Article

Tourism and Hospitality Research

2019, Vol. 19(1) 54–64
Analysing the image of Abu Dhabi ! The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
and Dubai as tourism destinations – sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1467358417690436

The perception of first-time visitors journals.sagepub.com/home/thr

from Germany

Hanno M Martens
Cologne Business School, Cologne, Germany

Dirk Reiser
Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kleve, Germany

Abstract
The Middle East is one of the fastest growing tourism regions in the world. Especially Dubai (since the 1980s)
and Abu Dhabi (since the 1990s) have invested heavily in tourism development to firstly enhance their rec-
ognition as international destinations and secondly to diversify their economies away from the oil production.
Surprisingly, there is a lack of academic published articles on those two emirates’ international destination
image. This paper attempts to fill this gap by studying and comparing the images of Abu Dhabi and Dubai
amongst potential first-time visitors from one of their main source markets – Germany. An empirical study
amongst 300 respondents from North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, was conducted to reveal the cognitive
image attributes of Dubai and Abu Dhabi for non-visitors. Despite both places having a similar basis for
destination development, their images differ. Thus, Abu Dhabi and Dubai are not seen as competitors on
the tourism market, instead they could even increase the mutual benefits through highlighting specific
images more distinctly. Further, the research identified a missing fit between the desired tourism destination
image for both destinations and the perceived destination image. This is especially significant for the aspect of
sustainability, which both emirates try to promote. Potential tourists rather perceive both emirates as unsus-
tainable and not environmentally conscious.

Keywords
Tourism destination image, destination marketing, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Middle East, destination competition,
image fit

Introduction
Globally, there is a high growth in locations offering
tourism products to an increasing international tour-
ism market. This has led to greater competition
between places (United Nations World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO), 2015). On the supply side
these destinations compete for tourists. On the
demand side potential tourists have more destinations
to select for their travels. One of those ‘new’ destin-
ations is the Middle East. As a rather late arrival region
on the international tourism market it showed the
worldwide strongest growth in arrivals of international
tourists between 1990 and 2010 (UNWTO, 2015). In
particular, two of the seven emirates of the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), Abu Dhabi and Dubai, have
established themselves as international tourism
destinations.
Abu Dhabi City and Dubai City are the capital
cities of the emirates with the same name. In general,
Corresponding author:
Hanno M Martens, Cologne Business School, Hardefuststraße 1,
Cologne 50767, Germany.
Email: h.martens@cbs.de
Martens and Reiser
emirates in the UAE are federal states but with a
higher political control and independence than federal
states in Germany or the USA for example. Apart from
the capital cities, Abu Dhabi and Dubai also include
desert landscapes and farms as well as other cities and
villages. Especially, the city Al Ain in the emirate Abu
Dhabi needs to be mentioned because of its UNESCO
Cultural World Heritage Sites (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 2015). The tourism marketing
agency of Abu Dhabi also markets the city Al Ain.
As Abu Dhabi and Dubai both promote themselves
as emirates and not as cities each emirate will be con-
sidered as one destination throughout this research.
Dubai has started targeting tourists in the late
1980s and experienced strong tourism growth in the
1990s. Abu Dhabi followed this development approxi-
mately 10 years later (Sharpley, 2002). Amongst many
other international destinations, both have played an
important part in the aforementioned increase in com-
petitiveness in the tourism industry. Abu Dhabi and
Dubai are investing heavily in tourism as part of an
economic diversification process away from oil
dependency (Low, 2012). Importantly, each of the
seven emirates in the UAE have individual economic
development plans and policies. Therefore, the differ-
ent emirates are responsible for their individual tour-
ism development and marketing strategies that could
focus on different target groups. However, based on
their location they have similarities in climate, culture
and nature. According to Sharpley (2002) these simi-
larities result in related tourism development strate-
gies, which in turn leads to strong competition
between the emirates as they address very similar
target groups. Destination marketers from both emir-
ates, however, state Abu Dhabi and Dubai not to be
competitors. Instead both see the emirates as benefici-
aries for one another, as tourists visiting one emirate
may also visit the other emirate during the same trip
(personal communication).
Amongst tourism researchers there is general agree-
ment on the importance of destination images in the
destination choice process of tourists and accordingly
for destination marketers (e.g. Baloglu and McCleary,
1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Fakeye and
Crompton, 1991; Pike, 2008). However, no academic
published destination image studies have been con-
ducted on Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Only Govers
(2012), Govers and Go (2005) and Ryan and Ninov
(2011) studied parts of the tourism destination image
of Dubai. Further, Tourism Competitive Intelligence
(2013) questioned international travellers on destin-
ations on the Arabian peninsula in 2013. They found
respondents to be more aware of Dubai followed by
Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. A holistic empirical
study on the destination image of Abu Dhabi and
55
Dubai amongst international travellers may be useful
as previous destination image studies have demon-
strated their relevance for destination marketers, tour
operators and travel agents working on their relevant
regions (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Furthermore,
destinations compete for tourists through images (Pike
and Ryan, 2004). The images destination marketers
try to promote, the self- or desired images, need to
fit to those perceived by potential tourists (Pearce,
2005; Pike, 2004).
Images on tourism destinations can vary signifi-
cantly between various source regions, depending on
factors such as geographical distance or cultural differ-
ences (Hunt, 1975; Steinecke, 2013). Research on
other source regions could therefore bring significantly
different results. Therefore, tourism destination image
studies commonly include a defined source region. For
this study North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) is chosen
as the source region, representing Germany as its most
populous federal state (Statistisches Bundesamt,
2015). The German outbound tourism market is iden-
tified as an important source market for tourists visit-
ing Abu Dhabi and Dubai. This market is the third
biggest in the world based on international tourism
receipts (UNWTO, 2015). Further, the third most
international visitors to Abu Dhabi (Tourism-Insider,
2014) and the sixth most international visitors to
Dubai are from Germany (Tourism-Insider, 2013).
The study intends to answer the following two
research questions:
RQ 1: Are Abu Dhabi and Dubai competitors for
tourists on the German market through their tourism
destination image?
RQ 2: Do the desired images of Abu Dhabi and Dubai
fit to the perceived images of potential first-time vis-
itors from Germany?
Tourism destination image and perception
The first tourism researchers to undertake destination
image research were Gunn (1972), Hunt (1975) and
Mayo (1973) in the 1970s (Pike, 2008). In his review
of the 23 most cited papers on destination image,
Chon (1990) found the impact of images on the
choice process of tourists’ to be one of the most popu-
lar topics in tourism literature. In particular the intan-
gibility of tourism services increases the importance of
images for the destination choice process (Crompton
and Ankomah, 1993). The potential tourist cannot try
out the tourism product before purchase. Therefore,
the potential consumer only has limited access to
information and an increased risk in the destination
choice process. Consequently, tourism researchers
56 Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(1)

