www.elsevier.

com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 56-78, 2002 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/01/$22.00

PII: S0160-7383(01)00031-7

DESTINATION IMAGE
Towards a Conceptual Framework
Martina G. Gallarza Facultad de Estudios de la Empresa, Spain Irene Gil Saura Haydee Calderon Garca Universitat de Valencia, Spain
Abstract: This paper presents a review and discussion of the concept and measurement of destination image, within an intradisciplinary marketing perspective. Both theoretical and methodological aspects of this concept and measurement are treated. Based on the existence of three dimensions of object, subject and attributes, previous studies are analyzed. A taxonomy of the methodological and statistical procedures for measuring the image of the destinations is also proposed in order to help researchers to capture and measure the image construct. The paper proposes a conceptual model featuring its complex, multiple, relativistic and dynamic nature as a more comprehensive framework of destination image. Keywords: destination image, perceptions measurement, statistical research procedures, conceptual model. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Resume: Image de destination: vers un cadre conceptuel. Cet article presente une revision critique et une discussion du concept et du mesurage de limage de destination a partir ` dune perspective intradisciplinaire de marketing. On discute des aspects theoriques et methodologiques de ce concept et du mesurage. En se basant sur lexistence des trois dimen sions de lobjet, du sujet et des attributs, on analyze des etudes precedentes. On propose aussi une taxonomie des procedures methodologiques et statistiques du mesurage de limage des destinations pour aider les chercheurs a capter et a mesurer la construction de limage. ` ` Larticle propose un modele conceptuel qui represente sa nature complexe, multiple, relativ` iste et dynamique comme un cadre plus comprehensif de limage 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 destinations image is universally acknowledged, since it affects the individuals subjective perception and consequent behavior and destination choice (Chon 1990, 1992; Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Stabler 1988; Telisman-Kosuta 1989). This importance has led to a growing body of research on the tourism desti-

Martina Gallarza teaches Marketing at Facultad de Estudios de la Empresa (Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Email <mggallarza@fee.edu>). Her research inter ests are customer satisfaction in services. Irene Gil Saura is Principal Lecturer at the Business Administration Department at Universidad de Valencia. Her research interests are retailing and service quality. Haydee Calderon Garca is Principal Lecturer at the Business Administration Department at Universidad de Valencia. Her research interests are small business internationalization and brand management. 56

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

57

nation image (TDI). The essential characteristic of this research line is its multidisciplinarity (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Bramwell and Rawding 1996; Gartner 1989): there are many possible approaches to studying destination image, because this formation has many implications for human behavior, as seen through disciplines such as anthropology (Selwyn 1996), sociology (Meethan 1996), geography (Gould and White 1992; Draper and Minca 1997), semiotics (Sternberg 1997) and marketing (Gunn 1972), with respect to the understanding of tourism consumer behavior. In the intradisciplinary study of marketing, TDI has been the subject of considerable research during the last three decades. Investigation has been commonly based on either effective destination positioning (Carmichael 1992; Crompton, Fakeye and Lue 1992; Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Eizaguirre and Laka 1996; Reilly 1990) or on the destination selection process (Goodrich 1978; Gunn 1972; Hunt 1975; Oppermann 1996a). Despite its relevance for tourism marketing, the research on TDI faces many difculties. One is the tourism products characteristics such as its complexity (Smith 1994) and multidimensionality (Gartner 1989). Another is that destination marketing involves the consumer physically moving to the behavior scenario (Seaton 1994; Sessa 1989). There is also great subjectivity in providing a tourism service: images are mixed with impressions about residents, retailers, other tourists, and/or employees (Caldero Gil and Gallarza 1998). But most of all, n, the intangibility of tourism service hinders image assessment as it depends on invisible elements of pre-visit selection and a pre-taste of the destination (Fakeye and Crompton 1991). Consequently, in tourism research, images are more important than tangible resources, all because perceptions, rather than reality are what motivate consumers to act or not act (Guthrie and Gale 1991:555). In spite of the importance of this research line, several authors recognize a lack of conceptual framework around destination image. In the early 90s, one could read although such studies have become a staple of the tourism research agenda, invariably they have been atheoretical and lacking in any conceptual framework (Fakeye and Crompton 1991:10) or researchers have not been successful in completely conceptualizing and operationalizing destination image (Echtner and Ritchie 1991:10). Later on, in 1993, Gartner suggests that most tourism image research has been piecemeal without a theoretical basis for support (Gartner 1993:209). In order to provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework of TDI, a conceptual model from an intradisciplinary marketing perspective was developed based on previous literature. The model is designed for a better understanding of the strategic importance of destination image. It is based on two sources: a review and discussion of existing theoretical literature about conceptualizing the TDI, and an analysis and taxonomy of methodologies employed for its measurement. The purpose of the model is to contribute to a better understanding of the image concept when applied to tourist destinations

58

DESTINATION IMAGE

and to aid selection of the best research methodologies for measuring the TDI construct. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF DESTINATION IMAGE Many authors agree that the TDI research line emerged from Hunts work of 1971 (Driscoll, Lawson and Niven 1994; Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Embacher and Buttle 1989; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gartner and Hunt 1987; Reilly 1990; Sternquist Witter 1985). From this time onwards, 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 pubTable 1. Literature Review on Tourism Destination Image
Topics Covered a. Conceptualization and dimensions b. Destination image formation process (static and dynamic) c. Assessment and measurement of destination image Authorsa 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 1,2,6,9,11,13,16,17,20,22,23,27,31,32,33,34, 46,48,51,63 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,18,19,22,23,34,25, 26,27,28,33,37,34,40,41,43,47,49,51,54,55,56, 62,63,64 1,4,16,19,23,43,46,56

d. Inuence of distance on destination image e. Destination image change over time 6,8,16,19,21,22,23,48,51,53 f. Active and passive role of residents in 5,35,36,39,40,42,45,49,52,57,60,61 image study g. 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. Ashworth and 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. Baloglu (1997); 55. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997); 56. Borchgrvink and Knutson (1997); 57. Lindberg 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).

