Tourism Review International, Vol. 13, pp. 000000 1544-2721/09 $60.00 + .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 2009 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com

A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY

ASLI D. A. TASCI

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong King

[Q1] Destination image is an important aspect of successful destination marketing; therefore, it receives
attention from both tourism academia and practitioners. However, due to the diverse background
of destination image researchers, there is variety in use of terminologies, which provides potential
for confusion, especially for laypersons. Some researchers use different terms when referring to
the same concept, whereas some others use the same terms but refer to different concepts. The
purpose of this article is to clarify this terminology confusion in destination image literature by
reviewing several empirical and conceptual image-related articles published in well-known journals
of tourism and related fields. Visual depictions of relationships between different terms are pro-
vided. It is concluded that more commonly accepted image terminology needs to be used by
researchers for a substantial and scientific destination image theory and research.

Key words: Destination image; Affective image; Cognitive image; Image dimension;
Image component; Image factor

Introduction vides an impediment of semantics, especially for

The destination image construct can be roughly
defined as a mental picture of a destination com-
posed of how people visualize, think, and feel to-
ward the destination, which ultimately determine
peoples attitudes, intentions, and predispositions
toward the destination. The widespread attention
on destination image is due to not only the curious
research subjects it provides for academia but also
its inherent importance in successful destination
marketing for destination authorities. Therefore,
the destination image literature serves academia
and destination authorities to aid their marketing
efforts.
However, the destination image literature pro-
laypeople. Destination image studies are conducted
by researchers with tourism, hospitality, and lei-
sure backgrounds as well as scholars from other
fields including business, geography, psychology,
and sociology. The contribution of outsiders to a
field adds additional perspectives to a field of in-
quiry at both the conceptual and methodological
levels. However, it also seems to have caused ter-
minology inflation and likely confusion in destina-
tion image theory and research. Some researchers
use different terms while referring to the same
concept; some others use the same terms while re-
ferring to different concepts. The words compo-
nent, dimension, and attribute are used inter-
changeably, as is discussed and clarified in the

Address correspondence to Asli D. A. Tasci, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung
Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Fax: 852 2362-9362; E-mail: hmasli@polyu.edu.hk

1
2 TASCI
next section. This variety in destination image ter-
minology might create confusion especially for
laypersons, thus, a clarification is needed. There-
fore, the objective of this study is twofold: (1) to
clarify the terminology confusion in destination
image literature by identifying the similarities and
differences between different terms used by differ-
ent researchers; and (2) to provide a visual depic-
tion of the relationships between different terms
used by different researchers.
To accomplish these objectives, several empiri-
cal and conceptual image-related articles pub-
lished in well-known journals of tourism and re-
lated fields have been reviewed. Destination image
became a focus of research in the early 1970s and
gained a momentum in the 1990s, when both aca-
demia and industry realized the importance of des-
tination image in tourism destination management
and marketing. Therefore, most destination image
terminology was established during this period of
burgeoning destination image research. Gartners
(1993) and Echtner and Ritchies (1991, 1993)
seminal work on image conceptualization and
measurement provided a well-accepted common
ground that was used by destination image re-
searchers in the past 15 years. Several studies
were conducted to test the concepts and methodol-
ogies set forth by Gartner (1993) and Echtner and
Ritchie (1991, 1993). The literature reviewed for
semantic arguments in this article include some of
the early studies, the above-mentioned seminal
pieces providing the common ground for the later
studies, as well as some of the later studies that
contributed to the destination image theory. Hence,
selection of studies for review was made based on
the contribution to the destination image theory;
in other words, the studies reviewed herein are
those that set the basis for the destination image
theory and thus were frequently cited by others.
The following section will shed some light on
the different terminology used in the destination
image literature, followed by visual depictions of
relationships between different terms to resolve
some confusion. For scientific parsimony, it is
necessary to clarify and define a uniform image
terminology to be used by all destination image
researchers. Therefore, in this article, different lev-
els of image are dubbed as image types rather
than image components or dimensions, as is fre-
quently used in the destination image literature.
Image aspects such as cognitive, affective, conative,
and so on are uniformly termed image compo-
nents. Also, image attributes, pertaining to desti-
nation properties such as natural resources, infra-
structure, climate, and so on are named image
dimensions, although some destination image re-
searchers refer to these as components.
Types of Image
Table 1 displays several image type terminolo-
gies used by different researchers. Some of these
image types are related with the supply- and de-
mand-side aspects of image, some are related with
visitor image formation process, and some are re-
lated to consumer decision making. Different ter-
minologies used by different researchers while
discussing these image types are analyzed and
clarified in the following section.
Projected ImageReceived Image
As distinguished by Bramwell and Rawding
(1996), projected image is the combination of
messages and impressions about a destination,
usually created by destination authorities and dis-
seminated to the intended target markets to gener-
ate awareness and interest. Received image, on the
other hand, is consumers unique mental construct
or representation formed through their perception,
comprehension, and interpretation of these mes-
sages. Bramwell and Rawding realize that these
messages might originate from destinations mar-
keting efforts, which refer to Gunns (1972) in-
duced images, or from intervening information
sourcesuncontrollable by marketers, which refer
to Gunns (1972) organic image.
Ideal ImageActual Image
Ross (1993) uses the terms ideal and actual
destination images. He introduces the idea by re-
ferring to Mayos (1975) conception of general[Q2]
preferences for destination attributes. He reports
that according to Mayo, the ideal destination for
most tourists would offer a great deal of scenery;
it would not be congested either with people or
industry, though neither would it be sparsely pop-
ulated. Ideal destination, according to Mayo,
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY 3

Table 1
Types of Images

Supply & Demand Side-Related Visitor Image Formation-Related Consumer Decision Process-Related