Table 1. Definitions of destination image (own illustration based on Gallarza et al., 2002; Pearce, 2005).

Hunt (1975) Perceptions held by potential visitors about an area.

Crompton (1979) Sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination.
Phelps (1986) Perceptions or impressions of a place.
Fridgen (1979) A mental representation of an object, person, place or event which is not physically
before the observer.
Fakeye and Crompton (1991) Image is the mental construct developed by a potential tourist on the basis of a few
selected impressions among the flood of total impressions.
Baloglu and McCleary (1999) An attitudinal construct consisting of an individual’s mental representations of
knowledge, feelings and global impression about an object or destination.
Tasci and Kozak (2006) Image is the product of consumer perception.
Pike (2008) A repertoire of brand associations held in the mind of the consumer.

agree on the important role of image in the destination
choice process (e.g. Baloglu and McCleary, 1999;
Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Fakeye and Crompton,
1991; Pike, 2008).
On the contrary to the agreement on the import-
ance of destination image, scholars differ in defining
image, analysing destination images and explaining the
formation of destination image (Pike, 2008). Table 1
summarizes different definitions of destination image
(Gallarza et al., 2002; Pearce, 2005). This shows the
complexity and vagueness in understanding destin-
ation image. The definition given by Hunt (1975) is
the earliest to be cited regularly in destination image
literature. His definition includes two important
aspects. Hunt explains who has an image – potential
visitors – and of what they have an image – of an
area. Later definitions use different wordings to
describe what somebody has an image of. Crompton
(1979) simply uses the term destination, Phelps
(1986) uses the term place, and Fridgen (1979) adds
object, person and event to this list. To reduce the
confusion, the author argues for the use of one
simple geographical element in the definition. Using
the term destination to circumscribe this unclear geo-
graphical space in a definition of destination image
simplifies the complicated and disputed definition.
Eventually, a destination image will always be directed
towards a location, which is perceived individually by
the potential visitor (Pearce, 2005). The discussion of
what is actually seen as a destination should not over-
complicate the discussion on a definition of destin-
ation image.
It is not only the term image which is vague, but
also the relation of image to terms used in the same
context. These terms are perception and impression.
The term perception is frequently used for the explan-
ation of image. Scholars use phrases like images being
perceived (Hunt, 1975; Phelps, 1986; Prebensen, 2007;
Tasci and Kozak, 2006), or images being impressions
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Crompton, 1979;
Fakeye and Crompton, 1991). An answer to the link
between perception and image is given in articles by
Hunt (1975) and Tasci and Kozak (2006). In both
articles image is seen as the product, or in some way
the summary, of all perceptions. Out of the percep-
tions a tourist or potential tourist has of different fea-
tures of a destination, or simply the destination overall,
a general image of this destination is created in the
mind of this tourist. That goes along with the defin-
ition of image given by Crompton (1979: 18) as the
‘‘sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions.’’ The definition
recommended by Echtner and Ritchie (1993: 3) com-
plies with destination image being ‘‘composed of per-
ceptions.’’ Furthermore, Baloglu and McCleary
(1999), Fakeye and Crompton (1991), Fridgen
(1979) and Pike (2008) agree that image is in some
way a mental construct or something that is developed
in the mind of the tourist. Taking into account some
important considerations by different researchers dis-
cussed above, a summarizing definition of tourism des-
tination image was developed:
The image of a destination is the sum of all perceptions,
impressions, feelings and attitudes a tourist has in his/her
mind of a destination.
After developing a definition of tourism destination
image, the next step is to conceptualize the term
based on previous results from scholars. In 1967,
Fishbein proposed that attitude consists of three differ-
ent components: cognition, affect and conation
(Fishbein, 1967). Several tourism destination image
researchers have cited his suggestion and used it to sep-
arate and conceptualize the measurement of destination
images (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Crompton,
1979; Pike and Ryan, 2004). Cognition, affect and con-
ation are behavioural components. The attitude of a
potential, actual or former tourist to a certain destin-
ation can be separated in these three parts (Pearce,
2005). In general the conative component depends on
Martens and Reiser
the affective component, which again depends on the
cognitive component (Holbrock, 1978).
This cognitive component includes the awareness,
knowledge and beliefs of a tourist about a destination.
This contains everything a potential tourist knows
about a destination (Pike and Ryan, 2004). In the
past, destination image studies have mostly considered
only cognitive perceptions (Pike, 2002). Affect is com-
prised of an individual’s feelings towards the destin-
ation. These feelings are judgemental, so the
destination is valued emotionally (Gartner, 1993).
This emotional response of potential travellers is ana-
lysed by the affective component of image (Baloglu
and Brinberg, 1997). The cognitive and affective com-
ponents of destination image are interrelated. Most
researchers mention the affective reactions to be the
result of cognitive perceptions (e.g. Anand et al., 1988;
Erickson et al., 1984; Gartner, 1993; Holbrock, 1978;
Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015; Pike, 2016; Stern and
Krakover, 1993). However, Kim and Chen (2016)
see the affective reaction to be developed simultan-
eously with the cognitive image development.
Some destination image studies only consider image
to have cognitive and affective components (Baloglu
and Brinberg, 1997). However, attitude also has a
behavioural component. This is accounted for in the
conative part (Pearce, 2005). This part is based on the
other two components. For instance the affective vari-
ables mentioned above can give a strong indication if
the potential tourist is likely to visit a destination (Pike
and Ryan, 2004). Baloglu and McCleary (1999) con-
cluded their study stating a positive influence of cog-
nition and affect, on the final intent to visit a
destination (conation).
Characteristics of destination images
for non-visitors
The strongest influence on cognitive, affective and
conative images occur through direct visitation of a
