyze des etudes precedentes. On proposeaussi une taxonomie des procedures methodologiques et statistiques du mesurage de l’imagedes destinations pour aider les chercheurs a capter et a mesurer la construction de l’image.L’article propose un modele conceptuel qui represente sa nature complexe, multiple, relativ-iste et dynamique comme un cadre plus comprehensif de l’image de destination. Mots-cles:image de destination, mesurage des perceptions, procedures de la recherche statistique,modele conceptuel. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

The importance of the tourist destination’s image is universallyacknowledged, since it affects the individual’s subjective perceptionand consequent behavior and destination choice (Chon 1990, 1992;Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Stabler 1988; Telisman-Kosuta 1989). Thisimportance has led to a growing body of research on the tourism desti-

Martina Gallarza teaches Marketing at Facultad de Estudios de la Empresa (UniversidadPolitecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Email <[email protected]>). Her research inter-ests are customer satisfaction in services. Irene Gil Saura is Principal Lecturer at the BusinessAdministration Department at Universidad de Valencia. Her research interests are retailingand service quality. Haydee Calderon Garcıa is Principal Lecturer at the Business Adminis-tration Department at Universidad de Valencia. Her research interests are small businessinternationalization and brand management.

56

57GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

nation image (TDI). The essential characteristic of this research lineis its multidisciplinarity (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Bramwell and Rawding1996; Gartner 1989): there are many possible approaches to studyingdestination image, because this formation has many implications forhuman behavior, as seen through disciplines such as anthropology(Selwyn 1996), sociology (Meethan 1996), geography (Gould andWhite 1992; Draper and Minca 1997), semiotics (Sternberg 1997) andmarketing (Gunn 1972), with respect to the understanding of tourismconsumer behavior.

In the intradisciplinary study of marketing, TDI has been the subjectof considerable research during the last three decades. Investigationhas been commonly based on either effective destination positioning(Carmichael 1992; Crompton, Fakeye and Lue 1992; Echtner and Rit-chie 1991; Eizaguirre and Laka 1996; Reilly 1990) or on the destinationselection process (Goodrich 1978; Gunn 1972; Hunt 1975; Opperm-ann 1996a).

Despite its relevance for tourism marketing, the research on TDIfaces many difficulties. One is the tourism product’s characteristicssuch as its complexity (Smith 1994) and multidimensionality (Gartner1989). Another is that destination marketing involves the consumerphysically moving to the behavior scenario (Seaton 1994; Sessa 1989).There is also great subjectivity in providing a tourism service: imagesare mixed with impressions about residents, retailers, other tourists,and/or employees (Calderon, Gil and Gallarza 1998). But most of all,the intangibility of tourism service hinders image assessment as itdepends on invisible elements of pre-visit selection and a pre-taste ofthe destination (Fakeye and Crompton 1991). Consequently, in tour-ism research, “…images are more important than tangible resources”,all because “perceptions, rather than reality are what motivate con-sumers to act or not act” (Guthrie and Gale 1991:555).

In spite of the importance of this research line, several authorsrecognize a lack of conceptual framework around destination image.In the early 90s, one could read “although such studies have becomea staple of the tourism research agenda, invariably they have beenatheoretical and lacking in any conceptual framework” (Fakeye andCrompton 1991:10) or “researchers have not been successful in com-pletely conceptualizing and operationalizing destination image”(Echtner and Ritchie 1991:10). Later on, in 1993, Gartner suggeststhat “most tourism image research has been piecemeal without a theor-etical basis for support” (Gartner 1993:209).

In order to provide a more comprehensive theoretical frameworkof TDI, a conceptual model from an intradisciplinary marketing per-spective was developed based on previous literature. The model isdesigned for a better understanding of the strategic importance of des-tination image. It is based on two sources: a review and discussion ofexisting theoretical literature about conceptualizing the TDI, and ananalysis and taxonomy of methodologies employed for its measure-ment. The purpose of the model is to contribute to a better under-standing of the image concept when applied to tourist destinations

58 DESTINATION IMAGE

and to aid selection of the best research methodologies for measuringthe TDI construct.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF DESTINATION IMAGE

Many authors agree that the TDI research line emerged from Hunt’swork of 1971 (Driscoll, Lawson and Niven 1994; Echtner and Ritchie1991; Embacher and Buttle 1989; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gartnerand Hunt 1987; Reilly 1990; Sternquist Witter 1985). From this timeonwards, there have been numerous and varied approaches to its study.Table 1 proposes a regrouping of 65 works, between 1971 and 1999,which study this subject. The review has considered contributions pub-

Table 1. Literature Review on Tourism Destination Image

Topics Covered Authorsa

a. Conceptualization and dimensions 1,2,4,9,13,15,16,18,19,20,21,22,27,30,31,32,33,34,41,43,45,46,47,48,49,51,53,55,58,62,63

b. Destination image formation process 1,2,6,9,11,13,16,17,20,22,23,27,31,32,33,34,(static and dynamic) 46,48,51,63c. Assessment and measurement of 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,18,19,22,23,34,25,destination image 26,27,28,33,37,34,40,41,43,47,49,51,54,55,56,

62,63,64d. Influence of distance on destination 1,4,16,19,23,43,46,56imagee. Destination image change over time 6,8,16,19,21,22,23,48,51,53f. Active and passive role of residents in 5,35,36,39,40,42,45,49,52,57,60,61image studyg. Destination image management 3,7,9,10,13,14,15,16,19,20,24,25,28,29,30,32,policies (positioning, promotion, etc.) 33,34,35,36,37,39,40,42,46,47,49,50,51,52,53,