Projected image Ideal image Naive image Primary image

Received image
Bramwell & Rawding (1996)
Actual image Reevaluated image Chon (1998, see Lubbe, 1998)
Ross (1993) Selby & Morgan (1996) Beneficial image
Tapachai & Waryszak (2000)
Primary image
Secondary image
Goodrich (1978), Phelps (1986, seeGartner, 1989)

Organic image
Induced image
Gunn (1972)

Complex image
Fakeye & Crompton (1991)

would offer a very comfortable climate (Ross Primary ImageSecondary Image

1993, p. 54). However, Ross (1993) also refers to
Crompton (1979) to differentiate between ideal
and actual images. In his study, Crompton (1979)
compares the previsit organic images with after-
visit complex images. Therefore, it is not clear if
Ross (1993) means general preferences of destina-
tion attributes or the previsit image while discuss-
ing the ideal image. If Ross means previsit image
by ideal image, then his terminology of ideal and
actual images is parallel to that of Selby and Mor-
gans (1996) naive and reevaluated images.
Naive ImageReevaluated Image
Selby and Morgan (1996) apply the terms naive
image and reevaluated image. By naive image,
they mean both organic and projected images held
before visiting a destination; by reevaluated image
they mean image formed after visitation, which in-
cludes the actual perceptions of the product itself.
They recognize that there may be significant dis-
crepancies between the two due to the unrealistic
nave images held by the tourist or from a failure
to meet expectations on the part of the destination
(1996, p. 288). They also purport that for the ma-
jority of the potential visitors, these naive images
might constitute the basis for decision; therefore,
they must be investigated and incorporated into
planning and marketing activities along with the
reevaluated images.
The primarysecondary image dichotomy is
used in two meanings. Goodrich (1978) used them
with a similar meaning to Gunns (1972) organic
and induced images: primary image formed by
visitation and secondary image formed through
external information sources (see Chen & Kerstet-
ter, 1999). So did Phelps (1986), meaning differ-[Q3]
ent levels of image formation (see Gartner, 1989).
In this sense, this dichotomy is also similar to the
idealactual image dichotomy. However, as dis-
cussed by Lubbe (1988), Chon (1998) suggests[Q4]
that primary image is bound to consumer decision-
making process. It is the initial images of an indi-
vidual, which are constructed at the point in time
when an individual feels the need to travel. The
construction of primary images is based on cer-
tain push and pull factors associated with desti-
nations because an individual would select cer-
tain destinations as possible choices (Lubbe, 1998,
p. 23). Lubbe (1998) also differentiates between
the primary image and other image formation-
related image types, namely, organic, induced, and
complex, by stating that the primary image can
coexist with organic, induced, and complex im-
ages while they evolve separately. Lubbe (1998)
contends that for the primary image to be formed,
an organic, induced, or complex image must al-
ready exist.
4 TASCI
Organic ImageInduced ImageComplex Image
Organic, induced, and complex images are the
most commonly used types of image in the desti-
nation image literature; the basis of these image
types has been developed by the work of Gunn
(1972), who delineated images as organic and in-
duced. Gunns organic and induced image termi-
nology has been cited by many researchers, which
means a sign of agreement with the statement un-
less a contradicting discussion is provided (Chen
& Hsu, 2000; Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; Echtner &
Ritchie, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gart-
ner, 1989, 1993; Lubbe, 1998; MacKay & Fesen-
maier, 1997; Milman & Pizam, 1995; Murphy,
1999; Walmsley & Young, 1998). Gunn (1972)
explained that the organic image is a function of
nontouristic and noncommercial information sources,
namely, organic agents, such as popular culture,
education, general media, word-of-mouth from
family and friends, and actual visitation, which are
presumably out of destination marketers control.
On the other hand, marketing efforts of destination
promoters, namely, promotional materials, consti-
tute the induced agents, and the image formed by
these agents is named as the induced image. How-
ever, as stated by Selby and Morgan (1996), be-
cause of astute efforts of destination marketers in
developing strategic media relations, mutual ex-
clusivity of organic and induced agents is practi-
cally nonexistent.
Walmsley and Young (1998, pp. 6667) pur-
port that local images are likely to be organic
(in that they are developed through long-term as-
similation of place-related information gleaned
from a variety of everyday sources), whereas in-
ternational images are likely to be induced (i.e.,
influenced by active efforts to advertise and pro-
mote particular destinations). Embacher and But-
tle (1989) share this viewpoint on finding that in-
ternational visitors image of Austria often was
based on induced information agents rather than
by personal experience; thus, they confirm the dif-
ference between the images of the immediate envi-
ronment versus the world.
Results of destination image studies reveal that
visitation induces an image more realistic than that
held prior to visitation (Gartner, 1989). Fakeye
and Crompton (1991), therefore, separated this
type of image from Gunns organic image and as-
cribe it as the third-level image, more specifically,
complex image. They dissert that it is complex
because it allows a more differentiated outlook
and truer comprehension of the destination rather
than simple stereotyping, especially if the visitor
spends enough time there to be exposed to the
destinations varying dimensions through develop-
ing contacts and establishing relationships (1991,
p. 11). Fakeye and Cromptons (1991) introduc-
tion of this third-level image to the image forma-
tion theory has also been widely accepted by other
researchers (Chen & Hsu, 2000; Chen & Kerstet-
ter, 1999; Lubbe, 1998; MacKay & Fesenmaier,
1997; Milman & Pizam, 1995).
Beneficial Image
Tapachai and Waryszak (2000) were the first to
come up with the term beneficial image, meaning
the tourists impressions on how well a destination
would perform on expected benefit or consump-
tion values including functional, social, emotional,
epistemic, and conditional, (p. 38) which they
believe to ultimately influence tourists decision
making.
Components of Image
Another multiplicity of terms exists in the ter-
minology used by researchers while referring to
the components of image. The most commonly
used image components comprise the cognitive-
affective image dichotomy; several researchers
use these components in conceptualizing destina-
tion image in their studies. However, other de-
nominations of image components are also used;
some of these denominations are conceptually dif-
ferent from cognitive and affective images, whereas
some are similar, as explained in detail in the fol-
lowing sections.
AttributeHolistic
Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993) substantially