destination (Gunn, 1972). Because these strong
impressions impact the image of potential repeat vis-
itors, tourism researchers separate between visitors
and non-visitors in destination image studies.
Amongst others, Fakeye and Crompton (1991),
Giraldi and Cesareo (2014) or Liu et al.
(2012)found significantly different tourism destination
images between first-time and repeat visitors. In their
review of empirical studies on image changes through
visitation of a tourism destination, Kim and Morrsion
(2005) found different perceptions between pre- and
post-visitors in every research article they analysed.
Mostly, a previous visit to a destination affects the atti-
tude towards a destination positively (Prebensen,
2007). Hence, in destination image studies
57
respondents need to be separated according to their
possible previous visits to the targeted destination.
Images are formed by various image formation
agents. Authors such as Fakeye and Crompton
(1991), Gartner (1994) and Gunn (1972) have devel-
oped typologies of image formation agents. A general
separation is made between organic images, from non-
touristic information sources, and induced images,
from touristic marketing efforts (Gunn, 1972). For
this study the modified-induced image formation
through direct personal communication (Prebensen,
2007) is not a relevant influencing factor as only vis-
itors without a personal experience in Abu Dhabi or
Dubai are studied.
One major difference identified between non-visi-
tors and visitors is stated by Cialdini et al. (1981)
and Lin et al. (2012). They claim that affective
image attributes have a higher importance for repeat
visitors. Whereas cognitive images, as presented
mostly in promotional materials, are more important
for first-time visitors. As soon as a tourist is familiar
with the destination, convincing her or him of a repeat
visit is more dependent on an emotional connection
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Gunn, 1972).
Furthermore, potential visitors have difficulties stating
affective responses distinctly (Lin et al., 2012).
Additionally, Baloglu and McCleary (1999) found
cognitive images to be the differentiating factors for
non-visitors. Hence, the likeliness of non-visitors to
mention affective image attributes is lower as they
are only influenced by secondary sources. Therefore,
tourism destination image research on potential first-
time visitors should focus on cognitive and tourism
destination image research on potential repeat visitors
should focus on affective images. A clear separation
between the analysis of images by potential first-time
visitors and images of possible repeat visitors has to be
made. For destination marketers this implies that they
need to adjust their marketing strategies depending on
whether they want to attract first-time or repeat vis-
itors to their destination. For the methodology of this
research the review of literature reasons the focus on
cognitive image attributes.
Hypotheses
For tourists to develop an image and an interest in Abu
Dhabi and Dubai, the first step is to acknowledge their
existence (World Tourism Organisation, 1979; as cited
in Milman and Pizam, 1995). In the second step the
tourists need to perceive the places as potential tour-
ism destinations. Govers (2012) conducted a study on
Dubai and other competing tourism destinations in
the Middle East. Therefore, he undertook a content
analysis of social media and news coverage of Dubai,
58
Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Bahrain. Undoubtedly, Dubai
attracts the most attention in the internet and is the
most famous place in the region (Govers, 2012). In the
first quarter of 2016, 171,000 visitors from Germany
travelled to Dubai (Center, 2016) and 41,000 visitors
from Germany travelled to Abu Dhabi (Dhabi, 2016).
To test this statement for the German market the fol-
lowing hypothesis was set out:
Hypothesis 1: Dubai is better known as a tourism destin-
ation than Abu Dhabi amongst potential first-time visitors
from Germany.
Abu Dhabi and Dubai offer different tourist attractions.
According to Low (2012) and TCA Abu Dhabi (2016),
Abu Dhabi focuses on cultural tourist attractions with
the Emirati tradition and, therefore, tries to communi-
cate this image to potential tourists. Dubai instead has
invested more into modern architectural highlights and
shopping centres (Dubai Corporation of Tourism &
Commerce Marketing, 2016). In terms of tourism mar-
keting both destinations try to depict a positive image
corresponding with the investments they have made.
The congruence between the destination image in the
mind of consumers and the desired image or self-image
of a destination aimed at by destination marketers and
other responsible people is an important indication if a
destination is marketed appropriately and attracts tour-
ists with a high fit to the destination (Pike, 2004). If the
destination is not marketed appropriately the self-
congruity would be lower, as visitors would wrongly
identify a fit with the destination. According to
Murphy et al. (2007) higher self-congruity is connected
to a higher satisfaction of visitors. Further, if both des-
tinations compete through different images, they would
attract different target groups. This would prove, that
through their tourism destination images, Abu Dhabi
and Dubai are not in first sense competitors for
German tourists:
Hypothesis 2: Abu Dhabi is perceived to offer mainly
cultural attractions and Dubai is perceived more as a shop-
ping tourism destination with architectural highlights.
The third hypothesis is developed on the basis of state-
ments made by Govers (2012) and Hazime (2011).
According to Govers (2012: 56), Dubai is in danger
of developing an image ‘‘like the Las Vegas of the
Middle East‘‘. Hazime (2011) expects increasing
environmental and noise issues due to the rapid urban-
ization of Abu Dhabi including many mega-projects.
The same is the case for Dubai. These statements
contradict to the efforts of both emirates to present
themselves as sustainable and aware of environmental
issues (Dubai Corporation of Tourism & Commerce
Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(1)
Marketing, 2016; Reed Exhibitions Middle East,
2014; TCA Abu Dhabi, 2016) as also mentioned by
marketers from both destinations in interviews. This
hypothesis is intended at questioning if there is a dis-
crepancy between the self-image and the perceived
image of Abu Dhabi and or Dubai, specifically for
the factor of sustainability and environmental
awareness.
Hypothesis 3: Abu Dhabi and Dubai are not connected to
sustainability and environmental awareness in the minds of
potential visitors from Germany.
Methodology
This empirical research focuses only on cognitive
image attributes. Here a quantitative approach is
appropriate as the previous literature review indicated
a higher importance of cognitive image attributes for