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

59

lished in main tourism journals, and books which detail a theoretical approach 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 based on authors subjective criteria. The scope of destination image research is so vast that some related topics (such as destination attractiveness) were judged to be beyond the scope of this paper, but some relevant studies on attitude towards destinations are included (Muller 1995; Ryan and Montgomery 1994; Sternquist Witter 1985). This is because of the similarity of mathematical procedures used in measuring attitudes and images and because residents attitudes towards tourism can be a signicant component of the destination image formation process. Table 1 is then a personal overview of the stream of research on TDI: it can be examined by topics, by authors, or in chronological order from 1971 to 1999. Each contribution can be considered in more than one topic. Several comments on each topic are presented as insights into the purpose of the paper. Conceptualization and Dimensions. Although it started in the early 70s (Hunt 1971; Gunn 1972), the conceptual delimitation of destination image has remained an area of preferred study (Baloglu and McCleary 1999) with important attempts at synthesis during the late 80s (Telisman-Kosuta 1989). Nevertheless, there are almost as many denitions of image as scholars devoted to its conceptualization. As in Echtner and Ritchies (1991) previous review on the meaning of destination image, a selection of TDI denitions is presented to illustrate its various dimensions (Table 2). Beyond the denitions, there are some relevant efforts. Gartner (1989) presents a study of great importance for its conceptual/empirical integration. Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993) also contribute greatly to the difcult task of framing TDI, by acknowledging the existence of three axes that support the image of any destination: the functional/psychological, the common/ unique, and the holistic/attribute-based axes. However, after almost three decades of research on its meaning and measure, there is still no consensus on the process and nature of destination image formation (Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Baloglu and Brinberg 1997; Echtner and Ritchie 1991, 1993). Consequently, although this topic has a signicant number of contributions, there is still a need for better understanding of the concept and dimensions of TDI. Destination Image Formation Process. In this topic two approaches to the destination image formation process are considered: static and dynamic (Baloglu and McCleary 1999). The rst one is the study of the relationship between image and tourist behavior such as satisfaction (Chon 1990) and destination choice (Hunt 1975). The second one is the interest in the structure and formation of TDI itself (Gartner 1996). As noticed by Baloglu and McCleary the second approach has had less success. Of all the studies reviewed, those carried out by Chon (1990), (1992) were considered of special interest, due to his emphasizing the importance of destination image to tourism as a whole.

60

DESTINATION IMAGE

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

Hunt (1971): Impressions that a person or persons hold about a state in which they do not reside Markin (1974): Our own personalized, internalized and conceptualizing understanding of what we know Lawson and Bond-Bovy (1977): An expression of knowledge, impressions, prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual has of a specic object or place Crompton (1979): An image may be dened as the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a destination Dichter (1985): The concept of image can be applied to a political candidate, a product, and a country. It describes not individual traits or qualities but the total impression and entity makes on the minds of others Reynolds (1985): An image is the mental construct developed by the consumer on the basis of a few selected impressions among the ood of total impressions. It comes into being through a creative process in which selected impressions are elaborated, embellished and ordered Embacher and Buttle (1989): Image is comprised of the ideas or conceptions held individually or collectively of the destination under investigation. Image may comprise both cognitive and evaluative components Fakeye and Crompton (1991): Image is the mental construct developed by a potential tourist on the basis of a few selected impressions among the ood of total impressions Kotler et al (1994): The image of a place is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person holds of it Gartner (1993), (1996): Destination images are developed by three hierarchically interrelated components: cognitive, affective, and conative Santos Arrebola (1994): Image is a mental representation of attributes and benets soughts of a product Parenteau (1995): Is a favorable or unfavorable prejudice that the audience and distributors have of the product or destination

Gartner presents also useful theoretical insights into the complexity of image formation. Finally, Baloglu and McClearys model is an excellent overall and comprehensive approach to this topic. Assessment and Measurement of Destination Image. Within the extensive TDI research line, there are two very different approaches to its measurement: rst, there are empirical studies that, without actually developing theoretic bodies, apply statistical instruments (Schroeder 1996) and, second, there are empirical studies that, as well as explaining a methodology, deal with the problems of the measurement of image (Carmichael 1992; Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Reilly 1990). Due possibly to the aforementioned difculties and responsibilities, studies of the rst approach are more common than those of the second. Attention is drawn to Mazanecs work (Mazanec 1994), which is not a TDI study but a research on the image of Australian tour operators; it has been considered in Table 1 because of the interesting discussion on multidimensionality of image and the problems related to its assessment and measurement. Further, Driscoll et al. (1994) pro-