contributed to image theory by providing a frame-
work of image components and a method to cap-
ture all components. They propose that destination
image basically has two main components, attri-
bute and holistic. This proposition is based on hu-
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY
man information processing theories. Basically,
there are two differing theories concerning human
interpretation of environmental stimuli: (1) that an
individual processes information about an object
in terms of individual attributes, and (2) that an
individual processes information about an object
in terms of gestalt impressions. Some researchers
accept that both ways of information processing
are used when evaluating an object, which leads
to conceptualization of image in terms of attribute
and holistic components (Poiesz, 1989). Echtner
and Ritchie (1991, 1993) also agree that people
have images of both individual attributes (scenery,
climate, price) and holistic impressions of a desti-
nation.
Gartner (1989) also asserts that image of indi-
vidual attributes might be different from the holis-
tic image of a destination. He concludes this from
the assumption that people evaluate destinations
according to their recreational and leisure pursuits
and, thus, might respond to individual attributes
and holistic image differently. He maintains that
most destination marketers are trying to build or
correct holistic destination image rather than in-
vestigating its image attributes despite the poten-
tial of using the image of different attributes effec-
tively in developing promotional strategies for
market segments rather than the market as a whole.
Thus, he defines dimensions (attributes, constit-
uents) of Utahs image as outdoor recreation re-
sources, outdoor recreation activities, culture, night-
life, and liquor laws. Most researchers, however,
measure attributes of destination image rather than
the holistic impressions or both together, which
was the methodological critique of Echtner and
Ritchie (1991).
Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993) also propose
that there are four subcomponents within the attri-
bute and holistic components of image: functional
(tangible) and psychological (abstract), and com-
mon and unique components. Functional dimen-
sions are directly observable or measurable
characteristics, such as accommodation facilities.
Psychological components are less tangible or
more difficult to observe and measure, such as
safety. Common dimensions are those that are
more or less universal, whereas the unique dimen-
sions are must-see sights that are specific to the
destination of concern (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993,
5
p. 3). Thus, they provide a three-continua compo-
nent framework for measuring destination image
attributes, which they assert as necessary to be in
a destination image study to capture the image
construct completely. With these three continua,
the dimensions can be placed on 12 gridsattri-
bute-functional, attribute-psychological, attribute-
common, attribute-unique, holistic-functional, holis-
tic-psychological, holistic-common, holistic-unique,
functional-common, functional-unique, psycholog-
ical-common, and psychological-unique. These dif-
ferent grids of attributes have been cited by many
researchers (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; MacKay &
Fesenmaier, 1997, 2000; Murphy, 1999; OLeary
and Deegan, 2003; Rezende-Parker, Morrison, &
Ismail, 2003; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002).
In their work on developing a scale to capture
these components while measuring destination di-
mensions, Echtner and Ritchie (1993) admit that
destination attributes in their study are assigned
into the component grids in an arbitrary way. For
Jamaica, for example, climate, nightlife, scenery,
and costs were on both functional-attribute and
functional-common grids; similarly, reggae music,
slow paced and relaxing but also fun-party and
happy were placed both in holistic-psychological
and unique psychological grids. One can argue
that reggae music, for example, should be placed
on the attribute-psychological grid rather than on
the holistic-psychological grid. However, MacKay
and Fesenmaier (2000) provide evidence to sup-
port Echtner and Ritchies (1991, 1993) common
unique and functionalpsychological dimensions.
They conclude that adding similar-to-home fea-
tures to promotional materials ads a common
unique perspective in the perceivers responses.
Also, they reveal that the distinction between
functional mountains and abstract wilderness are
associated with the functionalpsychological com-
ponent.
CognitiveAffective
Researchers of brand image and retail store im-
age agree that the image construct involves both
cognitive and affective components (Dobni &
Zinkhan, 1990; Keaveney & Hunt, 1992). In desti-
nation image theory, the conceptual base for cog-
nitive and affective components is structured by
6 TASCI
Gartner (1993). He maintains that destination im-
age is formed by three hierarchically interrelated
components: cognitive, affective, and conative.
Gartner delineates the cognitive component as a
factual and intellectual evaluation of the known
attributes of a destination; however, he also ques-
tions the factual nature of this component due to
the inability of personally testing a destination be-
fore visiting. Thus, he purports, the cognitive com-
ponent depends on the amount and the nature of
the incoming information about the destination to
a large extent. Gartner also defines the cognitive
component as the sum of beliefs and attitudes of
an object leading to some internally accepted pic-
ture of its attributes (1993, pp. 193196). Gart-
ners inclusion of attitudes into the definition of
cognitive component sounds contrary to the asser-
tion that attitude is a low-intensity-level affective
response (Peter & Olson, 1999).
According to Gartner (1993), human motives
are the defining force behind the affective compo-
nent; human motives determine what people wish
to obtain from a destination, and thus affect how
people evaluate the destination. Therefore, Gartner
contends that the affective component comes into
play only when a potential visitor starts evaluating
destinations on his or her choice. This assertion
might hold true in a contextual sense; a person
might have affective responses to a destination in
a travel destination context only when considering
it as a possible place to visit. The same person can
also have affective responses for the same destina-
tion in a political context on hearing something
good or bad about it in the news media, as might
be the case for the feelings of Americans toward
Iraq to a great extent. However, it should be noted
that people can have affective responses toward
a destination even before they consider traveling
there.
After reviewing the literature on retail store im-
age, Keaveney and Hunt (1992) conclude that
store image research has focused on the cognitive
component and neglected the affective component.
Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) maintain that similar