first-time visitors. The target is to identify how poten-
tial first-time visitors from Germany perceive the
image of Abu Dhabi and Dubai as tourism destin-
ations and how this perception fits to the image Abu
Dhabi and Dubai want to transfer and if this makes
Abu Dhabi and Dubai competitors on the basis of
their images. A survey was chosen as research strategy
to assess the perception of many different people and
to make these perceptions measurable. Critics might
argue that surveys can only generate superficial infor-
mation on tourism destination images. However, sur-
veys are useful for a deductive approach to gather
many responses and to statistically describe the results
(Saunders et al., 2009). Data were collected to answer
the three previously explained hypotheses.
Research design
To confirm or disprove these three hypotheses primary
research was required as no empirical evidence existed.
To gain high validity for the research population NRW,
a quantitative structured survey, with standardized
answers and two open-ended questions was con-
ducted. Pike (2002) reviewed 142 papers on destin-
ation image. Of these papers 114 attempted to
operationalise destination image. Despite reoccurring
criticism on the usage of an attribute list there is no
accepted alternative to measure destination image
(Pike, 2002). This attribute list consists of 11 tourism
related attributes with a positive connotation. The
choice of attributes derives from information on the
emirates marketing presented on their official websites.
Each question was asked twice, once for Abu Dhabi
and once for Dubai, on the same questionnaire. This
was done to encourage respondents to compare their
Martens and Reiser
answers for both destinations, as comparing the emir-
ates is one goal of the research.
Out of these attributes a 4-point Likert scale was
developed. Likert scales are commonly used in market
research and have been tested many times in social
sciences (Garland, 1991), are frequently used to meas-
ure psychological characteristics (Maeda, 2015) and
have been used frequently in tourism destination
image studies (Pike, 2016). The middle-point was
excluded to force the potential tourists to make a deci-
sion (Garland, 1991). The ratings four to one show
the connection the respondent perceives between the
attribute and the destination. Hereby, four represents
a very strong mental connection and one a non-exis-
tent mental connection. Further, demographic infor-
mation of respondents, their visit intentions to the
region, their estimated levels of knowledge on Abu
Dhabi and Dubai and the respondent’s sources of
information for this knowledge were asked.
Research procedure
Prior to the empirical research stage a pre-test was
conducted with 15 people between 11 and 31 of
October to ensure the reliability and practicability of
the questionnaire. After minor changes to the ques-
tionnaire the data collection stage was executed from
December 2014 until the end of March 2015. The
answers of 300 surveys were evaluated. Starting in
December questionnaires were distributed throughout
NRW. All surveys were conducted on paper via face-
to-face. The interviewer in person directly contacted
people on the streets, in trains and at home. The
respondents were asked if they had ever visited Abu
Dhabi or Dubai and then the survey questions were
read out to them one by one. This method was chosen
to reach a wider age group and achieve a higher
response rate. Further, it is possible to validate the
answers given by respondents by sensing their honesty
(Denscombe, 2010).
The chosen sampling method was a combination of
snowball sampling and purposive sampling.
Participants were asked to nominate other people
who could participate in the survey. The snowball
sampling method is especially advantageous here as
the sampling frame, German adults that have not vis-
ited Dubai nor Abu Dhabi, is not quantifiable
(Denscombe, 2010). Hereby, the compatibility of
snowball and purposive sampling was used.
Respondents were asked to only recommend people
who had not been to Abu Dhabi or Dubai before.
Furthermore, to achieve a balanced age group distri-
bution via purposive sampling, respondents were
asked to recommend others in a specific age group.
Respondents were also asked to suggest people living
59
in other places in NRW to reach a geographic distri-
bution among NRW. The survey was conducted in
German as not all Germans are comfortable answering
questions in English. For the evaluation all results
were translated into English. Because of the standard-
isation of the questions and answers for the survey this
translation was not problematic.
Results and discussion
The results of the survey were analysed using the stat-
istical analysis programme SPSS. This allows the
author to enter the answers of all respondents and
analyse the data with a set of statistical tools. These
range from simple frequency scales, cross-tabulation,
Chi-square tests to variance analyses. The significance
of crosstabs is controlled through execution of Chi-
square tests. According to Morgan et al. (2013) the
Chi-square test is the appropriate inferential statistical
test to compare counts of independent unordered vari-
ables. Hereby, the significance value of 0.05 needs to
be achieved for a meaningful relation of the two com-
ponents. SPSS calculates this significance value.
However, the Chi-square test does not indicate a dir-
ection of dependence between the two tested variables.
This has to be concluded from the variance statistic.
Hypothesis 1: Dubai is better known as a tourism destin-
ation than Abu Dhabi amongst potential first-time visitors
from Germany.
The general awareness of the existence of a destin-
ation and a small amount of knowledge about a des-
tination are required components to choose a
destination (World Tourism Organisation, 1979; as
cited in: Milman and Pizam, 1995). Hence, it is
aspired by destination marketers to make their destin-
ation well-known. The results show that more than
50% of respondents estimate their level of knowledge
on Abu Dhabi to be ‘‘low’’ and almost 25% even
declare to have ‘‘no knowledge’’ on Abu Dhabi.
Whereas only 13.6% declare to have ‘‘no knowledge’’
on Dubai and 45% state a medium to very high know-
ledge on Dubai. Clearly, Dubai is better known than
Abu Dhabi amongst non-visitors from Germany.
Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed. The mean value of
the estimated level of knowledge on Abu Dhabi
(4.00; low) and on Dubai (3.60; low to medium) sup-
ports the confirmation of hypothesis 1.
A variance analysis was executed to find out the
relation between the knowledge of potential tourists
on a destination and the perception of this place as a
holiday destination. The variance analysis allows a
comparison of group mean values. One variance ana-
lysis was conducted for each destination. In both cases
60 Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(1)