54,59,61,64,65

a 1. Hunt (1971), (1975); 2. Gunn (1972); 3. Goodrich (1978); 4. Crompton (1979); 5.Sternquist Witter (1985); 6. Gartner (1986); 7. Haahti (1986); 8. Gartner and Hunt (1987);9. Stabler (1988); 10. Calantone et al (1989); 11. Chon (1989); 12. Embacher and Buttle(1989); 13. Gartner (1989); 14. Min Han (1989); 15. Telisman-Kosuta (1989); 16. Ashworthand Voogd (1990); 17. Chon (1990); 18. Reilly (1990); 19. Ahmed (1991); 20. Ashworth(1991); 21. Chon (1991); 22. Echtner and Ritchie (1991); 23. Fakeye and Crompton (1991);24. Guthrie and Gale (1991); 25. Williams and Clarke (1991); 26. Carmichael (1992); 27.Chon (1992); 28. Crompton et al (1992); 29. Heath and Wall (1992); 30. Kotler et al (1994);31. Valls (1992); 32. Bordas and Rubio (1993); 33. Echtner and Ritchie (1993); 34. Gartner(1993), (1996); 35. Prentice and Hudson (1993); 36. Ritchie (1993); 37. Amor, Calabuig,Abellan and Monfort (1994); 38. Driscoll et al (1994); 39. Getz (1994); 40. King (1994); 41.Mazanec (1994); 42. Ryan and Montgomery (1994); 43. Dadgostar and Isotalo (1995); 44.Muller (1995); 45. Parenteau (1995); 46. Ahmed (1996); 47. Bramwell and Rawding (1996);48. Dann (1996); 49. Eizaguirre and Laka (1996); 50. Fesenmaier and MacKay (1996); 51.Oppermann (1996a), (1996b); 52. Schroeder (1996); 53. Selby and Morgan (1996); 54. Balo-glu (1997); 55. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997); 56. Borchgrvink and Knutson (1997); 57. Lind-berg and Johnson (1997); 58. Lumsdon (1997); 59. Alford (1998); 60. Lawson et al (1998);61. Smith and Krannich (1998); 62. Walmsley and Young (1998); 63. Baloglu and McCleary(1999); 64. Lohmann and Kaom (1999); 65. Ruiz, Olarte and Iglesias (1999).


lished in main tourism journals, and books which detail a theoreticalapproach to the concept of tourism image (Ashworth and Voogd 1990;Heath and Wall 1992; Kotler, Haider and Rein 1994; Lumsdon 1997;Parenteau 1995). The organization and topics delimitation are basedon authors’ subjective criteria. The scope of destination image researchis so vast that some related topics (such as destination attractiveness)were judged to be beyond the scope of this paper, but some relevantstudies on attitude towards destinations are included (Muller 1995;Ryan and Montgomery 1994; Sternquist Witter 1985). This is becauseof the similarity of mathematical procedures used in measuring atti-tudes and images and because residents’ attitudes towards tourism canbe a significant component of the destination image formation pro-cess. Table 1 is then a personal overview of the stream of research onTDI: it can be examined by topics, by authors, or in chronologicalorder from 1971 to 1999. Each contribution can be considered in morethan one topic. Several comments on each topic are presented asinsights into the purpose of the paper.

Conceptualization and Dimensions. Although it started in the early 70s(Hunt 1971; Gunn 1972), the conceptual delimitation of destinationimage has remained an area of preferred study (Baloglu and McCleary1999) with important attempts at synthesis during the late 80s(Telisman-Kosuta 1989). Nevertheless, there are almost as many defi-nitions of image as scholars devoted to its conceptualization. As inEchtner and Ritchie’s (1991) previous review on the meaning of desti-nation image, a selection of TDI definitions is presented to illustrate itsvarious dimensions (Table 2). Beyond the definitions, there are somerelevant efforts. Gartner (1989) presents a study of great importancefor its conceptual/empirical integration. Echtner and Ritchie (1991,1993) also contribute greatly to the difficult task of framing TDI, byacknowledging the existence of three axes that support the image ofany destination: the functional/psychological, the common/unique, and the holistic/attribute-based axes. However, after almostthree decades of research on its meaning and measure, there is still noconsensus on the process and nature of destination image formation(Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Baloglu and Brinberg 1997; Echtner andRitchie 1991, 1993). Consequently, although this topic has a significantnumber of contributions, there is still a need for better understandingof the concept and dimensions of TDI.

Destination Image Formation Process. In this topic two approaches tothe destination image formation process are considered: static anddynamic (Baloglu and McCleary 1999). The first one is the study ofthe relationship between image and tourist behavior such as satisfac-tion (Chon 1990) and destination choice (Hunt 1975). The secondone is the interest in the structure and formation of TDI itself (Gartner1996). As noticed by Baloglu and McCleary the second approach hashad less success. Of all the studies reviewed, those carried out by Chon(1990), (1992) were considered of special interest, due to his emphas-izing the importance of destination image to tourism as a whole.


Table 2. Selected Definitions of Product, Place and Destination Image

Hunt (1971): Impressions that a person or persons hold about a state in whichthey do not resideMarkin (1974): Our own personalized, internalized and conceptualizingunderstanding of what we knowLawson and Bond-Bovy (1977): An expression of knowledge, impressions,prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual has of a specificobject or placeCrompton (1979): An image may be defined as the sum of beliefs, ideas, andimpressions that a person has of a destinationDichter (1985): The concept of image can be applied to a political candidate, aproduct, and a country. It describes not individual traits or qualities but the totalimpression and entity makes on the minds of othersReynolds (1985): An image is the mental construct developed by the consumeron the basis of a few selected impressions among the flood of total impressions. Itcomes into being through a creative process in which selected impressions areelaborated, embellished and orderedEmbacher and Buttle (1989): Image is comprised of the ideas or conceptions heldindividually or collectively of the destination under investigation. Image maycomprise both cognitive and evaluative componentsFakeye and Crompton (1991): Image is the mental construct developed by apotential tourist on the basis of a few selected impressions among the flood oftotal impressionsKotler et al (1994): The image of a place is the sum of beliefs, ideas, andimpressions that a person holds of itGartner (1993), (1996): Destination images are developed by three hierarchicallyinterrelated components: cognitive, affective, and conativeSantos Arrebola (1994): Image is a mental representation of attributes andbenefits soughts of a productParenteau (1995): Is a favorable or unfavorable prejudice that the audience anddistributors have of the product or destination

Gartner presents also useful theoretical insights into the complexity ofimage formation. Finally, Baloglu and McCleary’s model is an excellentoverall and comprehensive approach to this topic.

Assessment and Measurement of Destination Image. Within the exten-sive TDI research line, there are two very different approaches to itsmeasurement: first, there are empirical studies that, without actuallydeveloping theoretic bodies, apply statistical instruments (Schroeder1996) and, second, there are empirical studies that, as well asexplaining a methodology, deal with the problems of the measurementof image (Carmichael 1992; Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Reilly 1990).Due possibly to the aforementioned difficulties and responsibilities,studies of the first approach are more common than those of thesecond. Attention is drawn to Mazanec’s work (Mazanec 1994), whichis not a TDI study but a research on the image of Australian tour oper-ators; it has been considered in Table 1 because of the interestingdiscussion on multidimensionality of image and the problems relatedto its assessment and measurement. Further, Driscoll et al. (1994) pro-


vide a valuable insight into data collection techniques used in themethodological procedure of measuring perceptions. The presentpaper aims to provide a more analytical review of measurement meth-odologies of studies presented in respect to this topic.