neglect also exists in destination image research.
They perceive that although many image defini-
tions recognize both cognitive and affective com-
ponents, studies of destination image mostly in-
vestigate perceptual or cognitive component. They
believe that the affective component is important
in positioning tourism destinations. Therefore, they
adapt four affective space measurement scales
from the psychology literature to measure the af-
fective component of destination image at differ-
ent levels. By applying the findings of research in
environmental psychology that people respond
both cognitively and affectively to the environ-
ment, Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) and Baloglu
and McCleary (1999) distinguish between image
components as perceptual (cognitive), affective,
and a composite of both, namely, overall (global
impression). They agree that the cognitive compo-
nent includes knowledge about the objective attri-
butes of a destination, and the affective component
comprises knowledge of the destinations affective
quality; these two components interact to compose
an overall image. Baloglu and McCleary (1999)
state that these two components are interrelated,
and they also assert that affective component de-
pends on and a function of cognitive component,
and for a better prediction of behavior they should
be measured separately. Cognitive and affective
components are included in destination image in-
quiry by several researcher (Joppe, Martin, &
Waalen, 2001; Leisen, 2001; OLeary & Deegan,
2003; Rittichainuwat, Qu, & Brown, 2001; Re-
zende-Parker et al., 2003; Sonmez & Sirakaya,
2002).
Conative Component
Gartner (1993) adds another component to im-
age, a conative component, which corresponds to
behavior. He thinks there is a clear-cut difference
between cognitive, affective, and conative compo-
nents, yet there is also a hierarchical interrelation-
ship by which product predisposition is deter-
mined. A conative component is formed when
destination selection is completed and decision is
made; thus, this component depends on and comes
after cognitive and affective components are
formed. Although there is not a counterargument
about Gartners conative component of image,
other researchers frequently mention only cogni-
tive and affective components of image, even if
they are measuring the effect of image on visitor
behavior.
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY
DesignativeAppraisive (Evaluative)
Another name for the cognitive and affective
dichotomy is introduced by Walmsley and Young
(1998), who borrow from environmental psychol-
ogy and tag them as designative (cognitive) and
appraisive or evaluative (affective). In the for-
mer, they assert, environmental information is per-
ceived and processed cognitively, whereas in the
latter, the environment is evaluated. Designative
image is a categorical representation of environ-
mental elements, such as hills, water, and build-
ings, whereas the evaluations represent attitudes
toward these elements (1998, p. 65). Walmsley
and Young also purport that two kinds of evalua-
tions, arousing-sleepy and pleasant-unpleasant,
pinpoint tourists appraisal of destinations. Similar
to Walmsley and Young (1998), Embacher and
Buttle (1989) use cognitive-evaluative dichotomy
by naming the affective component as evaluative,
too. However, they do not provide a clear distinc-
tion of this component from others that are found
in the destination image literature.
DescriptiveEvaluative
Crompton (1979) and Crompton, Fakeye, and
Lue (1992) use the dichotomy of descriptive and
evaluative; however, their use of the evaluative
component is different from the affective compo-
nent of image and rather similar to importance-
performance analysis. They assert that descriptive
component would determine how good the desti-
nation is on a certain attribute, whereas evaluative
(importance) component would define how impor-
tant (salient) an attribute is for respondents; this
salience is most likely to determine consumer be-
havior. If an attribute receives high scores on both
components, the destination should emphasize it,
if it ranks low on descriptive component, correc-
tive action is necessary (Crompton, 1979). How-
ever, they also recognize that the most important
image attributes may not be the competitive edge
of a destination in case it is offered by other desti-
nations as well. Another attribute with lesser im-
portance may be the distinguishing attribute be-
tween competing destinations (Crompton et al.,
1992). Thus, in this context, the evaluative compo-
nent of destination image is still cognitive in con-
tent because it is a cognitive assessment of a desti-
7
nation. Ross (1993) also uses Cromptons (1979)
descriptive-evaluative dichotomy; however, Ross
names the evaluative image component as ideal
image.
Dimensions of Image
The essence of destination image studies is to
find how people visualize, think, and feel toward
places, which usually requires identification of
destination properties. Therefore, destination im-
age studies usually include identification of desti-
nation properties and how they are viewed by dif-
ferent segments of the study population with
differing characteristics, including local and for-
eigner (Alhemoud & Armstrong, 1996), familiar
and unfamiliar (Fridgen, 1987; Hu & Ritchie,
1993; MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997; Milman &
Pizam, 1995), close market and distant market
(Hunt, 1975; Obenour, Lengfelder, & Groves,
2005), visitor and nonvisitor (Awaritefe, 2004;
Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Crompton, 1979; Fa-
keye & Crompton, 1991), different country of ori-
gins (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999), different demo-
graphic properties (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999;
MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997), intending and not
intending to visit (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999), and
different types of vacations (Hu & Ritchie, 1993).
Some measure how a group of respondents view
multiple destinations in terms of identified desti-
nation properties (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999;
Hankinson, 2005; Hunt, 1975); others measure
how multiple groups with different characteristics
view multiple destinations in terms of identified
destination properties (Calantone, Benedetto, Ha-
kam, & Bojanic, 1989; Hunt, 1975). Usually, des-
tination properties (dimensions) that receive high
ratings or comments are called strengths of the
study destination, whereas those receiving low rat-
ings or comments are labeled as weaknesses. The
measured image of a destination is, admittedly, a
blend of various elements (dimensions) that inter-
fuse into destination attractiveness for the poten-
tial visitors (Gartner, 1993; Hu & Ritchie, 1993;
MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997). However, there are
almost as many different views as there are re-
searchers on destination image dimensions (see
Table 2). Some designate a few dimensions as uni-
versally important for any destination; some dis-
8 TASCI