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

61

vide a valuable insight into data collection techniques used in the methodological procedure of measuring perceptions. The present paper aims to provide a more analytical review of measurement methodologies of studies presented in respect to this topic. Distance and Destination Image Change Over Time. Few studies have focused on the distance variable. These essentially concentrate in comparing samples of respondents from different origin in an attempt to assess the relationship between geographical location and image (Crompton 1979). It is generally assumed that distance has a role in the image formation process. The inuence of time, often investigated along with the inuence of space, can be categorized into three kinds of studies: rst, those which study the inuence of length of stay in the image destination (Fakeye and Crompton 1991); second, works that repeat, after a period of time, previous studies on the same destination (Gartner and Hunt 1987); and, third, those investigating the effect of previous visitation on image formation (Dann 1996). The correct way of assessing the inuence of time on image formation should be not the comparisons of different samples, but longitudinal sampling studies, although this kind of research is difcult in tourism. Active and Passive Role of Residents in Image Study. Topic f in Table 1 includes two streams of research on residents and tourism images. One, residents of destinations may have images of their own place of residence that can be investigated in comparison with those of tourists (Sternquist Witter 1985). This stream has been called residents active role in destination image study. Two, the interest in residents attitude towards tourism has brought another body of research (Getz 1994; Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Ryan and Montgomery 1994; Smith and Krannich 1998). Residents are often seen as part of the image elements (Echtner and Ritchie 1991) and their support for the industry may affect the tourists perceptions of the destination. This second line of research is labelled residents passive role in destination image study. Both kinds of studies generally present managerial implications, thus becoming useful guidelines for destination analysis and policies. Destination Image Management Policies. As a result of the importance of TDI research, this last topic covers the review of strategic dimensions of destination image. Some studies are devoted to this construction as a management tool (Ritchie 1993); some concentrate on the link between destination image and positioning strategies (Haahti 1986); and others study advertising and promotion of marketing images for destinations (Fesenmaier and MacKay 1996). Studies that give substantial managerial implications after TDI empirical studies are also considered within this topic (Guthrie and Gale 1991). There is still a line of research on the image of countries as indicators of the halo or country of origin effect: the nationality of the product conditions its perception and contributes for its selling (Min Han 1989). Actually, products and places can arise in consumers minds under the umbrella of a global image based on nationality (Bordas and Rubio 1993; Willi ams and Clarke 1991).

62

DESTINATION IMAGE

A Review and Taxonomy of TDI Measurement The particularities of the TDI construct make any approach to its measurement, according to Carmichael, a methodological challenge (Carmichael 1992:94). However, one universal characteristic of all image studies makes the task more attractive: their versatility. As shown by Mazanec 1994, in any image study, relationships between variables are set out in three dimensions: the subjects perceptions are measured (1st dimension) around objects or destinations (2nd dimension) and with respect to certain attributes or characteristics (3rd dimension). This tri-dimensionality of image studies gives the researcher some exibility when managing the relationship between variables: empirical studies of image have been developed from a segmentation perspective (interest due to the subject variableBaloglu 1997; Crompton 1979; Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985); from the point of view of competitive analysis (interest due to object variableCalantone, Di Benedetto, Hakam and Bojanic 1989; Crompton et al 1992; Guthrie and Gale 1991; Oppermann 1996a, 1996b); and from the perspective of the analysis of the components of this image (interest due to the attribute variableAhmed 1991; Baloglu and Brinberg 1997; Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Embacher and Buttle 1989; Gartner 1989). Figure 1 and Table 3 provide further insights into Mazanecs dimensions. They categorize a selection of 25 empirical studies of TDI from the last two decades based on the three dimensions of attributes (Figure 1), subjects, and objects (Table 3). The 25 studies were selected among all empirical TDI research that measure attributed-based image. Studies employing affective adjective scales instead of attributes ratings (Baloglu and Brinberg 1997) or evaluative scales (Walmsley and Young 1998) were consequently not considered. With same purposes, studies using qualitative techniques, although contemplating attributes, are not considered in Figure 1 and Table 3 due to the difculty in homogenizing the attribute names (Dann 1996; Reilly 1990). In Figure 1, following Echtner and Ritchies 1991 procedure of reviewing attributes used by previous researchers, those were organized into a functional/psychological axis. In addition to Echtner and Ritchies method, authors names are also presented, for a more complete and chronological overview of the attribute dimension of TDI. For selecting attributes and considering them in the tables, three rules were followed. One, in studies using information-reduction methods, the revised attributes are selected before the statistical procedure; so there are items but not factors or components. Two, given the variety of attributes and destination types, only the more universal attributes have been considered, ignoring those that correspond to the idiosyncrasies of a particular destination (such as snow quality at skistations). Three, when the study listed various similar attributes (like shing, hunting, and rafting), these were regrouped into one category (sports activities). Therefore, the attributes considered sum up a total of 20. In Table 3, object variable (destination types) and subject types

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

63

Figure 1. The Most Common Attributes used in TDI Studies

(respondents) are described and classied. Five types of destinations were found (cities, countries, states of the United States, ski-stations, and other zones such as valleys and islands). The categorization of the subject variable asks for a closer analysis given that the options mentioned were very heterogeneous. This is probably due to a greater or lesser interest on segmentation shown by authors as well as the explicit inuence of variables such as time, place, and previous knowledge of the area. Furthermore, four generic subject categories were collected: residents (divided into retailers, near-home tourists, and other residents), tourists (prospective, rst time, or repeat), visitors (when current knowledge of the destination is required), and unspecied, when the study did not indicate the segmentation of the subject variable. The results of analyzing Figure 1 and Table 3 provide revealing insights on previous image research. Residents receptiveness was the attribute most mentioned (20 out of 25 studies), followed by land-

64

DESTINATION IMAGE

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

Subjectsa D D A1+B C D C D B C B1 B1+B2 B1;B2+B3 B1;B2+B3 D C B1 D A2 C D A D D B B1+B2
a

Authors 1. Crompton (1979) 2. Goodrich (1978) 3. Sternquist Witter (1985) 4. Haahti (1986) 5. Gartner and Hunt (1987) 6. Calantone et al. (1989) 7. Gartner (1989) 8. Embacher and Buttle (1989) 9. Guthrie and Gale (1991) 10. Ahmed (1991) 11. Chon (1991) 12. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) 13. Crompton, Fakeye and Lue (1992) 14. Carmichael (1992) 15. Chon (1992) 16. Echtner and Ritchie (1993) 17. Driscoll et al (1994) 18. Dadgostar and Isotalo (1995) 19. Muller (1995) 20. Eizaguirre and Laka (1996) 21. Schroeder (1996) 22. Ahmed (1996) 23. Oppermann (1996a), (1996b) 24. Baloglu (1997) 25. Baloglu and McCleary (1999)