Distance and Destination Image Change Over Time. Few studies havefocused on the distance variable. These essentially concentrate in com-paring samples of respondents from different origin in an attempt toassess the relationship between geographical location and image(Crompton 1979). It is generally assumed that distance has a role inthe image formation process. The influence of time, often investigatedalong with the influence of space, can be categorized into three kindsof studies: first, those which study the influence of length of stay inthe image destination (Fakeye and Crompton 1991); second, worksthat repeat, after a period of time, previous studies on the same desti-nation (Gartner and Hunt 1987); and, third, those investigating theeffect of previous visitation on image formation (Dann 1996). The cor-rect way of assessing the influence of time on image formation shouldbe not the comparisons of different samples, but longitudinal samplingstudies, although this kind of research is difficult in tourism.

Active and Passive Role of Residents in Image Study. Topic f in Table1 includes two streams of research on residents and tourism images.One, residents of destinations may have images of their own place ofresidence that can be investigated in comparison with those of tourists(Sternquist Witter 1985). This stream has been called ‘residents’ activerole’ in destination image study. Two, the interest in residents’ attitudetowards tourism has brought another body of research (Getz 1994;Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Ryan and Montgomery 1994; Smith andKrannich 1998). Residents are often seen as part of the image elements(Echtner and Ritchie 1991) and their support for the industry mayaffect the tourists’ perceptions of the destination. This second line ofresearch is labelled ‘residents’ passive role in destination image study.’Both kinds of studies generally present managerial implications, thusbecoming useful guidelines for destination analysis and policies.

Destination Image Management Policies. As a result of the importanceof TDI research, this last topic covers the review of strategic dimensionsof destination image. Some studies are devoted to this construction asa management tool (Ritchie 1993); some concentrate on the linkbetween destination image and positioning strategies (Haahti 1986);and others study advertising and promotion of marketing images fordestinations (Fesenmaier and MacKay 1996). Studies that give substan-tial managerial implications after TDI empirical studies are also con-sidered within this topic (Guthrie and Gale 1991). There is still a lineof research on the image of countries as indicators of the ‘halo’ or‘country of origin’ effect: the nationality of the product conditions itsperception and contributes for its selling (Min Han 1989). Actually,products and places can arise in consumers’ minds under the umbrellaof a global image based on nationality (Bordas and Rubio 1993; Willi-ams and Clarke 1991).


A Review and Taxonomy of TDI Measurement

The particularities of the TDI construct make any approach to itsmeasurement, according to Carmichael, a ‘methodological challenge’(Carmichael 1992:94). However, one universal characteristic of allimage studies makes the task more attractive: their versatility. As shownby Mazanec 1994, in any image study, relationships between variablesare set out in three dimensions: the subject’s perceptions are measured(1st dimension) around objects or destinations (2nd dimension) andwith respect to certain attributes or characteristics (3rd dimension).This tri-dimensionality of image studies gives the researcher someflexibility when managing the relationship between variables: empiricalstudies of image have been developed from a segmentation perspective(interest due to the ‘subject variable’—Baloglu 1997; Crompton 1979;Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Schroeder1996; Sternquist Witter 1985); from the point of view of competitiveanalysis (interest due to ‘object variable’—Calantone, Di Benedetto,Hakam and Bojanic 1989; Crompton et al 1992; Guthrie and Gale1991; Oppermann 1996a, 1996b); and from the perspective of theanalysis of the components of this image (interest due to the ‘attributevariable’—Ahmed 1991; Baloglu and Brinberg 1997; Echtner and Rit-chie 1991; Embacher and Buttle 1989; Gartner 1989).

Figure 1 and Table 3 provide further insights into Mazanec’s dimen-sions. They categorize a selection of 25 empirical studies of TDI fromthe last two decades based on the three dimensions of attributes(Figure 1), subjects, and objects (Table 3). The 25 studies were selec-ted among all empirical TDI research that measure attributed-basedimage. Studies employing affective adjective scales instead of attributesratings (Baloglu and Brinberg 1997) or evaluative scales (Walmsley andYoung 1998) were consequently not considered. With same purposes,studies using qualitative techniques, although contemplating attri-butes, are not considered in Figure 1 and Table 3 due to the difficultyin homogenizing the attribute names (Dann 1996; Reilly 1990). In Fig-ure 1, following Echtner and Ritchie’s 1991 procedure of reviewingattributes used by previous researchers, those were organized into afunctional/psychological axis. In addition to Echtner and Ritchie’smethod, authors’ names are also presented, for a more complete andchronological overview of the attribute dimension of TDI.

For selecting attributes and considering them in the tables, threerules were followed. One, in studies using information-reductionmethods, the revised attributes are selected before the statistical pro-cedure; so there are items but not factors or components. Two, giventhe variety of attributes and destination types, only the more universalattributes have been considered, ignoring those that correspond to theidiosyncrasies of a particular destination (such as snow quality at ski-stations). Three, when the study listed various similar attributes (likefishing, hunting, and rafting), these were regrouped into one category(sports activities). Therefore, the attributes considered sum up a totalof 20.

In Table 3, ‘object’ variable (destination types) and ‘subject’ types


Figure 1. The Most Common Attributes used in TDI Studies

(respondents) are described and classified. Five types of destinationswere found (cities, countries, states of the United States, ski-stations,and other zones such as valleys and islands). The categorization of thesubject variable asks for a closer analysis given that the options men-tioned were very heterogeneous. This is probably due to a greater orlesser interest on segmentation shown by authors as well as the explicitinfluence of variables such as time, place, and previous knowledge ofthe area. Furthermore, four generic subject categories were collected:residents (divided into retailers, ‘near-home’ tourists, and otherresidents), tourists (prospective, first time, or repeat), visitors (whencurrent knowledge of the destination is required), and unspecified,when the study did not indicate the segmentation of the subject vari-able.

The results of analyzing Figure 1 and Table 3 provide revealinginsights on previous image research. ‘Residents’ receptiveness’ was theattribute most mentioned (20 out of 25 studies), followed by ‘land-


Table 3. A Review of Object and Subject Dimension of TDI Studies

Subjectsa Authors Objectsb

D 1. Crompton (1979) IID 2. Goodrich (1978) I+IIA1+B 3. Sternquist Witter (1985) IC 4. Haahti (1986) IID 5. Gartner and Hunt (1987) IIIC 6. Calantone et al. (1989) IID 7. Gartner (1989) IIIB 8. Embacher and Buttle (1989) IIC 9. Guthrie and Gale (1991) IVB1 10. Ahmed (1991) IIIB1+B2 11. Chon (1991) IIB1;B2+B3 12. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) VB1;B2+B3 13. Crompton, Fakeye and Lue (1992) VD 14. Carmichael (1992) IVC 15. Chon (1992) IB1 16. Echtner and Ritchie (1993) IID 17. Driscoll et al (1994) IIA2 18. Dadgostar and Isotalo (1995) IC 19. Muller (1995) ID 20. Eizaguirre and Laka (1996) IA 21. Schroeder (1996) IIID 22. Ahmed (1996) IIID 23. Oppermann (1996a), (1996b) IB 24. Baloglu (1997) II+VB1+B2 25. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) II

a Object variable: I, cities; II, countries; III, USA states; IV, ski resorts; V, other zones.b Subject variable: A, residents; A1, retailers; A2, ‘near home’ tourists; B, tourists; B1,prospective; B2, first time; B3, repeater; C, tourists; D, not determined.

