Professional Documents
Culture Documents
56-78, 2002
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/01/$22.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
PII: S0160-7383(01)00031-7
DESTINATION IMAGE
Towards a Conceptual Framework
Martina G. Gallarza
Facultad de Estudios de la Empresa, Spain
Irene Gil Saura
Haydée Calderón Garcı́a
Universitat de Valencia, Spain
Abstract: This paper presents a review and discussion of the concept and measurement
of destination image, within an intradisciplinary marketing perspective. Both theoretical and
methodological aspects of this concept and measurement are treated. Based on the existence
of three dimensions of object, subject and attributes, previous studies are analyzed. A tax-
onomy of the methodological and statistical procedures for measuring the image of the
destinations is also proposed in order to help researchers to capture and measure the image
construct. The paper proposes a conceptual model featuring its complex, multiple, relativis-
tic and dynamic nature as a more comprehensive framework of destination image. Keywords:
destination image, perceptions measurement, statistical research procedures, conceptual
model. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Résumé: Image de destination: vers un cadre conceptuel. Cet article présente une révision
critique et une discussion du concept et du mesurage de l’image de destination à partir
d’une perspective intradisciplinaire de marketing. On discute des aspects théoriques et
méthodologiques de ce concept et du mesurage. En se basant sur l’existence des trois dimen-
sions de l’objet, du sujet et des attributs, on analyze des études précédentes. On propose
aussi une taxonomie des procédures méthodologiques et statistiques du mesurage de l’image
des destinations pour aider les chercheurs à capter et à mesurer la construction de l’image.
L’article propose un modèle conceptuel qui représente sa nature complexe, multiple, relativ-
iste et dynamique comme un cadre plus compréhensif de l’image de destination. Mots-clés:
image de destination, mesurage des perceptions, procédures de la recherche statistique,
modèle conceptuel. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of the tourist destination’s image is universally
acknowledged, since it affects the individual’s subjective perception
and consequent behavior and destination choice (Chon 1990, 1992;
Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Stabler 1988; Telisman-Kosuta 1989). This
importance has led to a growing body of research on the tourism desti-
56
GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERÓN 57
a
1. Hunt (1971), (1975); 2. Gunn (1972); 3. Goodrich (1978); 4. Crompton (1979); 5.
Sternquist Witter (1985); 6. Gartner (1986); 7. Haahti (1986); 8. Gartner and Hunt (1987);
9. Stabler (1988); 10. Calantone et al (1989); 11. Chon (1989); 12. Embacher and Buttle
(1989); 13. Gartner (1989); 14. Min Han (1989); 15. Telisman-Kosuta (1989); 16. Ashworth
and Voogd (1990); 17. Chon (1990); 18. Reilly (1990); 19. Ahmed (1991); 20. Ashworth
(1991); 21. Chon (1991); 22. Echtner and Ritchie (1991); 23. Fakeye and Crompton (1991);
24. Guthrie and Gale (1991); 25. Williams and Clarke (1991); 26. Carmichael (1992); 27.
Chon (1992); 28. Crompton et al (1992); 29. Heath and Wall (1992); 30. Kotler et al (1994);
31. Valls (1992); 32. Bordás and Rubio (1993); 33. Echtner and Ritchie (1993); 34. Gartner
(1993), (1996); 35. Prentice and Hudson (1993); 36. Ritchie (1993); 37. Amor, Calabuig,
Abellán and Monfort (1994); 38. Driscoll et al (1994); 39. Getz (1994); 40. King (1994); 41.
Mazanec (1994); 42. Ryan and Montgomery (1994); 43. Dadgostar and Isotalo (1995); 44.
Muller (1995); 45. Parenteau (1995); 46. Ahmed (1996); 47. Bramwell and Rawding (1996);
48. Dann (1996); 49. Eizaguirre and Laka (1996); 50. Fesenmaier and MacKay (1996); 51.
Oppermann (1996a), (1996b); 52. Schroeder (1996); 53. Selby and Morgan (1996); 54. Balo-
glu (1997); 55. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997); 56. Borchgrvink and Knutson (1997); 57. Lind-
berg and Johnson (1997); 58. Lumsdon (1997); 59. Alford (1998); 60. Lawson et al (1998);
61. Smith and Krannich (1998); 62. Walmsley and Young (1998); 63. Baloglu and McCleary
(1999); 64. Lohmann and Kaom (1999); 65. Ruiz, Olarte and Iglesias (1999).
GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERÓN 59
Hunt (1971): Impressions that a person or persons hold about a state in which
they do not reside
Markin (1974): Our own personalized, internalized and conceptualizing
understanding of what we know
Lawson and Bond-Bovy (1977): An expression of knowledge, impressions,
prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual has of a specific
object or place
Crompton (1979): An image may be defined as the sum of beliefs, ideas, and
impressions that a person has of a destination
Dichter (1985): The concept of image can be applied to a political candidate, a
product, and a country. It describes not individual traits or qualities but the total
impression and entity makes on the minds of others
Reynolds (1985): An image is the mental construct developed by the consumer
on the basis of a few selected impressions among the flood of total impressions. It
comes into being through a creative process in which selected impressions are
elaborated, embellished and ordered
Embacher and Buttle (1989): Image is comprised of the ideas or conceptions held
individually or collectively of the destination under investigation. Image may
comprise both cognitive and evaluative components
Fakeye and Crompton (1991): Image is the mental construct developed by a
potential tourist on the basis of a few selected impressions among the flood of
total impressions
Kotler et al (1994): The image of a place is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and
impressions that a person holds of it
Gartner (1993), (1996): Destination images are developed by three hierarchically
interrelated components: cognitive, affective, and conative
Santos Arrebola (1994): Image is a mental representation of attributes and
benefits soughts of a product
Parenteau (1995): Is a favorable or unfavorable prejudice that the audience and
distributors have of the product or destination
D 1. Crompton (1979) II
D 2. Goodrich (1978) I+II
A1+B 3. Sternquist Witter (1985) I
C 4. Haahti (1986) II
D 5. Gartner and Hunt (1987) III
C 6. Calantone et al. (1989) II
D 7. Gartner (1989) III
B 8. Embacher and Buttle (1989) II
C 9. Guthrie and Gale (1991) IV
B1 10. Ahmed (1991) III
B1+B2 11. Chon (1991) II
B1;B2+B3 12. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) V
B1;B2+B3 13. Crompton, Fakeye and Lue (1992) V
D 14. Carmichael (1992) IV
C 15. Chon (1992) I
B1 16. Echtner and Ritchie (1993) II
D 17. Driscoll et al (1994) II
A2 18. Dadgostar and Isotalo (1995) I
C 19. Muller (1995) I
D 20. Eizaguirre and Laka (1996) I
A 21. Schroeder (1996) III
D 22. Ahmed (1996) III
D 23. Oppermann (1996a), (1996b) I
B 24. Baloglu (1997) II+V
B1+B2 25. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) II
a
Object variable: I, cities; II, countries; III, USA states; IV, ski resorts; V, other zones.
b
Subject variable: A, residents; A1, retailers; A2, ‘near home’ tourists; B, tourists; B1,
prospective; B2, first time; B3, repeater; C, tourists; D, not determined.
guidelines for reading the abbreviations. The number beside the data
collection techniques indicates the size of the response format. When
the study developed successive algorithms of the transformed data, the
name of the author appears repeated in two or more sections (for
example, Ahmed 1991 uses Principal Component Analysis, ANOVA,
and t-test). In these cases, the data collection method is cited with the
first technique and the words ‘2nd technique’ appear in data collection
column, in the second citation. Authors that use identical methodology
(both the statistical procedure and the data collection technique)
appear in the same row.
The result of the taxonomy undertaken shows that the method-
ologies used are in general quite complicated. For the most part, there
is a combination of multivariate and bivariate techniques, with a
greater or lesser presence of qualitative techniques in the preliminary
steps (such as Guthrie and Gale 1991 using focus group to generate
items, then Factor Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling). Very few
studies use qualitative methods as the main technique (Dann 1996;
Reilly 1990), although some use a good combination of both qualitat-
ive and quantitative methods (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Some studies
use solely qualitative methods because they analyze marketing place
promotion images with a strategic purpose (Ashworth 1991; Bramwell
and Rawding 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996): these studies are not con-
sumer research based. Regarding data collection format, only two stud-
ies have been found that use the Kelly Grid, either exclusively
(Embacher and Buttle 1989) or compared with the ‘scaled question-
naire’ (Driscoll et al. 1994). Among all collection procedures, the
seven-point Likert Scale is the most commonly used.