Objectsb II I+II I II III II III II IV III II V V IV I II II I I I III III I II+V II

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

scape and/or surroundings (19 out of 25 studies). The same attributes were previously found in Echtner and Ritchies 1991 review, but in inverse order. The point is made on the importance of tourists perception of residents, as stated in literature review (topic f in Table 1). In a diacronic analysis, the balance between functional and psychological attributes seem not to change over 20 years, although studies since 1990 seem to contemplate more attributes. With respect to the number of destinations studied, there is indeed a great variety, depending essentially on the aim of the study and the methodology employed. Embacher and Buttle (1989) suggest a limited number of destinations when the purpose is to relate image to the choice process. For different purposes, their number can be larger (such as 30 in Oppermann 1996a, 1996b). Regarding destination types, it can be observed that the most common is countries (10 out of 25 studies), followed by cities (seven times), and US states (ve times). As Oppermann (1996a) suggested, there might be a possible line of research on cities image, within the current stream of research on urban tourism. Very few stud-

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

65

ies compare two different types of destination (Baloglu 1997; Goodrich 1978). The categorization of destinations is normally set by the researcher, and consumers perceptions might not be so clear. In fact, in their mental choices, tourists evaluate a set of different categories of destinations: a city, an island, and a small country, for instance. As stated by Haahti (1986):18 the consumer compares perceptions of various objects, on occasions with different levels of abstraction (a country and a geographical zone, for instance). Further research on the destination as a product in the consumers mind could provide useful guidelines on the consideration of one or another type of object variable in TDI studies. Opposite to object variable, comparisons among different types of respondents are most common. Most of them are looking for purposes that determine the effect on image formation of demographic, geographic, and other differences among tourists. Faced with the possibility of choosing among subjects, objects and attributes, the researchers responsibility when measuring images is considerable. There is a relation between the measurement system and the ease of capturing the many components of a TDI, for different respondents and different scenarios. There is a need of choosing statistical instruments adaptable to the complex nature of image that allow its measurements as accurately as possible. This task should be designed by the researcher according to the aim of the study (interest in the subject, object or attribute variable). Review and Analysis of Measurement Methodologies Within topic c from Table 1, the methodologies of empirical image studies have been reviewed. This review has produced Figures 2 and 3, with a classication 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

66

DESTINATION IMAGE

Figure 3. A Taxonomy Review of Procedures for Measuring TDI

divided into two blocks: qualitative techniques and other techniques. The rst block encompasses techniques such as free elicitation and open-ended questions, focus groups, and indepth interviews and experts discussions. The second group covers essentially content analysis. Figure 3 provides the same kind of taxonomy and review for quantitative methods distinguishing multivariate and bivariate methods. The rst group is divided into three kinds of statistical procedures: information reduction techniques, grouping techniques, and dependence analysis. The second group, bivariate methods, includes correlation analysis and t-tests. In Figure 2, two columns are considered: methodological procedure (with the aforementioned sections) and authors. Each author can be located in one or more than one section, depending on the number of qualitative techniques employed in his/her study. In Figure 3, the same presentation is proposed, with an additional column: the data collection technique used in questionnaires. The legend provides

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

67

guidelines for reading the abbreviations. The number beside the data collection techniques indicates the size of the response format. When the study developed successive algorithms of the transformed data, the name of the author appears repeated in two or more sections (for example, Ahmed 1991 uses Principal Component Analysis, ANOVA, and t-test). In these cases, the data collection method is cited with the rst technique and the words 2nd technique appear in data collection column, 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 methodologies used are in general quite complicated. For the most part, there is a combination of multivariate and bivariate techniques, with a greater or lesser presence of qualitative techniques in the preliminary steps (such as Guthrie and Gale 1991 using focus group to generate items, then Factor Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling). Very few studies use qualitative methods as the main technique (Dann 1996; Reilly 1990), although some use a good combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Some studies use solely qualitative methods because they analyze marketing place promotion images with a strategic purpose (Ashworth 1991; Bramwell and Rawding 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996): these studies are not consumer research based. Regarding data collection format, only two studies have been found that use the Kelly Grid, either exclusively (Embacher and Buttle 1989) or compared with the scaled questionnaire (Driscoll et al. 1994). Among all collection procedures, the seven-point Likert Scale is the most commonly used. In general, multivariate techniques predominate because they allow for 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, for various publics, and various destinations (Calantone et al. 1989). Information is gathered on the three dimensions of image analysis detailed by Mazanec 1994. From all the multivariate methods, the most commonly employed for measuring destination image are information reduction techniques: Multidimensional Scaling, and Factor Analysis Methods (Correspondences Analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis). It is important to point out that Factor Analysis collects a diversity of regrouped techniques under this common name due to the similar mathematical treatment of the information. However, the Principal Component Analysis is not a Factor Analysis as such, essentially because of the treatment given to the variance (Nunnally 1978). Yet due to similarities in mathematical instrumentalization, many authors consider their studies together with Correspondences Analysis and Principal Components Analysis (Aaker and Day 1989). Taking into account the acknowledgment of theoretical complexity and 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 conceptualization was conducted. Based upon the revision and organization of pre-