scape and/or surroundings’ (19 out of 25 studies). The same attributeswere previously found in Echtner and Ritchie’s 1991 review, but ininverse order. The point is made on the importance of tourists’ percep-tion of residents, as stated in literature review (topic f in Table 1). Ina diacronic analysis, the balance between functional and psychologicalattributes seem not to change over 20 years, although studies since1990 seem to contemplate more attributes. With respect to the numberof destinations studied, there is indeed a great variety, dependingessentially on the aim of the study and the methodology employed.Embacher and Buttle (1989) suggest a limited number of destinationswhen the purpose is to relate image to the choice process. For differentpurposes, their number can be larger (such as 30 in Oppermann1996a, 1996b). Regarding destination types, it can be observed thatthe most common is countries (10 out of 25 studies), followed by cities(seven times), and US states (five times). As Oppermann (1996a) sug-gested, there might be a possible line of research on cities’ image,within the current stream of research on urban tourism. Very few stud-


ies compare two different types of destination (Baloglu 1997; Good-rich 1978).

The categorization of destinations is normally set by the researcher,and consumers’ perceptions might not be so clear. In fact, in theirmental choices, tourists evaluate a set of different categories of desti-nations: a city, an island, and a small country, for instance. As statedby Haahti (1986):18 “the consumer compares perceptions of variousobjects, on occasions with different levels of abstraction” (a countryand a geographical zone, for instance). Further research on the desti-nation as a product in the consumer’s mind could provide usefulguidelines on the consideration of one or another type of object vari-able in TDI studies. Opposite to object variable, comparisons amongdifferent types of respondents are most common. Most of them arelooking for purposes that determine the effect on image formation ofdemographic, geographic, and other differences among tourists.

Faced with the possibility of choosing among subjects, objects andattributes, the researcher’s responsibility when measuring images isconsiderable. There is a relation between the measurement system andthe ease of capturing the many components of a TDI, for differentrespondents and different scenarios. There is a need of choosing stat-istical instruments adaptable to the complex nature of image that allowits measurements as accurately as possible. This task should bedesigned by the researcher according to the aim of the study (interestin the subject, object or attribute variable).

Review and Analysis of Measurement Methodologies

Within topic c from Table 1, the methodologies of empirical imagestudies have been reviewed. This review has produced Figures 2 and3, with a classification of all the empirical studies of TDI measurement.Figure 2 presents a review and taxonomy of nonquantitative methods,

Figure 2. A Taxonomy Review of Non-quantitative Methods for Measuring TDI


Figure 3. A Taxonomy Review of Procedures for Measuring TDI

divided into two blocks: qualitative techniques and other techniques.The first block encompasses techniques such as free elicitation andopen-ended questions, focus groups, and indepth interviews andexperts discussions. The second group covers essentially content analy-sis. Figure 3 provides the same kind of taxonomy and review for quanti-tative methods distinguishing multivariate and bivariate methods. Thefirst group is divided into three kinds of statistical procedures: infor-mation reduction techniques, grouping techniques, and dependenceanalysis. The second group, bivariate methods, includes correlationanalysis and t-tests.

In Figure 2, two columns are considered: methodological procedure(with the aforementioned sections) and authors. Each author can belocated in one or more than one section, depending on the numberof qualitative techniques employed in his/her study. In Figure 3, thesame presentation is proposed, with an additional column: the datacollection technique used in questionnaires. The legend provides


guidelines for reading the abbreviations. The number beside the datacollection techniques indicates the size of the response format. Whenthe study developed successive algorithms of the transformed data, thename of the author appears repeated in two or more sections (forexample, Ahmed 1991 uses Principal Component Analysis, ANOVA,and t-test). In these cases, the data collection method is cited with thefirst technique and the words ‘2nd technique’ appear in data collectioncolumn, in the second citation. Authors that use identical methodology(both the statistical procedure and the data collection technique)appear in the same row.

The result of the taxonomy undertaken shows that the method-ologies used are in general quite complicated. For the most part, thereis a combination of multivariate and bivariate techniques, with agreater or lesser presence of qualitative techniques in the preliminarysteps (such as Guthrie and Gale 1991 using focus group to generateitems, then Factor Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling). Very fewstudies use qualitative methods as the main technique (Dann 1996;Reilly 1990), although some use a good combination of both qualitat-ive and quantitative methods (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Some studiesuse solely qualitative methods because they analyze marketing placepromotion images with a strategic purpose (Ashworth 1991; Bramwelland Rawding 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996): these studies are not con-sumer research based. Regarding data collection format, only two stud-ies have been found that use the Kelly Grid, either exclusively(Embacher and Buttle 1989) or compared with the ‘scaled question-naire’ (Driscoll et al. 1994). Among all collection procedures, theseven-point Likert Scale is the most commonly used.

In general, multivariate techniques predominate because they allowfor determination of the latent multidimensional structure of the TDI,as well as average scoring as a numeric instrumentalization of image.This property allows for the capture of various image components, forvarious publics, and various destinations (Calantone et al. 1989). Infor-mation is gathered on the three dimensions of image analysis detailedby Mazanec 1994. From all the multivariate methods, the most com-monly employed for measuring destination image are informationreduction techniques: Multidimensional Scaling, and Factor AnalysisMethods (Correspondences Analysis, Principal Component Analysisand Factor Analysis). It is important to point out that Factor Analysiscollects a diversity of regrouped techniques under this common namedue to the similar mathematical treatment of the information. How-ever, the Principal Component Analysis is not a Factor Analysis as such,essentially because of the treatment given to the variance (Nunnally1978). Yet due to similarities in mathematical instrumentalization,many authors consider their studies together with CorrespondencesAnalysis and Principal Components Analysis (Aaker and Day 1989).

Taking into account the acknowledgment of theoretical complexityand limitations to conceptualizing TDI (Ashworth and Voogd 1990;Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gartner 1996),further analysis on marketing-based destination image conceptualiz-ation was conducted. Based upon the revision and organization of pre-


vious approaches made by the authors of this article, a theoreticalmodel is proposed as a description of the image concept. It summarizesthe large number of preceding studies and can help future researchby providing a more comprehensive framework. In the model, the con-ceptual nature of TDI underlines its importance as a valuable variablefor destination management.