Table 2. Mean value of cognitive image attributes (own

4.00
Mean Value of Perception as

3.80
Abu Dhabi Dubai illustration).
3.60
Holiday Destination

3.40 Mean
3.20
3.00 Attribute Abu Dhabi Dubai
2.80
2.60 Holiday destination 2.36 3.00
2.40 Shopping 2.23 2.82
2.20
2.00 Arabic culture 3.23 3.13
Very High High Medium Low No Beach holiday 2.09 2.53
Knowledge
Level of Knowledge on the Destination Special architecture 2.74 3.44
Dessert safaris 2.70 2.77
Figure 1. Perception of Abu Dhabi and Dubai as holiday Water sports 1.90 2.24
destinations depending on the level of knowledge (own Good price–benefit relation 1.82 1.89
illustration).
Luxurious lifestyle or holiday 3.05 3.56
Natural attractions/special landscape 2.15 2.19
SPSS showed a significant result of an approximated Sustainability and environmental 1.40 1.40
0.0% and 0.01%. According to these values the prob- awareness
ability of people from all different knowledge levels to Average 2.33 2.63
indicate the same connection of Abu Dhabi and Dubai
to a tourism destination is almost 0%. Instead the per-
ception of Abu Dhabi and Dubai to be tourism des- by using the mean values of the 11-item 4-point
tinations increases with the knowledge respondents Likert scale. Hereby, four is the perception of a
have on the destinations. The exception of this obser- strong connection and one would declare no connec-
vation is the category ‘‘very high’’ level of knowledge tion of the destination to the attribute in the tourists’
on Dubai. The three respondents in this category indi- minds. The 11 attributes all have a positive connota-
cate a lower perception of Dubai as a holiday destin- tion. This allows the overall mean value to be inter-
ation than respondents stating a ‘‘high’’ knowledge on preted according to the principle, the higher the value,
Dubai (Figure 1). However, the low number of the better for the destination.
respondents in the category ‘‘very high’’ requires its Based on the definition of tourism destination
exclusion for the interpretation as the perception of image the average perception would then be the sum of
only three people does not allow for any conclusions all perceptions, impressions, feelings and attitudes the
to be drawn. Additionally, it remains questionable why respondents have in mind of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
respondents feel they have a very high knowledge on a Hence, Dubai (2.63) is perceived as slightly more
destination without actually having visited this attractive, for these touristic attributes, than Abu
destination. Dhabi (2.33). The individual mean values show how
Importantly, for Abu Dhabi and Dubai this relation much potential tourists from Germany connect Abu
shows that the more people know of the destination, Dhabi and Dubai to the listed attribute, attraction or
the more they perceive it to be a holiday destination activity.
(Figure 1). This does not mean these potential tourists Neither destination is perceived to have a good price-
are directly interested in visiting the destination if they benefit relation nor are they connected to water sports or
know more about Abu Dhabi and Dubai. However, it natural attractions. Instead, both are perceived as
could influence visit intention positively. Overall luxury destinations, Dubai (3.56) even more than
Dubai is better known than Abu Dhabi and also Abu Dhabi (3.05), despite the most hotels in Dubai
more connected to a holiday destination in the minds being one-star hotels (Jürs, 2014). Furthermore,
of potential tourists. potential tourists associate Abu Dhabi (3.23) and
Dubai (3.13) with Arabic culture. In contrast to the
Hypothesis 2: Abu Dhabi is perceived to offer mainly mean values of all the other attributes, the perception
cultural attractions and Dubai is perceived more as a shop- of Abu Dhabi as offering cultural attractions is dis-
ping tourism destination with architectural highlights. tinctly higher. The first part of hypothesis 2 can
hereby be confirmed. However, the focus on local
The second hypothesis targets to confirm or discard Arabic culture by Abu Dhabi currently does not offer
the perception on specific tourism offers in Abu Dhabi differentiation potential to Dubai. Though in contrast,
and Dubai. Table 2 summarizes the answers for the potential tourists seeking culture and intercultural
cognitive destination image attributes. This is done exchange have a higher tendency to visit Abu Dhabi.
Martens and Reiser
The Chi-square test confirmed a significant relation
between the preferred travel destination and the
importance of intercultural exchange (p ¼ 0.015).
Potential tourists stating a very high importance of
intercultural exchange for their travel decision are
more interested in visiting Abu Dhabi, compared to
those who stated a lower importance of cultural
exchange. For Dubai the opposite is observed.
Potential tourists valuing cultural exchange as less
important prefer visiting Dubai as opposed to Abu
Dhabi. These results add to Frı́as et al. (2012) state-
ment that culture has a moderating effect on pre-visit
image formation. Culture is a vital component of des-
tinations images previous to the first visit.
The second part of hypothesis 2, assuming Dubai to
be mostly associated with shopping tourism and special
architecture, can only partly be confirmed. The associ-
ation of Dubai with shopping is only slightly above the
average perception of Dubai as a tourism destination
and lower than the association of Dubai with a luxuri-
ous lifestyle or holiday, Arabic culture and special architec-
ture (Table 2). Hence, a focus on shopping tourism is
not apparent for the respondents. In comparison to
Abu Dhabi, however, Dubai is linked to a shopping
tourism destination considerably more. This percep-
tion may change in the following years because in
Abu Dhabi the second largest mall of the UAE, the
Yas Mall, recently opened on 19 November 2014.
Within the first year, Yas Mall is expecting 20 million
visitors (Yas Mall, 2015). The association Dubai has
with special architecture (3.44) shows a significantly
higher mean value than the overall average.
Besides the perception of luxury, special architecture
is the outstanding image component of Dubai.
Conclusively, hypothesis 2 can be confirmed with
the exception of the part assuming Dubai to create
the image of being a specific shopping tourism
destination.
Related to the first research question, if Abu Dhabi
and Dubai are competitors based on their tourism des-
tination image in the German outbound market, no
clear answer can be found. On the one hand, especially
Dubai shows significantly higher values for attributes
such as luxury, shopping, architecture and beach holi-
days. On the other hand, in terms of the other aspects,
especially the cultural attribute, Abu Dhabi does not
have a clearly differentiated image from Dubai. The
results indicate the possibility for two destinations
with very similar backgrounds and traditions to
create supplementary images in the minds of potential