Table 2
Examples of Study Destinations, Sample Destinations, and Dimensions Revealed

Author(s) Sample
Study Destination(s) Destination(s) Dimensions

Hunt (1975) Rocky Mountain statesColor- U.S. Outdoor recreation resources, outdoor recreation ac-
ado, Montana, Utah, Wyoming tivities, cultural amenities, host-population char-
acteristics, and liquor laws
Var, Beck, & British Columbia/Canada (dimen- Canada Natural factors, social factors, historical factors, rec-
Loftus (1977) sions previously used for Tur- reational and shopping facilities, and infrastruc-
key) ture, food, and shelter
Goodrich (1978) Florida, California, Mexico, U.S. Active/passive entertainment, social/personal enter-
Hawaii, the Bahamas, Jamaica, tainment
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and Barbados
Gartner (1989) Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, U.S. Resource/cultural based, in-group social/out-group
Utah social
Fakeye & Crom- Rio Grande Valley in Texas U.S. Social opportunities and attractions, natural and cul-
pton (1991) tural amenities, accommodations and transporta-
tion, infrastructure foods and friendly people,
physical amenities and recreation activities, bars
and evening entertainment
Crompton, Fa- Rio Grande Valley, Hawaii, Ari- U.S. Escape from pressures, social interaction, enjoy the
keye, & Lue zona, Florida, California natural environment, seeking warm weather, es-
(1992) cape from crowds, family togetherness
Gartner & Shen China U.S. Natural resources, historical, cultural, people, man-
(1992) made, service
Echtner & Rit- Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Switzer- Canada Comfort/security, interest/adventure, natural state,
chie (1993) land tourist facilitation, resort atmosphere/climate, cul-
tural distance, inexpensiveness, lack of language
barrier
Milman & Pi- Central Florida U.S. Product, behavior, environment
zam (1995)
Schroeder (1996) North Dakota North Dakota Sightseeing, activity-oriented, urban, hospitality
Alhemoud & Kuwait Kuwait (resi- Natural attractions, historical attractions, cultural at-
Armstrong dents and tractions, and manufactured attractions
(1996) foreigners)
MacKay & Fes- Riding Mountain National Park, Canada Activity, familiarity, holiday, atmosphere
enmaier Manitoba, Canada
(1997)
Court & Lupton New Mexico state U.S. Sociocultural amenities, natural amenities, participa-
(1997) tive recreational activities, climate attribute inter-
relation
Choi, Chan, & Hong Kong International Activities and atmosphere, tourist information and
Wu (1999) visitors shopping, culture difference and communication
and language
Murphy (1999) Australia Backpacker Culture/language, natural attractions, climate
visitors
Chen & Kerstet- Pensylvania, U.S. U.S. (univer- Tourism infrastructure, atmosphere, natural ame-
ter (1999) sity students) nity, farm life
MacKay & Fes- Alberta, Canada U.S. and Spiritual nature, comfortable risk, wilderness for
enmaier Taiwan Taiwanese
(2000)
Sonmez and Sir- Turkey U.S., Puerto Local attractions and hospitality, socioeconomic and
akaya (2002) Rico, & U.S. cultural distance, lack of natural attractions and
Virgin Is- tourist services, comfort/safety and tourist facilita-
lands tion, outdoor recreation opportunities, perceived
value of vacation, safe and hospitable environ-
ment, general mood and vacation atmosphere, re-
laxing effect, authenticity of experience
Rezende-Parker, Brazil and neighboring Hispanic U.S. Natural attractions/interest, safety and comfort,
Morrison, & countries facilities and information, cultural comparisons,
Ismail (2003) vacation atmosphere/exoticness
Chang & Shin China, Japan, Singapore, Thai- Korea Atmospheric cues, service cues, tourist images
(2004) land, Hong Kong
Hankinson U.K. U.K. Physical environment, economic activity, business
(2005) tourism facilities, accessibility, social facilities,
strength of reputation, people characteristics,
size, other
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY
tinguish between dimensions important to a spe-
cific destination or a specific vacation or visit
situation. Also, image dimensions grouped into
image factors vary from one researcher to another.
Some researchers designate general dimensions
[Q5] to guide their research. Chon (1989; cited in Lubbe,
1998), for example, groups dimensions into three
basic categories: static (natural landscape, climate,
transportation, and historical and cultural attrac-
tions), dynamic (accommodation, eateries, service,
entertainment, politics, and trends), and current
decision (marketing activities, including prices).
In a similar general sense, Gartner places destina-
tion dimensions into three broad categories as
natural resource base on which activities often
take place, the socio-cultural system that governs
the provision and type of touristic services, and
the built environment that serves the needs of tour-
ists and may also provide some of the attractions
(1993, p. 205). Milman and Pizam (1995) also cat-
egorize image dimensions into three broad dimen-
sions as (1) the product, a sum of attractions,
price, uniqueness, types of users, and so on; (2)
the tourism employees attitude and behavior; and
(3) the environment, including natural and infra-
structure attributes. Milman and Pizams (1995)
types of users dimension is elaborated by Sirgy
and Su (2000), who hypothesize that tourists use
some destination cues such as destination atmo-
sphere, accommodation facilities, location, and
prices to form a stereotypical impression of visi-
tors of that destination. Sirgy and Su (2000) define
the four Ps of marketingproduct (destination),
price, place (location), and promotionto be con-
trollable by destination authorities, while confin-
ing personal characteristics of tourists are uncon-
trollable. They postulate that these cues are used
by potential tourists to picture a typical tourist of
a destination, compare the destination with them-
selves, and decide whether it is suitable for them.
In this aspect, the typical user of a destination is a
dimension, and an important one in itself.
Other researchers follow a humanistic para-
digm and define important dimensions of destina-
tion image from the perceivers perspective, either
from a general human perspective or from a spe-
cific groups perspective. For example, while de-
fining the dimensions of ideal image component
of a destination, Ross (1993) cites Mayos (1975)
9
three basic dimensions of image for any holiday
destination from tourists perspective as climate,
scenery, and congestion. In Mayos conceptualiza-
tion lots of scenery, moderate population and in-
dustrialization, and a comfortable climate are the
desirable dimensions of an ideal holiday destina-
tion. By the same token, Hunt (1975) implies that
people in general prefer mountainous landscape,
moderate climate, and financially well-off and po-