A Theoretical Model

The proposed model (Figure 4) is based on four features. A featuremeans a defining element of a construct, which, without being a defi-nition, allows for its systematic identification and permits its descrip-tion by particularizing its nature as opposed to other mental constructs.Features are semantically explained in the model by adjectives. Theyare drawn from two sources: the literature review and the analysis ofthe taxonomies undertaken by authors of the present work. On theleft side of the figure, previous TDI research is listed according tostatements: each feature relies directly (thick arrow) or indirectly (thinarrow) on one or several statements. On the right side of the figure,content analysis on the taxonomies brings up comments that contrib-ute to each of the features (shown in the figure with thick or thinarrows). Every feature found underlines a useful dimension of the con-cept of image for strategic management of destinations: ‘complexity’underlines an analytical dimension, ‘multiplicity’ provides an actiondimension, ‘relativistic’ character translates TDI as a strategic tool, and‘dynamic’ character allows for tactical decisions based on TDI.

The Complex Nature of the Destination Image. A ‘complex’ concept isone which allows for more than one interpretation or whose compre-hension lacks a unique meaning. The conceptual delimitation of desti-nation’s image is not unequivocal. Definitions are as many as theauthors interested in conceptualizing it (Table 2). For some authors,image is a concept that can be applied to multiple objects, amongthem an area or a country (Markin 1974; Reynolds 1985). Generally,all authors agree that the concept usually corresponds to a globalimpression (Crompton 1979; Dichter 1985; Kotler et al. 1994;Lumsdon 1997; Parenteau 1995). However, when determining thecomponents that make up this global impression, some differencesappear: for Crompton (1979) TDI possesses cognitive components, forEmbacher and Buttle (1989) and Baloglu and McCleary (1999) imagecomprises both cognitive and evaluative components, and for Gartner(1996) and Dann (1996) destination images are formed by three inter-related components: cognitive, evaluative, and conative.

In addition to differences in components, the way those componentsinteract is also variable. Some conceptualizations of image have a selec-tive character (Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Reynolds 1985) whileothers are additives (Crompton 1979; Kotler et al. 1994). There isneither a consensus as to whether or not TDI can be conceived as acollective impression, meaning by various subjects at the same time(Embacher and Buttle 1989; Hunt 1975; Lawson and Bond-Bovy 1977)


Figure 4. A Conceptual Model of TDI

or whether it should be understood more as a uni-personal impression(Crompton 1979; Hunt 1971; Markin 1974). The first focus would gen-erally differentiate image as opposed to the stereotype, this beingunderstood as a collective image.

Thus, there is a possible debate around the TDI construct both inits nature (collective or uni-personal) and in its content (type ofcomponents and way of interaction). These dyslexias in conceptualiz-ing TDI underline a first feature: its complexity. This is reinforced bythe result of the analysis undertaken with Table 3 and Figures 1–3. As


Mazanec 1994 suggests, there is a need of considering three differentvariables in all image studies, which is an added methodological com-plexity. Statistical procedures that have been listed are also quite com-plex and researchers usually employ more than one. Consequently,both theoretically and methodologically speaking, there is a need toconsider an analytical dimension of TDI to discover an accurate under-standing of the construct.

The Multiple Nature of the Image. The existence of a multiplicity offactors or variables that make up the identity of a destination’s imagehas been an area of substantial investigation. First of all, as in mosttourism related constructs, there is a need for multidisciplinary focuson TDI (Baloglu 1997; Bramwell and Rawding 1996). When consider-ing this construct, the justification of its multiple nature lies in twofactors. The first corresponds to its nature (attribute-based or holistic)and the second to its formation process (both static and dynamicconsiderations).

A first factor of multiplicity is that any product or service image canbe understood as a multi-item construct (Reynolds and Guttman1984). When the product is a destination, the multiple attributes arethe elements of the final composite image (Ahmed 1991, 1996). Conse-quently, a major focus concentrates on the assessment of multiattributebased images (Baloglu 1997; Carmichael 1992; Schroeder 1996). How-ever, in spite of the almost universal acknowledgement of the multidi-mensionality of the TDI, some studies consider global scores of theimage. These scores are a pondered sum of the perceptions of thecomponents (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995) or adirect observation introduced in the questionnaires (Schroeder 1996).The real point is then whether a destination image is an output initself or needs to be attribute based. Some authors claim the need ofconsidering both views (Echtner and Ritchie 1993) and some othersmeasure holistic images via qualitative techniques (Reilly 1990). Whenconsidering image as a global and holistic perception of all the compo-nents of the destination, TDI is then assumed to be like a gestalt.Internal perceptions constitute an assessment that the consumermakes, sometimes unconsciously, that is not exclusively based on physi-cal or functional attributes of the destination, but more on holisticattributes (Echtner and Ritchie 1991, 1993). This dyslexia in theapproach to the multidimensionality of TDI constructs supports themultiple feature (thick arrow), but also reinforces the first feature:complexity (a thin arrow).

The second factor that conditions the multiple nature of the desti-nation’s image comes from the formation process. The image, as anoverall output, comes from a sequence of stages where several elementsand factors influence and interrelate. The TDI formation process pro-duces two areas of research interest: destination choice and tourist sat-isfaction. The image formation process can be related to destinationselection intention (Goodrich 1978; Hunt 1975) and to tourist satisfac-tion when actual visitation takes place (Chon 1990). In both cases,


the TDI formation process has multiple components interrelated in anumber of stages.

Generally, any doctrine, using Gunn’s (Gunn 1972) initialnomenclature, recognizes organic components (family tradition, tea-chers, mass media, books, etc.) and induced components (those thatcome from the promotional efforts made by the industry to attractconsumers). The relationship between these components has beenexamined by Gartner (1996) who suggests that images are formedthroughout a continuum of eight stages that proceed from induced toorganic agents. Nevertheless, although the TDI formation process hasled to a substantial body of literature, “most studies have largelyfocused on its static structure, …but not in its dynamic nature”(Baloglu and McCleary 1999:869). Similarly, the TDI formation pro-cess has been mostly studied to explain tourist behavioural constructs,often neglecting, the need to understand the complex image forma-tion process itself. In any of both approaches, static and dynamic, themultiplicity of stages and components in the formation of the TDIreinforces its multiple nature. Concerning the second source of themodel, taxonomies, the multiplicity of TDI is visible in the methodol-ogical choice for measurement: considering multiple attributes(organized into organic/induced or functional/psychological axes, forinstance) and the consequent use of multidimensional techniques.