68

DESTINATION IMAGE

vious approaches made by the authors of this article, a theoretical model is proposed as a description of the image concept. It summarizes the large number of preceding studies and can help future research by providing a more comprehensive framework. In the model, the conceptual nature of TDI underlines its importance as a valuable variable for destination management. A Theoretical Model The proposed model (Figure 4) is based on four features. A feature means a dening element of a construct, which, without being a denition, allows for its systematic identication and permits its description by particularizing its nature as opposed to other mental constructs. Features are semantically explained in the model by adjectives. They are drawn from two sources: the literature review and the analysis of the taxonomies undertaken by authors of the present work. On the left side of the gure, previous TDI research is listed according to statements: each feature relies directly (thick arrow) or indirectly (thin arrow) on one or several statements. On the right side of the gure, content analysis on the taxonomies brings up comments that contribute to each of the features (shown in the gure with thick or thin arrows). Every feature found underlines a useful dimension of the concept of image for strategic management of destinations: complexity underlines an analytical dimension, multiplicity provides an action dimension, 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 is one which allows for more than one interpretation or whose comprehension lacks a unique meaning. The conceptual delimitation of destinations image is not unequivocal. Denitions are as many as the authors interested in conceptualizing it (Table 2). For some authors, image is a concept that can be applied to multiple objects, among them an area or a country (Markin 1974; Reynolds 1985). Generally, all authors agree that the concept usually corresponds to a global impression (Crompton 1979; Dichter 1985; Kotler et al. 1994; Lumsdon 1997; Parenteau 1995). However, when determining the components that make up this global impression, some differences appear: for Crompton (1979) TDI possesses cognitive components, for Embacher and Buttle (1989) and Baloglu and McCleary (1999) image comprises both cognitive and evaluative components, and for Gartner (1996) and Dann (1996) destination images are formed by three interrelated components: cognitive, evaluative, and conative. In addition to differences in components, the way those components interact is also variable. Some conceptualizations of image have a selective character (Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Reynolds 1985) while others are additives (Crompton 1979; Kotler et al. 1994). There is neither a consensus as to whether or not TDI can be conceived as a collective impression, meaning by various subjects at the same time (Embacher and Buttle 1989; Hunt 1975; Lawson and Bond-Bovy 1977)

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

69

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 rst focus would generally differentiate image as opposed to the stereotype, this being understood as a collective image. Thus, there is a possible debate around the TDI construct both in its nature (collective or uni-personal) and in its content (type of components and way of interaction). These dyslexias in conceptualizing TDI underline a rst feature: its complexity. This is reinforced by the result of the analysis undertaken with Table 3 and Figures 13. As

70

DESTINATION IMAGE

Mazanec 1994 suggests, there is a need of considering three different variables in all image studies, which is an added methodological complexity. Statistical procedures that have been listed are also quite complex and researchers usually employ more than one. Consequently, both theoretically and methodologically speaking, there is a need to consider an analytical dimension of TDI to discover an accurate understanding of the construct. The Multiple Nature of the Image. The existence of a multiplicity of factors or variables that make up the identity of a destinations image has been an area of substantial investigation. First of all, as in most tourism related constructs, there is a need for multidisciplinary focus on TDI (Baloglu 1997; Bramwell and Rawding 1996). When considering this construct, the justication of its multiple nature lies in two factors. The rst corresponds to its nature (attribute-based or holistic) and the second to its formation process (both static and dynamic considerations). A rst factor of multiplicity is that any product or service image can be understood as a multi-item construct (Reynolds and Guttman 1984). When the product is a destination, the multiple attributes are the elements of the nal composite image (Ahmed 1991, 1996). Consequently, a major focus concentrates on the assessment of multiattribute based images (Baloglu 1997; Carmichael 1992; Schroeder 1996). However, in spite of the almost universal acknowledgement of the multidimensionality of the TDI, some studies consider global scores of the image. These scores are a pondered sum of the perceptions of the components (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995) or a direct observation introduced in the questionnaires (Schroeder 1996). The real point is then whether a destination image is an output in itself or needs to be attribute based. Some authors claim the need of considering both views (Echtner and Ritchie 1993) and some others measure holistic images via qualitative techniques (Reilly 1990). When considering image as a global and holistic perception of all the components of the destination, TDI is then assumed to be like a gestalt. Internal perceptions constitute an assessment that the consumer makes, sometimes unconsciously, that is not exclusively based on physical or functional attributes of the destination, but more on holistic attributes (Echtner and Ritchie 1991, 1993). This dyslexia in the approach to the multidimensionality of TDI constructs supports the multiple feature (thick arrow), but also reinforces the rst feature: complexity (a thin arrow). The second factor that conditions the multiple nature of the destinations image comes from the formation process. The image, as an overall output, comes from a sequence of stages where several elements and factors inuence and interrelate. The TDI formation process produces two areas of research interest: destination choice and tourist satisfaction. The image formation process can be related to destination selection intention (Goodrich 1978; Hunt 1975) and to tourist satisfaction when actual visitation takes place (Chon 1990). In both cases,