litically liberal, progressive, and receptive locals.
Hunt defines these dimensions as more influential
on the decision to visit than the recreational activi-
ties and attractions. Hunt explains the favor for
mediocrity by the human fear of coping with too
different, unique, or exotic features. Hunt postu-
lates that the consumer prefers the product which
is congenial, meshes with, and reinforces, the way
the consumer thinks about himself-or the product
with an image most like his self-image (1975, p.
7). Chen and Hsu (2000) are more specific in their
definitions of dimensions; they explore the dimen-
sions of overseas destinations attracting a specific
group of people, Korean tourists. Their study re-
vealed attractive dimensions as adventurous atmo-
sphere, scenery, environmental friendliness, and
the availability of tourist information; unattractive
dimensions were similar-to-home architectural
styles. Lubbe (1998), on the other hand, uses the
push and pull theory to explain the salient attri-
butes and dimensions of a tourist destination;
push-oriented dimensions are driven by the needs
of the visitor, such as safety and security, whereas
the pull-oriented dimensions are defined by the at-
tractions of the destination of concern. In con-
structing the foundation for primary image devel-
opment, Lubbe emphasizes the links between
destination image dimensions and tourist needs
and motives. In Lubbes study, familiarity of a
destination, adventurous travel, safety and secu-
rity, and time and distance are discovered as the
salient dimensions for Saudi Arabian tourists.
Another group of researchers define the impor-
tant dimensions specific to a destination. Gearing,
Swart, and Vars study (1974), for example, as-
sesses the attractiveness of various regions of Tur-
key on five dimensions: (1) natural factors, (2) so-
cial factors, (3) historical factors, (4) recreational
and shopping facilities, and (5) infrastructure,
food, and shelter. Their study reveal natural fac-
10
tors (natural beauty and climate) as the most im-
portant dimension of touristic attractiveness of any
region in Turkey. Var, Beck, and Loftus (1977)
use the same five image dimensions while trying
to quantify destination attractiveness to enable
solid comparisons between destinations, regions,
and districts in British Columbia and create an in-
dex by issuing a series of numerical weights to
each dimension. Similarly, Alhemoud and Arm-
strong (1996) divide the dimensions of Kuwaits
image into four categories: natural, historical, cul-
tural, and manufactured, while measuring their rel-
ative appeal. Murphy (1999) reports Australias
dimensions receiving high ratings (strengths) as
natural attractions, friendly people, safety, climate,
and language (English). Gartner (1989) identifies
the dimensions of Utahs image as outdoor recre-
ation resources, outdoor recreation activities, cul-
ture, nightlife, and liquor laws. The first three of
these dimensions could be considered for any des-
tination, but nightlife and liquor laws might be
more specific to Utah due to the culture of the
dominant religion in the state.
Another way of grouping the image dimensions
of a destination is performed by Hu and Ritchie
(1993); they identify dimensions specific to the
travel purpose of the tourist. In this study, they
focus on educational vacation and recreational va-
cation groups. They define three sets of dimen-
sions, one pertaining to the attractiveness of a des-
tination for both groups: shopping, attitudes toward
tourists, local transportation, and prices. The sec-
ond group of dimensionsclimate, accommoda-
tions, recreational opportunities, scenery, food,
and entertainment are more salient for the recre-
ational vacation group; the third group of dimen-
sions, uniqueness of local life, historical and cul-
tural attractions, communications, festivals and
events, and accessibility is defined as more rele-
vant to the educational vacation experience.
Destination dimensions are also defined and
compared for the same group of respondents in
terms of previsit versus postvisit image and de-
scriptive versus evaluative image, similar to the
importance-performance analysis technique. Cromp-
ton (1979) differentiates between the important di-
mensions by handling them in two contexts: de-
scribing a destinations status on a dimension
(descriptive scales), and evaluating how important
TASCI
(salient) the dimension to the respondent (evalua-
tive scales). He suggests this in response to Sher-
aks (1972) criticism that image studies lack direc-[Q6]
tion on how to use the identified dimensions in
decision making. Crompton (1979) contends that
if a dimension is highly rated on both scales, it
should be emphasized because it is salient to the
respondents and the destination has a strength on
it; if a dimension receives high ratings on evalua-
tive scales and low ratings on descriptive scales,
it means the destination is weak on an important
dimension, thus, corrective action should be ap-
plied. His work reveals a lack of congruency be-
tween responses to the two scales of Mexicos di-
mensions and respondents importance dimensions;
the only dimension rated similarly on both de-
scriptive and evaluative scales was friendly peo-
ple. In the same way, Joppe et al. (2001) find that
personal safety, accommodation services, food
services and cuisine, value for money, cleanliness,
variety of things to see and do, hospitality of local
people, and directional signage are the most im-
portant dimensions for their respondents. How-
ever, they caution that dimensions articulated by a
respondent as important may not be the determi-
nant of their vacation decision. Therefore, they
also measure satisfaction on these dimensions and
reveal that the most satisfying dimensions for all
visitors are accommodation services, food services
and cuisine, and variety of things to see and do
as well as personal safety, value for money, and
hospitality of locals. Ross (1993) compares the di-
mensions for pretrip (ideal) and posttrip (actual)
situations; the ideal dimensions receiving higher
importance ratings are friendliness of locals, qual-
ity tourist information, and suitable accommoda-
tion while actual dimensions receiving higher
importance ratings are natural environment,
friendliness of locals, and authenticity.
As can be seen in Table 2, some dimensions
appear in the majority of the studies with some
variations in their names, however, there are those
that appear only in specific studies such as liquor
laws (Gartner 1989; Hunt, 1975) and holiday
(MacKay & Fesenmaier (1997). Also in the stud-
ies dealing with international destinations, special
dimensions appear, for example, risk (MacKay
& Fesenmaier, 2000), security (Echtner &
Ritchie, 1993) and language (Choi, Chan, &
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY 11