The Relativistic Nature of the Concept. A concept is relativistic whenit is simultaneously subjective (changes from person to person) andcomparative (involves perceptions among various objects). The subjec-tive character of image is universally acknowledged. Image always cor-responds to an interiorization of some perceptions, and not everyonehas the same perceptions. Therefore, image is always subjective. Assuch, TDI refers to perceptions of tourists in a destination and thesecorrespond to the perceived contribution of the different tourism ser-vices to be found there: accommodation, food, transport, and more.Additionally, some authors recognize a greater subjectivity in the tour-ism encounter as opposed to other services (Calderon et al. 1998; Hol-loway and Robinson 1995). All this means that some elements arenotably subjective, such as the residents’ attitude or the perceivedaccessibility to the destination. Thus, the subjectivity of the TDI is struc-tural in character (like every image), which is stressed due to greatersubjectivity of the tourism service encounter. Methodologically speak-ing, the subjectivity of TDI has led to a substantial body of literaturearound image and segmentation of the tourism market (Ahmed 1996;Baloglu 1997; Crompton 1979; Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995; Fakeye andCrompton 1991; Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985).

The second idea that supports that TDI concept is relativistic is thefact that image is a perception that normally refers to one particularobject as opposed to other objects. This relativism has invited a lineof research on positioning, this being the competitive and strategicimage (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Alford 1998; Calantone et al. 1989;Crompton et al. 1992; Guthrie and Gale 1991; Haahti 1986). Taxo-nomies undertaken also show the relativism feature: Table 3 contains


several studies that compare different subsamples and/or destinations,and Figures 2 and 3 can facilitate a statistical procedure choice accord-ing to a strategic purpose (MDS for positioning studies, t-tests to illus-trate differences between samples, AF to reveal latent structures ofimage, etc.).

The Dynamic Nature of the Concept. The idea of this last feature isthat image is not static but changes, depending essentially on two vari-ables: time and space. This dynamic nature is greatly useful for market-ing destinations in that each image is a manageable instrument. Theinfluence of time on image is relatively logical as its formation is aprocess (Gunn 1972). There are works that have studied (Fesenmaierand MacKay 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996) or empirically demon-strated the influence of time on image (Chon 1991; Gartner 1986;Gartner and Hunt 1987).

The influence of the space variable on image formation involves itssubjective character (affects where respondents are) and the circum-stantiality of the image formation process, which means that no imagecan be studied without a reference to the space variable. Crompton(1979) studies the influence of the geographical location of subjectswith respect to the destination studied. Telisman-Kosuta (1989) affirmsthe positive correlation between the consumer’s physical distance fromthe destination and his/her level of perception of it. The greater thedistance, the greater the distortion of reality, and the shorter the dis-tance, the greater the meaning of the details.

This statement is of great relevance to research into the attractive-ness of a region or a destination for a non-distant public (Dadgostarand Isotalo 1995). The circumstantiality with respect to space, togetherwith the subjective nature of the TDI concept, has favored a growingbody of research on the residents’ destination image (King 1994;Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985) as well as on their attitudetowards the industry in their region or country and their support ofthe tourism activity (Getz 1994; Lawson, Williams, Young and Cossens1998). These studies are tangentially useful for conceptualizing TDI,given that the residents’ receptiveness is the most mentioned attributein the current review (Figure 1). Methodologically, the dynamiccharacter of TDI is shown by the use of comparisons tests to revealtemporal or spatial influence on image formation.

CONCLUSION

Tourism destination image has been a worthy area of researchers’investigation for nearly 30 years. Yet despite their importance andinterest, destination image studies have been criticized as atheoreticaland lacking a conceptual framework (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Fak-eye and Crompton 1991; Gartner 1996), even though significant recentcontributions such as Baloglu and McCleary (1999) are more compre-hensive and valuable for theoretical understanding of TDI.

The very large number of previous studies on TDI, both theoreticaland empirical, gives the researcher interested in the topic what could


be called a ‘kaleidoscopic view’ of the construct, or a continuouslyreduced and changing vision. Amid the multidimensionality of all tour-ism studies, these visions of TDI are never general enough to offer aglobal perspective; as with the image of tourism, generally it is difficultto assume universal truths.

To rationalize this ‘kaleidoscopic view’, this review, critique, and cat-egorization of previous studies was undertaken to orient the stream ofTDI research in a conceptual model. Several steps were followed. First,from an intradisciplinary orientation of marketing, this paper offers areview of topics from the extensive research line of destination imagesand shows the importance of the conceptualization and measurementof TDI. Second, following Mazanec’s structuring of image studies’ for-mat around three dimensions (objects, subjects, and attributes), pre-vious empirical measurements of TDI are organized in two figures.Figure 1 lists attributes employed, in 25 image studies, to measure des-tination image (compare with very similar findings in Echtner and Rit-chie’s 1993 review): residents’ receptiveness and landscape and sur-roundings are the attributes most studied. There is no significantpredominance of either functional or psychological attributes duringthe period covered by the review (1979–99). Table 3 provides a tax-onomy of the same 25 image studies, according to object (destinationtypes); and subject (respondents interviewed) variables. It has beenshown that the image of countries is investigated more often than anyother sort of destination. Also a substantial line of research into ima-gery of cities is part of the growing interest in urban tourism(Oppermann 1996a). In addition, the types of respondents in TDIstudies (subject variable), prove to be quite heterogeneous.

As to the measurement of the TDI, the review of empirical studiespresented in Figures 2 and 3 reveals the great diversity of statisticalmethodologies. These are mostly combinations of multivariate andbivariate techniques. High levels of mathematical complexity caninclude a greater or lesser presence of qualitative techniques, generallyin the preliminary steps of the process. In fact, in spite of its usefulness,there is a great complexity in measuring perceptions around a desti-nation (Guthrie and Gale 1991; Hunt 1971), and the comparisons arenot always accurate (Driscoll et al. 1994).

The description of the nature of TDI based on previous literatureand on taxonomies undertaken by the authors is summed up in theconceptual model presented in Figure 4. The construction of themodel demonstrates that four features identify and describe the imageconstruct: this nature is complex (it is not unequivocal), multiple (inelements and processes), relativistic (subjective and generallycomparative), and dynamic (varying with the dimensions of time andspace). The importance of this construct for strategic destination man-agement is shown: TDI is simultaneously a variable of analysis, action,strategy, and tactics.

The utility and strength of this work derives essentially from thereview and discussion structuralizing the methodologies of previousempirical destination image research. The taxonomies usefullyorganize the thick stream of investigation and can help researchers


discover improved understanding of both the concept and themeasurement of TDI. Both areas of study (conceptualization andmeasurement) should be more united: more theoretical analysis andknowledge can help in accurately measuring TDI because what hasbeen scientifically perceived (that is, what has been measured) is bet-ter known.