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

71

the TDI formation process has multiple components interrelated in a number of stages. Generally, any doctrine, using Gunns (Gunn 1972) initial nomenclature, recognizes organic components (family tradition, teachers, mass media, books, etc.) and induced components (those that come from the promotional efforts made by the industry to attract consumers). The relationship between these components has been examined by Gartner (1996) who suggests that images are formed throughout a continuum of eight stages that proceed from induced to organic agents. Nevertheless, although the TDI formation process has led to a substantial body of literature, most studies have largely focused on its static structure, but not in its dynamic nature (Baloglu and McCleary 1999:869). Similarly, the TDI formation process has been mostly studied to explain tourist behavioural constructs, often neglecting, the need to understand the complex image formation process itself. In any of both approaches, static and dynamic, the multiplicity of stages and components in the formation of the TDI reinforces its multiple nature. Concerning the second source of the model, taxonomies, the multiplicity of TDI is visible in the methodological choice for measurement: considering multiple attributes (organized into organic/induced or functional/psychological axes, for instance) and the consequent use of multidimensional techniques. The Relativistic Nature of the Concept. A concept is relativistic when it is simultaneously subjective (changes from person to person) and comparative (involves perceptions among various objects). The subjective character of image is universally acknowledged. Image always corresponds to an interiorization of some perceptions, and not everyone has the same perceptions. Therefore, image is always subjective. As such, TDI refers to perceptions of tourists in a destination and these correspond to the perceived contribution of the different tourism services to be found there: accommodation, food, transport, and more. Additionally, some authors recognize a greater subjectivity in the tourism encounter as opposed to other services (Calderon et al. 1998; Hol loway and Robinson 1995). All this means that some elements are notably subjective, such as the residents attitude or the perceived accessibility to the destination. Thus, the subjectivity of the TDI is structural in character (like every image), which is stressed due to greater subjectivity of the tourism service encounter. Methodologically speaking, the subjectivity of TDI has led to a substantial body of literature around image and segmentation of the tourism market (Ahmed 1996; Baloglu 1997; Crompton 1979; Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985). The second idea that supports that TDI concept is relativistic is the fact that image is a perception that normally refers to one particular object as opposed to other objects. This relativism has invited a line of research on positioning, this being the competitive and strategic image (Ahmed 1991, 1996; Alford 1998; Calantone et al. 1989; Crompton et al. 1992; Guthrie and Gale 1991; Haahti 1986). Taxonomies undertaken also show the relativism feature: Table 3 contains

72

DESTINATION IMAGE

several studies that compare different subsamples and/or destinations, and Figures 2 and 3 can facilitate a statistical procedure choice according to a strategic purpose (MDS for positioning studies, t-tests to illustrate differences between samples, AF to reveal latent structures of image, etc.). The Dynamic Nature of the Concept. The idea of this last feature is that image is not static but changes, depending essentially on two variables: time and space. This dynamic nature is greatly useful for marketing destinations in that each image is a manageable instrument. The inuence of time on image is relatively logical as its formation is a process (Gunn 1972). There are works that have studied (Fesenmaier and MacKay 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996) or empirically demonstrated the inuence of time on image (Chon 1991; Gartner 1986; Gartner and Hunt 1987). The inuence of the space variable on image formation involves its subjective character (affects where respondents are) and the circumstantiality of the image formation process, which means that no image can be studied without a reference to the space variable. Crompton (1979) studies the inuence of the geographical location of subjects with respect to the destination studied. Telisman-Kosuta (1989) afrms the positive correlation between the consumers physical distance from the destination and his/her level of perception of it. The greater the distance, the greater the distortion of reality, and the shorter the distance, the greater the meaning of the details. This statement is of great relevance to research into the attractiveness of a region or a destination for a non-distant public (Dadgostar and Isotalo 1995). The circumstantiality with respect to space, together with the subjective nature of the TDI concept, has favored a growing body of research on the residents destination image (King 1994; Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985) as well as on their attitude towards the industry in their region or country and their support of the tourism activity (Getz 1994; Lawson, Williams, Young and Cossens 1998). These studies are tangentially useful for conceptualizing TDI, given that the residents receptiveness is the most mentioned attribute in the current review (Figure 1). Methodologically, the dynamic character of TDI is shown by the use of comparisons tests to reveal temporal or spatial inuence on image formation. CONCLUSION Tourism destination image has been a worthy area of researchers investigation for nearly 30 years. Yet despite their importance and interest, destination image studies have been criticized as atheoretical and lacking a conceptual framework (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gartner 1996), even though signicant recent contributions such as Baloglu and McCleary (1999) are more comprehensive and valuable for theoretical understanding of TDI. The very large number of previous studies on TDI, both theoretical and empirical, gives the researcher interested in the topic what could

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

73

be called a kaleidoscopic view of the construct, or a continuously reduced and changing vision. Amid the multidimensionality of all tourism studies, these visions of TDI are never general enough to offer a global perspective; as with the image of tourism, generally it is difcult to assume universal truths. To rationalize this kaleidoscopic view, this review, critique, and categorization of previous studies was undertaken to orient the stream of TDI research in a conceptual model. Several steps were followed. First, from an intradisciplinary orientation of marketing, this paper offers a review of topics from the extensive research line of destination images and shows the importance of the conceptualization and measurement of TDI. Second, following Mazanecs structuring of image studies format around three dimensions (objects, subjects, and attributes), previous empirical measurements of TDI are organized in two gures. Figure 1 lists attributes employed, in 25 image studies, to measure destination image (compare with very similar ndings in Echtner and Ritchies 1993 review): residents receptiveness and landscape and surroundings are the attributes most studied. There is no signicant predominance of either functional or psychological attributes during the period covered by the review (197999). Table 3 provides a taxonomy of the same 25 image studies, according to object (destination types); and subject (respondents interviewed) variables. It has been shown that the image of countries is investigated more often than any other sort of destination. Also a substantial line of research into imagery of cities is part of the growing interest in urban tourism (Oppermann 1996a). In addition, the types of respondents in TDI studies (subject variable), prove to be quite heterogeneous. As to the measurement of the TDI, the review of empirical studies presented in Figures 2 and 3 reveals the great diversity of statistical methodologies. These are mostly combinations of multivariate and bivariate techniques. High levels of mathematical complexity can include a greater or lesser presence of qualitative techniques, generally in the preliminary steps of the process. In fact, in spite of its usefulness, there is a great complexity in measuring perceptions around a destination (Guthrie and Gale 1991; Hunt 1971), and the comparisons are not always accurate (Driscoll et al. 1994). The description of the nature of TDI based on previous literature and on taxonomies undertaken by the authors is summed up in the conceptual model presented in Figure 4. The construction of the model demonstrates that four features identify and describe the image construct: this nature is complex (it is not unequivocal), multiple (in elements and processes), relativistic (subjective and generally comparative), and dynamic (varying with the dimensions of time and space). The importance of this construct for strategic destination management is shown: TDI is simultaneously a variable of analysis, action, strategy, and tactics. The utility and strength of this work derives essentially from the review and discussion structuralizing the methodologies of previous empirical destination image research. The taxonomies usefully organize the thick stream of investigation and can help researchers