Wu, 1999; Murphy, 1999); these dimensions may

not be usual for domestic destinations. Therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that although there are
some dimensions that are commonly accepted by
researchers (such as natural and cultural attrac-
tions, infrastructure, and price), image dimensions
revealed through a study depend on the destination
of concern and the respondent population in the
study. Even if the dimensions are predefined, the
important dimensions for respondent and the
strong dimensions of the destination are dependent
on the respondent population.
Figure 1. Supply and demand side-related image types.
Conclusion
Many researchers with different backgrounds
comprehensive study of the destination image con-
have conducted destination image research since
cept requires assessment of earlier studies as well.
the early 1970s. This contributed a wide spectrum
For a well-established destination image para-
of perspectives onto the destination image con- digm, it is imperative that new researchers digest
struct; however, it also caused an inflation of des- the previous literature and use the most commonly
tination image terminology. The lack of a uniform accepted terminology in their research endeavors.
terminology in the destination image literature has The analysis and synthesis provided in this study
the potential to create confusion, especially for is meant to help novice researchers and laypeople
novice researchers and laypeople. The use of some better understand the earlier research. To this end,
destination image terminology, namely, dimen- the following visual depictions of the relationships
sion, attribute, factor, and component, is not uni- between different image types and components are
form in most of the early studies that set the basis synthesized on the analysis of the destination im-
for todays destination image theory. These terms age literature.
are used interchangeably in most studies. Different Figure 1 displays the relationship between sup-
researchers use different terms to refer to the same ply and demand-side related image types used in
concept, or they use the same terms to refer to destination image studies. As displayed in Figure
different concepts. 1, the image projected by destination authorities
The lack of a commonly accepted terminology
is a problem that poses threats to the scientific na-
ture of destination image theory and research. To
increase scientific understanding in destination
image research, a systematic structure with shared
standards needs to be developed for use in ex-
plaining and predicting phenomena. For a substan-
tial and scientific destination image theory and
research, more commonly accepted image termi-
nology needs to be used by researchers, which
would enable replication and comparison of stud-
ies by different researchers in different settings.
The seminal work by Gartner (1993) and Ech-
tner and Ritchie (1991, 1993) provided a well-
established base of destination image terminology,
which has been commonly accepted and used by Figure 2. Visitor image formation process-related image
the researchers in the past 15 years. However, a types.
12
Figure 3. The relationship among the most commonly used
visitor image formation process-related image types.
(projected image) and image received by target
markets (received image) can overlap, which
would define the fit between these images at the
two different ends of image formation communi-
cation. The size or fit between the projected and
received images depends on the success of the im-
age management efforts of the destination authori-
ties. However, the intervening factors can affect
both projected image messages and comprehen-
sion of these messages, resulting in a change in
the size of the fit either negatively or positively.
Figure 2 displays the relationship among the
visitor image formation process-related image
types used in destination image studies. As can be
seen from Figure 2, there can be an overlap or fit
among these images too. The fit between previsit
images and postvisit images depends on visitors
expectations from the destination and the actual
performance of the destination in meeting these
expectations, which ultimately can define the level
of visitor satisfaction. The most commonly used
terms, namely, organic, induced, and complex im-
ages, are not hierarchical or directional per se in
Figure 4. The hierarchical relationship between visitor image formation process-related image types.
TASCI
Figure 5. Image components (taken from Tasci, Gartner,
& Cavusgil, 2007, p. 200).
theory because a person can form an organic, in-
duced, or complex image first. As can be seen in
Figure 3, organic, induced, and complex images
form an interactive whole in which a change in
one of them affects the other two. Assuming visi-
tation comes in the end, a hierarchical relationship
of the image types might be defined as displayed
in Figure 4.
Synthesizing all the components proposed by
different researchers, an interactive system of im-
age components is suggested by Tasci, Gartner,
and Cavusgil (2007). As can be seen in Figure 5,
they suggest that at the core of image, there is
cognitive knowledge of common and unique attri-
butes as well as the affective response toward
these common and unique destination attributes.
With the interaction between the knowledge of
unique and common attributes and feelings to-
 DESTINATION IMAGE TERMINOLOGY
ward them, a composite image (holistic or over-
all) is formed and used by the decision maker to
simplify the task of decision making. Assuming
the knowledge of common and unique attributes
is fact based, the more detailed the core is, the
less stereotypical the holistic synthesis is. This is
a dynamically interactive and reciprocal system,
in which every item could be both a cause and
an effect of a change at any time, and factors can-
not be comprehended in isolation; therefore, they
should be studied in an integrated manner. (Tasci
et al., 2007, pp. 199200)
As Dann (1996) postulates, too, the compo-
nents of image are interrelated but not necessarily
hierarchically, they are a composition of pieces
which switches back and forth, intersects, and
projects forward in time while dealing with the
past, rather than progressing in a smooth linear
fashion or even a rational manner (p. 52).
The terminology inflation in the destination im-
age literature needs to be eliminated by adopting
the most commonly accepted terms. As for image
types, the context of the study will define which
image types to adopt; however, if the context calls
for visitor image formation process-related image
types, then the most commonly used terms (or-
ganic, induced, and complex images) need to be
used by the researchers. As for image components,
cognitive and affective image components are well
accepted by researchers and, thus, can be used in
future research. Furthermore, researchers need to
pay attention not to use dimensions and compo-
nents interchangeably.
References
Alhemoud, A., & Armstrong, E. (1996). Image of tourism
attractions in Kuwait. Journal of Travel Research,
34(Spring), 7680.
Awaritefe, O. D. (2004). Destination image differences be-
tween prospective and actual tourists in Nigeria. Jour-
nal of Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 264281.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of
tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4),
1115.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). U.S. International
travelers images of four Mediterranean destinations: A
comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of
Travel Research, 38(November), 144152.
Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing
images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism, 23, 201
221.
Calantone, R. J., Benedetto, A. D., Hakam, A., & Bojanic,
13
D. C. (1989). Multiple multinational tourism position-
ing using correspondence analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 28(Fall), 2532.
Chang, K. H., & Shin, J. I. (2004). The relationship be-