visitors. For this to be achieved Abu Dhabi has to dif-
ferentiate itself as a culturally interesting destination
more distinctly. Clearly, the emirate has intensified
this idea through opening museums and inviting and
organising famous performance acts in recent years.
61
The analysis of the second hypothesis also shows
implications for the second research question of this
study. For the attributes culture for Abu Dhabi and
architecture for Dubai a fit between the desired
image by destination marketers and the perceived
image by tourists was identified. However, Dubai is
also seen as a destination offering Arabic culture as
an attraction. Surprisingly this was not found out
with the expected high number for the shopping
aspect. A reason might be that shopping is only inter-
esting for a specific group of tourists. As many of the
respondents were not well informed about the destin-
ations, some might have not heard about the shopping
centres and the shopping festival in Dubai.
Hypothesis 3: Abu Dhabi and Dubai are not connected to
sustainability and environmental awareness in the minds of
potential visitors from Germany.
According to the study results neither Abu Dhabi nor
Dubai is associated with sustainability or environmental
awareness. The mean value of 1.4 is even closer to no
connection than to a small perceived connection.
Hypothesis 3 can hereby be confirmed.
Contradictorily, Dubai places a large focus on sustain-
ability and tries to market this. Sustainability is even
included in the motto for the EXPO 2020 in Dubai
(Dubai, 2015). Abu Dhabi also emphasises itself as a
sustainable destination (Reed Exhibitions Middle
East, 2014). These statements were confirmed by des-
tination marketers of both emirates. Interestingly, the
mean value for Abu Dhabi and Dubai is identical. Of
all respondents 87.7% perceive sustainability and
environmental awareness as the same for both destin-
ations. Apparently, tourists seem to not differentiate
both emirates according to this aspect.
Related to the second research question, the results
of this analysis show that the desired image of Abu
Dhabi and Dubai as being sustainable, do not fit to
the perceived image of both destinations not showing
environmental awareness. This indicates that projects
such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi have not influenced
the perception of the destination among potential first-
time visitors from Germany, yet. Instead both destin-
ations are perceived to be extremely unsustainable
leaving destination marketers and city planners with
the difficult task of turning an image around.
Conclusion
The research was set up to explore and compare the
tourism destination image of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
Only potential visitors from Germany that had never
visited the emirates Abu Dhabi or Dubai before were
considered. The review of touristic literature and
62
interviews with destination marketers from Abu Dhabi
and Dubai lead to the development of a questionnaire
to find answers for two research questions. The first
research question is aimed at identifying if Abu Dhabi
and Dubai are competitors based on their tourism des-
tination image, or if destinations with a similar back-
ground and similar circumstances can develop
supplementary images. The second research question
is directed at the congruence between the intended
image by destination marketers and the images per-
ceived by potential tourists from Germany.
Overall the study presents six theoretical and prac-
tical implications and contributions. Firstly, the results
confirmed that Dubai is better known than Abu
Dhabi. More respondents stated a high knowledge
level on Dubai. Further, more respondents perceive
Dubai as a holiday destination compared to Abu
Dhabi. Hereby, the relation of knowledge on the per-
ception of both emirates as holiday destinations was
identified. The perception of Abu Dhabi and Dubai
to be tourism destinations increased with the know-
ledge each respondent had of the respective destin-
ation. The results cannot prove a direct influence of
knowledge on visit intentions of the potential tourists.
However, it does indicate that better known destin-
ations have a higher chance of being perceived as a
place for holidays. This implies that marketing efforts
may already be useful if they simply increase the
potential tourists’ knowledge on a destination.
Secondly, Dubai in particular is very closely asso-
ciated with a luxurious holiday in the minds of poten-
tial tourists. However, both destinations are working to
target an additional group of tourists by constructing
more and more middle-class hotels (Jürs, 2014). This
development away from the high end luxury market
might influence the image of both destinations in the
next few years. As the luxury segment was identified as
an important image for both destinations, the aspired
addition might appear to bruise this special image.
Thirdly, tourists interested in Arabic culture show a
higher interest in Abu Dhabi than in Dubai. However,
Dubai was also closely linked to Arabic culture redu-
cing the potential of Abu Dhabi to positioning itself as
the unique culture destination in the region.
Fourthly and unexpectedly, the connection of
Dubai as a shopping tourism destination was not far
above the average perception measured through the
overall results in the attribute table. This does not fit
with the strong shopping tourism focus of the emirate.
Recently, Yas Mall was completed in Abu Dhabi, thus
increasing competition between Abu Dhabi and Dubai
for the attraction of shopping tourists. Alongside the
developments on the hotel market, with both attract-
ing middle-class hotels, the construction of Yas Mall in
Abu Dhabi indicates a similar tourism development
Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(1)
strategy, thereby threatening to reduce differentiation
potential and possibly marketing success. Though,
both destinations could instead profit from differenti-
ation in their tourism development and tourism mar-
keting strategies. Hereby, the identified and aspired
perceptions of Abu Dhabi as culture destination and
Dubai as luxury, architecture and shopping destin-
ation, would need to be highlighted even more and
as complementary to each other. Thus, destinations
with similar backgrounds and conditions do not have
to compete based on their images. Instead Abu Dhabi
and Dubai show the possibility of developing supple-
mentary images. However, as discussed above they still
do compete on certain levels.
Fifthly, neither Abu Dhabi nor Dubai is perceived
to be sustainable or environmentally friendly by poten-
tial first-time visitors from Germany. A detailed ana-
lysis of this perception could be important for Abu
Dhabi and Dubai if they want to maintain their
focus on sustainability. Potential tourists hardly differ-
entiate between Abu Dhabi and Dubai on environ-
mental aspects. Here the strongest difference