74

DESTINATION IMAGE

discover improved understanding of both the concept and the measurement of TDI. Both areas of study (conceptualization and measurement) should be more united: more theoretical analysis and knowledge can help in accurately measuring TDI because what has been scientically perceived (that is, what has been measured) is better known. As limitations to the study, the lack of empirical evidence should be mentioned. Further contributions could test hypotheses on TDI structure and on the relationship among features. Methodological procedure of reviewing could also be rened by identifying the role of every tourism journal in understanding TDI: academic vs. practical viewpoints, multidisciplinary vs intradisciplinary approaches, focus on theoretical or empirical contributions, and more. For the density and diversity of journals reviewed, many have concealed some relevant contributions. Nevertheless, the proposed model is a valuable guideline for both public and private tourism organizations: the four features provide a managerial framework for analyzing and controlling the valuable tool of destination image. Focusing on one or other feature will provide marketers with a more efcient management of tourism destinations.
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Prof. Eduardo Fayos-Sola for his accurate commentary on the initial work.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z. U. 1991 The Inuence of the Components of a States Tourist Image on Product Positioning Strategy. Tourism Management 12:331340. 1996 The Need for the Identication of the Constituents of a Destinations Tourist Image a Promotional Segmentation Perspective. Revue du Tourisme 51(2):4457. Aaker, D. A., and G. S. Day 1989 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 Marketing 7(2):5368. Amor, F., C. Calabuig, J. Abellan, and V. M. Monfort 1994 Barriers Found in Repositioning a Mediterranean Sun and Beach Product: The Valencian Case. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. Seaton, ed., pp. 428435. 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. 121142. Wallingford: CAB International. Ashworth, G. J., and H. Voogd 1990 Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban Planning. Chichester: Wiley. Baloglu, S. 1997 The Relationship between Destination Images and Sociodemographic and Trip Characteristics of International Travellers. Journal of Vacation Marketing 3:221233. Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg 1997 Affective Images of Tourism Destination. Journal of Travel Research 35(4):1115.

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

75

Baloglu, S., and K. W. McCleary 1999 A Model of Destination Image Formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26:808889. Borchgrvink, C. P., and B. J. Knutson 1997 Norway Seen from Abroad: Perceptions of Norway and Norwegian Tourism: An Image Study. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 4(4):25 48. Bordas, E., and M. L. Rubio 1993 La imagen turstica de Espana: un modelo de gestio a largo plazo. Infor n mation Comercial Espanola 722:107118. Bramwell, B., and L. Rawding 1996 Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial Cities. Annals of Tourism Research 23:201221. Calantone, R. J., C. A. Di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D. C. Bojanic 1989 Multiple Multinational Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence analysis. Journal of Travel Research 28(2):2532. Calderon, H., I. Gil, and M. G. Gallarza 1998 Una aproximacio al estudio de la actividad turstica desde la perspectiva n del Marketing. In I International Forum on The Sciences, Techniques and Art applied to Marketing. Academy and Profession, pp. 207217. 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. 93106. London: Mansell. Chon, K-S. 1989 Understanding Recreational Travelers Motivation, Attitude and Satisfaction. Revue du Tourisme 47(1):36. 1990 The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion. Revue du Tourisme 2:29. 1991 Tourism Destination Image Modication Process. Marketing Implications. Tourism Management 12(1):6872. 1992 The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: An Extension. Revue du Tourisme 1:28. Crompton, J. L. 1979 An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Inuence of Geographical Location upon the Image. Journal of Travel Research 18(4):1823. Crompton, J. L., P. C. Fakeye, and C-C. Lue 1992 Positioning: The Example of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the Winter Long Stay Destination Market. Journal of Travel Research 31(2):2026. Dadgostar, B., and R. M. Isotalo 1995 Content of City Destination Image for Near-Home Tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 3(2):2534. Dann, G. M. S. 1996 Tourists Images of a Destination: An Alternative Analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5(1/2):4155. Dichter, E. 1985 What is an Image. Journal of Consumer Research 13:455472. Draper, D., and C. Minca 1997 Image and Destination: A Geographical Approach Applied to Banff National Park. Canada Revue du Tourisme 2:1424. Driscoll, A., R. Lawson, and B. Niven 1994 Measuring Tourists Destination Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research 21:499511. Echtner, C. M., and J. R. B. Ritchie 1991 The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies 2(2):212. 1993 The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4):313.