tween destination cues of Asian countries and Korean
tourist images. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 16(2), 82100.
Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2000). Measurement of Ko-
rean tourists perceived images of overseas destinations.
Journal of Travel Research, 38(May), 411416.
Chen, P. J., & Kerstetter, D. L. (1999). International stu-
dents image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destina-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 37(February), 256
266.
Choi, W. M., Chan, A., & Wu, J. (1999). A qualitative
and quantitative assessment of Hong Kongs image as a
tourist destination. Tourism Management, 20, 361365.
Court, B., & Lupton, R. A. (1997). Customer portfolio de-
velopment: Modeling destination adapters, inactives,
and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 3543.
Crompton, J. L. (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(1), 1823.
Crompton, J. L., Fakeye, P. C., & Lue, C. C. (1992). Posi-
tioning: The example of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
in the winter long stay destination market. Journal of
Travel Research, 31(Fall), 2026.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996). Tourists images of a destina-
tionAn alternative analysis. Recent Advances in
Tourism Marketing Research, 5(1/2), 4155.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand
image: A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer
Research, 17, 110119.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning
and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tour-
ism Studies, 2(2), 212.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measure-
ment of destination image: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Travel Research, 31(Spring), 313.
Embacher, J., & F. Buttle, F. (1989). A repertory grid anal-
ysis of Austrias image as a summer vacation destina-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 27(Winter), 37.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences
between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to
the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 30(Fall), 1016.
Fridgen, J. D. (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine
perceived tourism regions. Leisure Sciences, 9, 101
117.
Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measure-
ment of state tourism products using multidimensional
scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28(Fall),
1620.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2/3), 191215.
Gartner, W. C., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of Tianan-
14
men Square on Chinas tourism image. Journal of
Travel Research, 30(Spring), 4752.
Gearing, C. E., Swart, W. W., & Var, T. (1974). Establish-
ing a measure of touristic attractiveness. Journal of
Travel Research, 14(Spring), 18.
Goodrich, J. N. (1978). The relationship between prefer-
ences for and perceptions of vacation destinations: Ap-
plication of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research,
17(2), 813.
Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions.
Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of
Texas.
Hankinson, G. (2005). Destination brand images: A busi-
ness tourism perspective. Journal of Services Market-
ing, 19(1), 2432.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination
attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel
Research, 32(2), 2534.
Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourist develop-
ment. Journal of Travel Research, 13(Winter), 17.
Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., & Waalen, J. (2001). Torontos
image as a destination: A comparative importance-satis-
faction analysis by origin of visitors. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), 252260.
Keaveney, S. M., & Hunt, K. A. (1992). Conceptualisation
and operationalisation of retail store image: A case of
rival middle-level theories. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 20(2), 165175.
Leisen, B. (2001). Image segmentation: The case of a tour-
ism destination. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(1),
49.
Lubbe, B. (1998). Primary image as a dimension of destina-
tion image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 2143.
MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Pictorial element
of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24, 537565.
MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (2000). An exploration of
cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of
Travel Research, 38(4), 417423.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness
and familiarity with a destination: The Central Florida
case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(Winter), 2127.
Murphy, L. (1999). Australias image as a holiday destina-
tionperceptions of backpacker visitors. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 2145.
Obenour, W., Lengfelder, J., & Groves, D. (2005). The de-
velopment of a destination through the image assess-
TASCI
ment of six geographic markets. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 11(2), 107119.
OLeary, S., & Deegan, J. (2003). People, pace, place:
Qualitative and quantitative images of Ireland as a tour-
ism destination in France. Journal of Vacation Market-
ing, 9(3), 213.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, C. O. (1999). Consumer behavior and
marketing strategy. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Poiesz, T. B. C. (1989). The image concept: Its place in
consumer psychology. Journal of Economic Psychol-
ogy, 10, 457472.
Rezende-Parker, A. M., Morrison, A. M., & Ismail, J. A.
(2003). Dazed and confused? An exploratory study of
the image of Brazil as a travel destination. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 243.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., & Brown, T. J. (2001). Thai-
lands international travel image: Mostly favorable.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-
terly, 42(2), 8295.
Ross, G. F. (1993). Ideal and actual images of backpacker
visitors to Northern Australia. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 32(3), 5457.
Schroeder, T. (1996). Relationship of residents image of
their state as a tourist destination and their support for
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 7173.
Selby, M., & Morgan, N. J. (1996). Reconstructing place
imagea case study of its role in destination market
research. Tourism Management, 17(4), 287294.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-
congruity, and travel behavior: Toward an integrative
model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(May), 340352.
Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorted destina-
tion image? The case of Turkey. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 41(2), 185196.
Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of
the role of beneficial image in tourist destination selec-
tion. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 3744.
Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007).
Conceptualization and operationalization of destination
image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
31, 194223.
Var, T., Beck, D., & Loftus, P. (1977). Determination of
touristic attractiveness of the touristic areas in British
Columbia. Journal of Travel Research, 15, 2329.
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images
and tourism: The use of personal constructs to describe
the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel
Research, 36(3), 6569.
Au:/Ed: Please answer the following queries for
Tourism Review International Vol. 13, Paper No. 330
1. Please provide job title, street mailing address, postal code, and phone number for correspondence.
2. Mayo 1975 not found in Refs list, please add it.
3. Phelps 1986 not found in Refs list, please add it.
4. Chon 1998 not found in Refs list, please add it.
5. Chon 1989 not found in Refs list, please add it.
6. Sherak 1972 not found in Refs list, please add it.

15