between aspired perception of the destination by mar-
keters and the image in the mind of potential tourists is
identified. In practice, Abu Dhabi and Dubai’s sus-
tainability marketing plans have not reached the
minds of tourists in Germany and require an improved
approach. A gap between desired image and self-image
is found, especially for the aspect of sustainability.
Understanding the gaps between images destination
marketers intend to promote and images potential
tourists develop in their minds would be valuable for
tourism destination marketing.
Sixthly, the study confirms the importance of studying
the cognitive images for potential first-time visitors. The
attribute table focusing on cognitive image perceptions
was identified as the most efficient destination image
analysis tool. For potential repeat visitors an assessment
of the affective image dimension is more relevant.
Limitations and research suggestions
Four major limitations in this study need to be
acknowledged and considered when interpreting the
results. Firstly, the sample is not representative of the
whole of Germany or North-Rhine-Westphalia.
Accordingly, the relations of the statistical results
need to be interpreted cautiously. A statistical signifi-
cance and correlation indicates a certain dependence
of variables. The statistical relation, however, can have
other reasons than examined in this study. Secondly,
different countries as source markets could yield sig-
nificantly different results on the image of Abu Dhabi
and Dubai. Hence conclusions are limited to the
German market.
Martens and Reiser
Thirdly, one apparently negative image that was not
explicitly mentioned in the study was the political,
human rights and in particular foreign guest worker
situation in Abu Dhabi and Dubai because this
paper had a different focus. A negative perception of
these aspects can also influence the image of a destin-
ation, such as the guest worker situation in Qatar
(Govers, 2012). An inclusion of other competitors in
the region such as Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, or the
other emirates could benefit a tourism destination
image study on Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In general,
the development within the region requires on-going
research as changes potentially influencing the tourism
destination image are occurring very fast.
Fourthly, face-to-face interviews, as opposed to sur-
veys would have brought deeper insights on how
Germans perceive Dubai and Abu Dhabi, why they
have this perception and if there is any sentiment
against the Middle East. However, this study did not
intend to gain deep knowledge on the feelings of indi-
viduals but to compare the overall image of Abu Dhabi
and Dubai.
Nevertheless, qualitative research could benefit this
study and the overall knowledge on the image of Abu
Dhabi and Dubai as this allows deeper insights into
peoples’ motivations and feelings towards the region
and potential travel to the region. Further research
should also investigate whether Abu Dhabi and
Dubai are perceived as emirates or cities because the
perception of the emirates as only cities could change
their image. This question arose throughout the paper.
Additionally, the results on hypothesis 2 indicate the
necessity of a more specific analysis on the perception
of shopping tourism in Dubai as the findings are sur-
prising. The results indicated a gap between the per-
ceived image of the destinations and the desired image
by destination marketers. The effect of this gap should
be studied in more detail.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anand P, Holbrook MB and Stephens D (1988) The formation of
affective judgments: The cognitive-affective model versus the
independence hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 15:
386–391.
Baloglu S and Brinberg D (1997) Affective images of tourism des-
tinations. Journal of Travel Research 35: 11–15.
63
Baloglu S and McCleary K (1999) U.S. international pleasure trav-
elers’ images of four mediterranean destinations: A comparison
of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of Travel Research 38:
144–152.
Chon KS (1990) The role of destination image in tourism: A review
and discussion. The Tourist Review 45: 2–9.
Cialdini RB, Petty RE and Cacioppo JT (1981) Attitude and atti-
tude change. In: Rosenzweig MR and Porter LW (eds) Annual
Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review Press,
pp. 357–404.
Crompton J (1979) An assessment of the image of Mexico as a
vacation destination and the influence of geographical location
upon that image. Journal of Travel Research 17: 18–24.
Crompton JL and Ankomah P (1993) Choice set propositions in
destination decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 461–476.
Denscombe M (2010) The Good Research Guide. For Small-
Scale Social Research Projects. New York, NY: Open University
Press.
Dubai Corporation of Tourism & Commerce Marketing (2016)
About DTCM. Available at: http://www.dubaitourism.ae/en/
department-of-tourism_new/about-dtcm/overview
Dubai Statistics Center (2016) Visitor by Nationality – First
Quarter. Available at: https://www.dsc.gov.ae/en-us (accessed
18 October 2016).
Echtner CM and Ritchie B (1993) The measurement of destination
image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31:
3–13.
Erickson GM, Johansson JK and Chao P (1984) Image variables in
multi-attribute product evaluations: Country-of-origin effects.
Journal of Consumer Research 11: 694–699.
EXPO 2020 Dubai (2015) The Official Website of EXPO 2020
Dubai. Available at: http://expo2020dubai.ae/en/ (accessed 2
November 2015).
Fakeye P and Crompton J (1991) Image differences between pro-
spective, first-time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande
Valley. Journal of Travel Research 30: 10–16.
Fishbein M (1967) A behavior theory approach to the relations
between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the
object. In: Fishbein M (ed.) Attitude Theory and Measurement.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 389–400.
Frı́as DM, Rodrı́guez MA, Alberto Castañeda J, et al (2012) The
formation of a tourist destination’s image via information
sources: The moderating effect of culture. International Journal
of Tourism Research 14: 437–450.
Fridgen JD (1979) Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived
tourism region. Leisure Sciences 9: 101–117.
Gallarza MG, Saura IG and Garcia HC (2002) Destination image.
Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29:
56–78.
Garland R (1991) The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable?
Marketing Bulletin 2: 66–70.
Gartner WC (1993) Image formation process. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 2: 191–216.
Giraldi A and Cesareo L (2014) Destination image differences
between first-time and return visitors: An exploratory study
on the city of Rome. Tourism and Hospitality Research 14:
197–205.
Govers R (2012) Brand Dubai and its competitors in the Middle