As limitations to the study, the lack of empirical evidence should bementioned. Further contributions could test hypotheses on TDI struc-ture and on the relationship among features. Methodological pro-cedure of reviewing could also be refined by identifying the role ofevery tourism journal in understanding TDI: academic vs. practicalviewpoints, multidisciplinary vs intradisciplinary approaches, focus ontheoretical or empirical contributions, and more. For the density anddiversity of journals reviewed, many have concealed some relevant con-tributions. Nevertheless, the proposed model is a valuable guidelinefor both public and private tourism organizations: the four featuresprovide a managerial framework for analyzing and controlling the valu-able tool of destination image. Focusing on one or other feature willprovide marketers with a more efficient management of tourism desti-nations.�

Acknowledgements—The authors would like to thank Prof. Eduardo Fayos-Sola for hisaccurate commentary on the initial work.

REFERENCESAhmed, Z. U.

1991 The Influence of the Components of a State’s Tourist Image on ProductPositioning Strategy. Tourism Management 12:331–340.

1996 The Need for the Identification of the Constituents of a Destination’sTourist Image a Promotional Segmentation Perspective. Revue du Tourisme51(2):44–57.

Aaker, D. A., and G. S. Day1989 Investigacion de Mercados (3rd ed.). Mexico: McGraw Hill.

Alford, P.1998 Positioning the Destination Product: Can Regional Tourist Boards Learn

from Private Sectors Practice? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing7(2):53–68.

Amor, F., C. Calabuig, J. Abellan, and V. M. Monfort1994 Barriers Found in Repositioning a Mediterranean ‘Sun and Beach’ Pro-

duct: The Valencian Case. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. Seaton, ed.,pp. 428–435. Chichester: Wiley.

Ashworth, G. J.1991 Products, Places and Promotion: Destination Images in the Analysis of

the Tourism Industry. In The Tourism industry: An International Analysis, T.Sinclair and M. J. Stabler, eds., pp. 121–142. Wallingford: CAB International.

Ashworth, G. J., and H. Voogd1990 Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban Planning.

Chichester: Wiley.Baloglu, S.

1997 The Relationship between Destination Images and Sociodemographicand Trip Characteristics of International Travellers. Journal of Vacation Mar-keting 3:221–233.

Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg1997 Affective Images of Tourism Destination. Journal of Travel Research

35(4):11–15.


Baloglu, S., and K. W. McCleary1999 A Model of Destination Image Formation. Annals of Tourism Research

26:808–889.Borchgrvink, C. P., and B. J. Knutson

1997 Norway Seen from Abroad: Perceptions of Norway and Norwegian Tour-ism: An Image Study. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 4(4):25–48.

Bordas, E., and M. L. Rubio1993 La imagen turıstica de Espana: un modelo de gestion a largo plazo. Infor-

mation Comercial Espanola 722:107–118.Bramwell, B., and L. Rawding

1996 Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial Cities. Annals of TourismResearch 23:201–221.

Calantone, R. J., C. A. Di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D. C. Bojanic1989 Multiple Multinational Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence

analysis. Journal of Travel Research 28(2):25–32.Calderon, H., I. Gil, and M. G. Gallarza

1998 Una aproximacion al estudio de la actividad turıstica desde la perspectivadel Marketing. In I International Forum on The Sciences, Techniques andArt applied to Marketing. Academy and Profession, pp. 207–217. Madrid:Universidad Complutense.

Carmichael, B.1992 Using Conjoint Modelling to Measure Tourist Image and Analyse Ski

Resort Choice. In Choice and Demand in Tourism, P. Johnson and B.Thomas, eds., pp. 93–106. London: Mansell.

Chon, K-S.1989 Understanding Recreational Traveler’s Motivation, Attitude and Satisfac-

tion. Revue du Tourisme 47(1):3–6.1990 The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion.

Revue du Tourisme 2:2–9.1991 Tourism Destination Image Modification Process. Marketing Impli-

cations. Tourism Management 12(1):68–72.1992 The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: An Extension. Revue du Tou-

risme 1:2–8.Crompton, J. L.

1979 An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and theInfluence of Geographical Location upon the Image. Journal of TravelResearch 18(4):18–23.

Crompton, J. L., P. C. Fakeye, and C-C. Lue1992 Positioning: The Example of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the Winter

Long Stay Destination Market. Journal of Travel Research 31(2):20–26.Dadgostar, B., and R. M. Isotalo

1995 Content of City Destination Image for Near-Home Tourists. Journal ofHospitality and Leisure Marketing 3(2):25–34.

Dann, G. M. S.1996 Tourists Images of a Destination: An Alternative Analysis. Journal of Tra-

vel and Tourism Marketing 5(1/2):41–55.Dichter, E.

1985 What is an Image. Journal of Consumer Research 13:455–472.Draper, D., and C. Minca

1997 Image and Destination: A Geographical Approach Applied to BanffNational Park. Canada Revue du Tourisme 2:14–24.

Driscoll, A., R. Lawson, and B. Niven1994 Measuring Tourists’ Destination Perceptions. Annals of Tourism

Research 21:499–511.Echtner, C. M., and J. R. B. Ritchie

1991 The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. The Journal ofTourism Studies 2(2):2–12.

1993 The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. Jour-nal of Travel Research 31(4):3–13.


Eizaguirre, A., and J. P. Laka1996 Competencia entre ciudades. Medicion de la imagen comparada de 7

metropolis espaniolas. Boletin de Estudios Economicos 51(157):67–88.Embacher, J., and F. Buttle

1989 A Repertory Grid Analysis of Austria’s Image as a Summer Vacation Desti-nation. Journal of Travel Research 28(3):3–23.

Fakeye, P. C., and J. L. Crompton1991 Image Differences Between Prospective, First-Time, and Repeat Visitors

to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):10–16.Fesenmaier, D., and K. MacKay

1996 Deconstructing Destination Image Construction. Revue du Tourisme51(2):37–43.

Gartner, W. C.1986 Temporal Influence on Image Change. Annals of Tourism Research

13:635–644.1989 Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products using

Multidimensional Scaling Techniques. Journal of Travel Research 28(2):16–20.

1993 Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing2(2/3):191–215.

1996 Tourism Development: Principles, Policies, and Policies. New York: VanNostram Reinhold.

Gartner, W. C., and J. D. Hunt1987 An Analysis of State Image Change over a Twelve-Year Period (1971–

1983). Journal of Travel Research 26(2):15–19.Getz, D.

1994 Residents’ Attitudes Towards Tourism: A Longitudinal Study in Spey Val-ley, Scotland. Tourism Management 15:147–258.

Goodrich, J. N.1978 A New Approach to Image Analysis through Multidimensional Scaling.