In general, multivariate techniques predominate because they allow
for determination of the latent multidimensional structure of the TDI,
as well as average scoring as a numeric instrumentalization of image.
This property allows for the capture of various image components, for
various publics, and various destinations (Calantone et al. 1989). Infor-
mation is gathered on the three dimensions of image analysis detailed
by Mazanec 1994. From all the multivariate methods, the most com-
monly employed for measuring destination image are information
reduction techniques: Multidimensional Scaling, and Factor Analysis
Methods (Correspondences Analysis, Principal Component Analysis
and Factor Analysis). It is important to point out that Factor Analysis
collects a diversity of regrouped techniques under this common name
due to the similar mathematical treatment of the information. How-
ever, the Principal Component Analysis is not a Factor Analysis as such,
essentially because of the treatment given to the variance (Nunnally
1978). Yet due to similarities in mathematical instrumentalization,
many authors consider their studies together with Correspondences
Analysis and Principal Components Analysis (Aaker and Day 1989).
Taking into account the acknowledgment of theoretical complexity
and limitations to conceptualizing TDI (Ashworth and Voogd 1990;
Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gartner 1996),
further analysis on marketing-based destination image conceptualiz-
ation was conducted. Based upon the revision and organization of pre-
68 DESTINATION IMAGE
A Theoretical Model
The proposed model (Figure 4) is based on four features. A feature
means a defining element of a construct, which, without being a defi-
nition, allows for its systematic identification and permits its descrip-
tion by particularizing its nature as opposed to other mental constructs.
Features are semantically explained in the model by adjectives. They
are drawn from two sources: the literature review and the analysis of
the taxonomies undertaken by authors of the present work. On the
left side of the figure, previous TDI research is listed according to
statements: each feature relies directly (thick arrow) or indirectly (thin
arrow) on one or several statements. On the right side of the figure,
content analysis on the taxonomies brings up comments that contrib-
ute to each of the features (shown in the figure with thick or thin
arrows). Every feature found underlines a useful dimension of the con-
cept of image for strategic management of destinations: ‘complexity’
underlines an analytical dimension, ‘multiplicity’ provides an action
dimension, ‘relativistic’ character translates TDI as a strategic tool, and
‘dynamic’ character allows for tactical decisions based on TDI.
The Dynamic Nature of the Concept. The idea of this last feature is
that image is not static but changes, depending essentially on two vari-
ables: time and space. This dynamic nature is greatly useful for market-
ing destinations in that each image is a manageable instrument. The
influence of time on image is relatively logical as its formation is a
process (Gunn 1972). There are works that have studied (Fesenmaier
and MacKay 1996; Selby and Morgan 1996) or empirically demon-
strated the influence of time on image (Chon 1991; Gartner 1986;
Gartner and Hunt 1987).
The influence of the space variable on image formation involves its
subjective character (affects where respondents are) and the circum-
stantiality of the image formation process, which means that no image
can be studied without a reference to the space variable. Crompton
(1979) studies the influence of the geographical location of subjects
with respect to the destination studied. Telisman-Kosuta (1989) affirms
the positive correlation between the consumer’s physical distance from
the destination and his/her level of perception of it. The greater the
distance, the greater the distortion of reality, and the shorter the dis-
tance, the greater the meaning of the details.
This statement is of great relevance to research into the attractive-
ness of a region or a destination for a non-distant public (Dadgostar
and Isotalo 1995). The circumstantiality with respect to space, together
with the subjective nature of the TDI concept, has favored a growing
body of research on the residents’ destination image (King 1994;
Schroeder 1996; Sternquist Witter 1985) as well as on their attitude
towards the industry in their region or country and their support of
the tourism activity (Getz 1994; Lawson, Williams, Young and Cossens
1998). These studies are tangentially useful for conceptualizing TDI,
given that the residents’ receptiveness is the most mentioned attribute
in the current review (Figure 1). Methodologically, the dynamic
character of TDI is shown by the use of comparisons tests to reveal
temporal or spatial influence on image formation.