76

DESTINATION IMAGE

Eizaguirre, A., and J. P. Laka 1996 Competencia entre ciudades. Medicio de la imagen comparada de 7 n metropolis espaniolas. Boletin de Estudios Economicos 51(157):6788. Embacher, J., and F. Buttle 1989 A Repertory Grid Analysis of Austrias Image as a Summer Vacation Destination. Journal of Travel Research 28(3):323. Fakeye, P. C., and J. L. Crompton 1991 Image Differences Between Prospective, First-Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research 30(2):1016. Fesenmaier, D., and K. MacKay 1996 Deconstructing Destination Image Construction. Revue du Tourisme 51(2):3743. Gartner, W. C. 1986 Temporal Inuence on Image Change. Annals of Tourism Research 13:635644. 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 Marketing 2(2/3):191215. 1996 Tourism Development: Principles, Policies, and Policies. New York: Van Nostram Reinhold. Gartner, W. C., and J. D. Hunt 1987 An Analysis of State Image Change over a Twelve-Year Period (1971 1983). Journal of Travel Research 26(2):1519. Getz, D. 1994 Residents Attitudes Towards Tourism: A Longitudinal Study in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tourism Management 15:147258. Goodrich, J. N. 1978 A New Approach to Image Analysis through Multidimensional Scaling. Journal of Travel Research 17(2):27. Gould, P., and R. White 1992 Mental Maps (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gunn, C. 1972 Vacationscape. Designing Tourist Regions. Washington DC: Taylor and Francis/University of Texas. Guthrie, J., and P. Gale 1991 Positioning Ski Areas. In New Horizons Conference Proceedings, pp. 551569. Calgary: University of Calgary. Haahti, A. J. 1986 Finlands Competitive Position as a Destination. Annals of Tourism Research 13:1135. Heath, E., and G. Wall 1992 Marketing Tourism Destination: A Strategic Planning Approach. In Target Marketing and Regional Positioning Strategy, pp. 89121. 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) Tourism Destination Image. In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 557561. Cambridge: Prentice Hall. 1975 Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. Cited in W. C. Gartner and J. D. Hunt (1987) An Analysis of State Image Change over a Twelve-Year Period (19711983). Journal of Travel Research 13(3):1519. 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. 347358. Chichester: Wiley. Kotler, N., D. H. Haider, and I. Rein 1994 Mercadotecnia de Localidades. Mexico: Diana.

 GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERON

77

Lawson, F., and M. Bond-Bovy 1977 Tourism and Recreational Development. London: Architectural Press. Lawson, R. W., J. Williams, T. Young, and J. Cossens 1998 A Comparison of Residents Attitudes towards Tourism in 10 New Zealand Destinations. Tourism Management 19:247253. Lindberg, K., and R. L. Johnson 1997 Modeling Residence Attitudes towards Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24:402424. Lohmann, M., and E. Kaom 1999 Weather and Holiday Destination Preferences. Image, Attitude and Experience. Revue de Tourisme 54(2):5464. 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 Application to Austrian Tour Operators. Revue du Tourisme 49(3):918. Meethan, K. 1996 Place, Image and Power: Brighton as Resort. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 180196. Chichester: Wiley. Min Han, C. 1989 Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? Journal of Marketing Research 26:222229. Muller, T. E. 1995 How Personal Values Govern the Post-Visit Attitudes of International Tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 3(2):324. 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 17:175182. 1996 Convention CitiesImages and Changing Fortunes. Journal of Tourism Studies 7(1):1019. Parenteau, A. 1995 Marketing Practico del Turismo. Madrid: Sntesis S.A. Prentice, R., and J. Hudson 1993 Assessing the Linguistic Dimension in the Perception of Tourism Impacts of a Tourist Destination: a Case Study of Porthmadog, Gwyneed. Tourism Management 14:298306. Reilly, M. D. 1990 Free Elicitation of Descriptive Adjectives for Tourism Image Assessment. Journal of Travel Research 28(4):2126. Reynolds, W. H. 1985 The Role of the Consumer in Image Building. California Management Review 7:69. Reynolds, T. J., and J. Guttman 1984 Advertising is Image Management. Journal of Advertising Research 24:2737. Ritchie, J. R. B. 1993 Crafting a Destination Vision: Putting the Concept of Resident-Responsive Tourism into Practice. Tourism Management 14:279289. Ruiz, A., R. Olarte, and V. Iglesias 1999 Evaluacion de los destinos tursticos en funcion de su valor de marca. In XI Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing, 427450. Valladolid, October. Ryan, C., and D. Montgomery 1994 The Attitudes of Bakewell Residents to Tourism and Issues in Community Responsive Tourism. Tourism Management 15:358369.

78

DESTINATION IMAGE

Santos Arrebola, J. L. 1994 La imagen en turismo. In I Congreso de la Asociacio Espanla de n Expertos cienticos en Turismo, pp. 209217. Marbella: Institute de Estudios Tursticos. Schroeder, T. 1996 The Relationship of Residents Image of their State as a Tourist Destination and their Support for Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 34(4):7173. Seaton, T. V. 1994 Tourism Marketing and Research. In Tourism: The State of the Art, pp. 428435. Chichester: Wiley. Selby, M., and N. G. Morgan 1996 Reconstructing Place Image: a Case Study of its Role in Destination Market Research. Tourism Management 17:287294. Selwyn, T. 1996 Introduction. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 132. Chichester: Wiley. Sessa, A. 1989 Characteristics of Tourism. In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 4345. Cambridge: Prentice Hall. Smith, S. L. 1994 The Tourism Product. Annals of Tourism Research 21:582595. Smith, M. S., and R. S. Krannich 1998 Tourism Dependence and Tourism Attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research 25:783802. 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. 133161. London: Croom Helm. Sternberg, E. 1997 The Iconography of the Tourism Experience. Annals of Tourism Research 24:951969. Sternquist Witter, B. 1985 Attitudes about Resort Area a Comparison of Tourists and Local Retailers. Journal of Travel Research 24(1):1419. Telisman-Kosuta, N. 1989 Tourism Destination Image. In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 557561. Cambridge: Prentice Hall. Valls, J. -F. 1992 La imagen de marca de los pases. Madrid: McGraw Hill. Walmsley, D. J., and M. Young 1998 Evaluative Images and Tourism: The use of Perceptual Constructs to Describe the Structure of Destination Images. Journal of Travel Research 36(3):6569. Williams, E., and T. Clarke 1991 Country Image: As Others see Us. In Seminar on Travel and Tourism: Research Challenge, pp. 159173. Dublin: ESOMAR.

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