Journal of Travel Research 17(2):2–7.Gould, P., and R. White

1992 Mental Maps (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Gunn, C.

1972 Vacationscape. Designing Tourist Regions. Washington DC: Taylor andFrancis/University of Texas.

Guthrie, J., and P. Gale1991 Positioning Ski Areas. In New Horizons Conference Proceedings, pp.

551–569. Calgary: University of Calgary.Haahti, A. J.

1986 Finland’s Competitive Position as a Destination. Annals of TourismResearch 13:11–35.

Heath, E., and G. Wall1992 Marketing Tourism Destination: A Strategic Planning Approach. In Target

Marketing and Regional Positioning Strategy, pp. 89–121. Chichester: Wiley.Holloway, J., and C. Robinson

1995 Marketing for Tourism (3rd ed.). London: Addison Wesley Longman.Hunt, J. D.

1971 Image: A Factor in Tourism. Cited in N. Telisman-Kosuta (1989) TourismDestination Image. In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, S. F.Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 557–561. Cambridge: Prentice Hall.

1975 Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. Cited in W. C. Gartner andJ. D. Hunt (1987) An Analysis of State Image Change over a Twelve-Year Per-iod (1971–1983). Journal of Travel Research 13(3):15–19.

King, B.1994 Australian Attitudes to Domestic and International Resort Holidays: A

comparison of Fiji and Queensland. In Tourism: The State of the Art, pp.347–358. Chichester: Wiley.

Kotler, N., D. H. Haider, and I. Rein1994 Mercadotecnia de Localidades. Mexico: Diana.


Lawson, F., and M. Bond-Bovy1977 Tourism and Recreational Development. London: Architectural Press.

Lawson, R. W., J. Williams, T. Young, and J. Cossens1998 A Comparison of Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism in 10 New Zea-

land Destinations. Tourism Management 19:247–253.Lindberg, K., and R. L. Johnson

1997 Modeling Residence Attitudes towards Tourism. Annals of TourismResearch 24:402–424.

Lohmann, M., and E. Kaom1999 Weather and Holiday Destination Preferences. Image, Attitude and

Experience. Revue de Tourisme 54(2):54–64.Lumsdon, L.

1997 Tourism Marketing. Oxford: International Thompson Business Press.Markin, J. R. Jr.

1974 Consumer Behavior: A Cognitive Orientation. Macmillan.Mazanec, J. A.

1994 Image Measurement with Self-Organizing Maps: A Tentative Applicationto Austrian Tour Operators. Revue du Tourisme 49(3):9–18.

Meethan, K.1996 Place, Image and Power: Brighton as Resort. In The Tourist Image:

Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 180–196. Chiches-ter: Wiley.

Min Han, C.1989 Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal of Marketing

Research 26:222–229.Muller, T. E.

1995 How Personal Values Govern the Post-Visit Attitudes of InternationalTourists. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 3(2):3–24.

Nunnally, J. C.1978 Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Oppermann, M.1996 Convention Destination Images Analysis of Association Meeting Planners’

Perceptions. Tourism Management 17:175–182.1996 Convention Cities—Images and Changing Fortunes. Journal of Tourism

Studies 7(1):10–19.Parenteau, A.

1995 Marketing Practico del Turismo. Madrid: Sıntesis S.A.Prentice, R., and J. Hudson

1993 Assessing the Linguistic Dimension in the Perception of Tourism Impactsof a Tourist Destination: a Case Study of Porthmadog, Gwyneed. TourismManagement 14:298–306.

Reilly, M. D.1990 Free Elicitation of Descriptive Adjectives for Tourism Image Assessment.

Journal of Travel Research 28(4):21–26.Reynolds, W. H.

1985 The Role of the Consumer in Image Building. California ManagementReview 7:69.

Reynolds, T. J., and J. Guttman1984 Advertising is Image Management. Journal of Advertising Research

24:27–37.Ritchie, J. R. B.

1993 Crafting a Destination Vision: Putting the Concept of Resident-Respon-sive Tourism into Practice. Tourism Management 14:279–289.

Ruiz, A., R. Olarte, and V. Iglesias1999 Evaluacion de los destinos turısticos en funcion de su valor de marca. In

XI Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing, 427–450. Vallado-lid, October.

Ryan, C., and D. Montgomery1994 The Attitudes of Bakewell Residents to Tourism and Issues in Community

Responsive Tourism. Tourism Management 15:358–369.


Santos Arrebola, J. L.1994 La imagen en turismo. In I Congreso de la Asociacion Espafinla de

Expertos cientificos en Turismo, pp. 209–217. Marbella: Institute de Estu-dios Turısticos.

Schroeder, T.1996 The Relationship of Residents’ Image of their State as a Tourist Desti-

nation and their Support for Tourism. Journal of Travel Research34(4):71–73.

Seaton, T. V.1994 Tourism Marketing and Research. In Tourism: The State of the Art, pp.

428–435. Chichester: Wiley.Selby, M., and N. G. Morgan

1996 Reconstructing Place Image: a Case Study of its Role in Destination Mar-ket Research. Tourism Management 17:287–294.

Selwyn, T.1996 Introduction. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,

T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 1–32. Chichester: Wiley.Sessa, A.

1989 Characteristics of Tourism. In Tourism Marketing and ManagementHandbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 43–45. Cambridge: Pren-tice Hall.

Smith, S. L.1994 The Tourism Product. Annals of Tourism Research 21:582–595.

Smith, M. S., and R. S. Krannich1998 Tourism Dependence and Tourism Attitudes. Annals of Tourism

Research 25:783–802.Stabler, M. J.

1988 The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects.In Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of Destination Regions,B. Goodall and G. Ashworth, eds., pp. 133–161. London: Croom Helm.

Sternberg, E.1997 The Iconography of the Tourism Experience. Annals of Tourism

Research 24:951–969.Sternquist Witter, B.

1985 Attitudes about Resort Area a Comparison of Tourists and LocalRetailers. Journal of Travel Research 24(1):14–19.

Telisman-Kosuta, N.1989 Tourism Destination Image. In Tourism Marketing and Management

Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 557–561. Cambridge: Pren-tice Hall.

Valls, J. -F.1992 La imagen de marca de los paıses. Madrid: McGraw Hill.

Walmsley, D. J., and M. Young1998 Evaluative Images and Tourism: The use of Perceptual Constructs to

Describe the Structure of Destination Images. Journal of Travel Research36(3):65–69.

Williams, E., and T. Clarke1991 Country Image: As Others see Us. In Seminar on Travel and Tourism:

Research Challenge, pp. 159–173. Dublin: ESOMAR.

Submitted 1 November 1999. Resubmitted 14 April 2000. Accepted 14 September 2000.Final version 30 September 2000. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: WilliamC. Gartner

destination images

Documents