CONCLUSION
Tourism destination image has been a worthy area of researchers’
investigation for nearly 30 years. Yet despite their importance and
interest, destination image studies have been criticized as atheoretical
and lacking a conceptual framework (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Fak-
eye and Crompton 1991; Gartner 1996), even though significant recent
contributions such as Baloglu and McCleary (1999) are more compre-
hensive and valuable for theoretical understanding of TDI.
The very large number of previous studies on TDI, both theoretical
and empirical, gives the researcher interested in the topic what could
GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERÓN 73
REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z. U.
1991 The Influence of the Components of a State’s Tourist Image on Product
Positioning Strategy. Tourism Management 12:331–340.
1996 The Need for the Identification of the Constituents of a Destination’s
Tourist Image a Promotional Segmentation Perspective. Revue du Tourisme
51(2):44–57.
Aaker, D. A., and G. S. Day
1989 Investigación de Mercados (3rd ed.). Mexico: McGraw Hill.
Alford, P.
1998 Positioning the Destination Product: Can Regional Tourist Boards Learn
from Private Sectors Practice? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
7(2):53–68.
Amor, F., C. Calabuig, J. Abellán, and V. M. Monfort
1994 Barriers Found in Repositioning a Mediterranean ‘Sun and Beach’ Pro-
duct: The Valencian Case. In Tourism: The State of the Art, A. Seaton, ed.,
pp. 428–435. Chichester: Wiley.
Ashworth, G. J.
1991 Products, Places and Promotion: Destination Images in the Analysis of
the Tourism Industry. In The Tourism industry: An International Analysis, T.
Sinclair and M. J. Stabler, eds., pp. 121–142. Wallingford: CAB International.
Ashworth, G. J., and H. Voogd
1990 Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban Planning.
Chichester: Wiley.
Baloglu, S.
1997 The Relationship between Destination Images and Sociodemographic
and Trip Characteristics of International Travellers. Journal of Vacation Mar-
keting 3:221–233.
Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg
1997 Affective Images of Tourism Destination. Journal of Travel Research
35(4):11–15.
GALLARZA, GIL AND CALDERÓN 75
Santos Arrebola, J. L.
1994 La imagen en turismo. In I Congreso de la Asociación Espafiñla de
Expertos cientificos en Turismo, pp. 209–217. Marbella: Institute de Estu-
dios Turı́sticos.
Schroeder, T.
1996 The Relationship of Residents’ Image of their State as a Tourist Desti-
nation and their Support for Tourism. Journal of Travel Research
34(4):71–73.
Seaton, T. V.
1994 Tourism Marketing and Research. In Tourism: The State of the Art, pp.
428–435. Chichester: Wiley.
Selby, M., and N. G. Morgan
1996 Reconstructing Place Image: a Case Study of its Role in Destination Mar-
ket Research. Tourism Management 17:287–294.
Selwyn, T.
1996 Introduction. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,
T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 1–32. Chichester: Wiley.
Sessa, A.
1989 Characteristics of Tourism. In Tourism Marketing and Management
Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 43–45. Cambridge: Pren-
tice Hall.
Smith, S. L.
1994 The Tourism Product. Annals of Tourism Research 21:582–595.
Smith, M. S., and R. S. Krannich
1998 Tourism Dependence and Tourism Attitudes. Annals of Tourism
Research 25:783–802.
Stabler, M. J.
1988 The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects.
In Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of Destination Regions,
B. Goodall and G. Ashworth, eds., pp. 133–161. London: Croom Helm.
Sternberg, E.
1997 The Iconography of the Tourism Experience. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:951–969.
Sternquist Witter, B.
1985 Attitudes about Resort Area a Comparison of Tourists and Local
Retailers. Journal of Travel Research 24(1):14–19.
Telisman-Kosuta, N.
1989 Tourism Destination Image. In Tourism Marketing and Management
Handbook, S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds., pp. 557–561. Cambridge: Pren-
tice Hall.
Valls, J. -F.
1992 La imagen de marca de los paı́ses. Madrid: McGraw Hill.
Walmsley, D. J., and M. Young
1998 Evaluative Images and Tourism: The use of Perceptual Constructs to
Describe the Structure of Destination Images. Journal of Travel Research
36(3):65–69.
Williams, E., and T. Clarke
1991 Country Image: As Others see Us. In Seminar on Travel and Tourism:
Research Challenge, pp. 159–173. Dublin: ESOMAR.