East: An image and reputation analysis. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy 8: 48–57.
Govers R and Go F (2005) Projected destination image online:
Website content analysis of pictures and text. Information
Technology & Tourism 7: 73–89.
Gunn C (1972) Vacationsscape Designing Tourist Regions, Austin:
Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas.
64
Hazime H (2011) From city branding to e-brands in developing
countries: An approach to Qatar and Abu Dhabi. African
Journal of Business Management 5: 4731–4745.
Holbrock M (1978) Beyond attitude structure: Toward the informa-
tional determinants of attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 15:
545–556.
Hunt JD (1975) Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal
of Travel Research 13: 1–7.
Jürs M (2014) Noch mehr Tempo am Golf. FVW 19: 74–76.
Kim H and Chen JS (2016) Destination image formation process: A
holistic model. Journal of Vacation Marketing 22: 154–166.
Kim SS and Morrsion AM (2005) Change of images of South Korea
among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism
Management 26: 233–247.
Lin Y-H, Chen C-C and Park CW (2012) The salient and organic
images of Taiwan as perceived by Mainland Chinese Tourists.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 17: 381–393.
Liu C-R, Lin W-R and Wang Y-C (2012) Relationship between self-
congruity and destination loyalty: Differences between first-time
and repeat visitors. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management 1: 118–123.
Llodrà-Riera I, Martı́nez-Ruiz MP, Jiménez-Zarco AI, et al. (2015)
A multidimensional analysis of the information sources construct
and its relevance for destination image formation. Tourism
Management 48: 319–328.
Low L (2012) Abu Dhabi’s Vision 2030: An Ongoing Economic
Development. Singapore: World Scientific.
Maeda H (2015) Response option configuration of online adminis-
tered Likert scales. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology 18: 15–26.
Mayo E (1973) Regional images and regional travel development.
Travel and tourism research association proceedings. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah, pp. 211–217.
Milman A and Pizam A (1995) The role of awareness and familiarity
with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel
Research 33: 21–27.
Morgan G, Leech N, Gloeckner G, et al. (2013) IBM SPSS for
Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Murphy L, Benckendorff P and Moscardo G (2007) Linking travel
motivation, tourist self-image and destination brand personality.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 22: 45–59.
Pearce P (2005) Tourist Behaviour. Clevedon: Channel View Public.
Phelps A (1986) Holiday destination image: The problem of assess-
ment. Tourism Management 7: 168–180.
Pike S (2002) Destination image analysis: A review of 142 papers
from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management 23: 541–549.
Pike S (2004) Destination Marketing Organisations. Oxford: Elsevier.
Pike S (2008) Destination Marketing – An Integrated Marketing
Communication Approach. Oxford: Elsevier.
Pike S (2016) Destination Marketing Essentials. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Pike S and Ryan C (2004) Destination positioning analysis through
a comparison of cognitive, affective and conative perceptions.
Journal of Travel Research 42: 333–342.
Prebensen N (2007) Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destin-
ation. Tourism Management 28: 747–756.
Reed Exhibitions Middle East (2014) Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week.
Available at: http://www.abudhabisustainabilityweek.com/
Ryan C and Ninov I (2011) Dimensions of destination images – The
relationship between specific sites and overall perceptions of
place: The example of Dubai Creek and ‘‘Greater Dubai’’.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 28: 751–764.
Saunders M, Lewis P and Thornhill A (2009) Research Methods for
Business Students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 19(1)
Sharpley R (2002) The challenges of economic diversification
through tourism: The case of Abu Dhabi. International Journal
of Tourism Research 4: 221–235.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2015) Statistisches Jahrbuch – Deutschland
und Internationales 2015. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Steinecke A (2013) Destinationsmanagement. Konstanz: UKV.
Stern E and Krakover S (1993) The formation of a composite urban
image. Geographical Analysis 25: 130–146.
Tasci AD and Kozak M (2006) Destination brands vs destination
images: Do we know what we mean? Journal of Vacation
Marketing 12: 299–316.
TCA Abu Dhabi (2016) Hotel Guest Statistics. Available at: http://
tcaabudhabi.ae/en (accessed 18 October 2016).
TCA Abu Dhabi (2016) Visit Abu Dhabi. Available at: http://visita-
budhabi.ae/en/default.aspx (accessed 12 October 2016).
Tourism-Insider (2013) Dubai erzielt mit 5,5 Millionen Besucher
bestes Halbjahresergebnis aller Zeiten (accessed 23 October
2015).
Tourism-Insider (2014) Abu Dhabi immer beliebter (accessed 23
October 2015).
Tourism Competitive Intelligence (2013) Dubai ranked 1st in aware-
ness and image in the Arabian Peninsula Available at: http://tci-
research.com/dubai-nb-1-in-awareness-and-positive-image-in-
the-arabian-peninsula/ (accessed 12 November 2015).
UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2015) Cultural sites of Al Ain.
Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1343 (accessed 12
November 2015).
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2015)
UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2015.
World Tourism Organisation (1979) Tourist Images. Madrid: WTO.
Yas Mall (2015) Yas Mall News. Available at: http://www.yasmall.ae/
news.aspx (accessed 12 November 2015).
Author Biographies
Hanno M Martens, (MA), is a Lecturer in the Tourism
Management faculty of the Cologne Business School
(CBS) since September 2015 and a member of the
research council at CBS. His research and teaching
focus on Destination Management & Marketing,
Tourism Destination Image, Sustainability and
Tourism Geography. He acquired practical knowledge
working for the Lower Saxony Wadden Sea National
Park and the tourism consultancy Compass GmbH.
Since January 2016 Hanno Martens is doing his
PhD on the tourism destination image effects of
sport events in the Middle East at the University of
Brighton.
Dirk Reiser is a Professor for sustainable tourism
management at the Rhine-Waal University of
Applied Sciences in Kleve, Germany. He is also a visit-
ing lecturer at the European Overseas Campus in
Thailand and Bali. His research interests are sustain-
able tourism, in particular wildlife tourism, CSR, mar-
keting and environmental management. He is a
member of the Deutschen Gesellschaft für
Tourismuswissenschaft e.V. (DGT- German Society
for Tourism Science) and the International
Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism (AIEST).