Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Perceived Destination Image of Seoul: Finding Residents’ Ideal
Views Using Q Method
Jiyoung Hwang*, Hyo-Yeun Park**, William Cannon Hunter ***, Dae-Kwan Kim****
The pursuit of destination tourism should begin with an understanding of
resident subjectivities. Residents are concerned with good governance and
cultural integrity, and they are aware of their role as stakeholders in tourism
in their communities. In this study, residents of Seoul were interviewed using
Q method in order to evaluate their subjectivities toward their residential city,
Seoul. Forty-two selected photographs of Seoul images were sorted by 37
respondents. This Q method revealed three types of subjectivities. The
results show how the respondents perceived Seoul destination image. The
three clusters agree that symbolic monuments are the representation of
Seoul image while differing in terms of their disagree images on Seoul. It is
recommended that tourism marketers and policy makers should focus on
understanding and coordinating residents’ perceived destination image of
Seoul when planning and decision-making, especially in promoting Seoul as
a destination market.
Field of Research: Hospitability Industry Management
1. Introduction
A city, the space where economical, social and cultural activities are taking place has the
cultural and historical characteristics and plays a pivotal role by providing administration,
education and business service. A city which has its affluent history has constantly
continued to change and evolve people‘s way of life, residence style and cultural style
(Kim, 2008). Recent years, the competition among cities has been very intense and they
try to improve their image in terms of local economic revitalization. In this respect, a city
become recognized as a ‗cultural destination‘ and a particular ‗cultural image‘ will develop
that suits the tastes a certain inbound market, or socioeconomic demographic.
Kotler, Haider and Rein (1993) defined place image as ―The sum of beliefs, ideas and
impressions that people have of a place. It represents simplification of a large number of
associations and pieces of information connected with the place. They are a product of the
mind trying to process and ‗essentials‘ huge amounts of data about a place. Individuals
develop and form their unique image by their own environment and experience. The
individuals within a group share considerable commonality image because the group is
usually exposed to same social value, education system, and the process of socialization
(Shin, 2006). As individual image is duplicated, it creates a public city Image.
This image is extended by various channels; residents, tourists, tourism publicity
brochures, tourist guides, novels, travel writing, literary works, mass media, and image
campaign (Kim, 2010).
* Jiyoung Hwang, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea. Email: fangzee@naver.com
** Hyo-Yeun, Park, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea. Email:hyopark@khu.ac.kr
*** Dr. William Cannon Hunter, College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, Republic of
Korea. Email: primalamerica@yahoo.com
**** Dr. Dae-Kwan, Kim, College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea.
Email: kdk@khu.ac.kr
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Image of the city in tourism can be defined as an evaluation of tourists‘ experience while
they travel. Especially tourists form the image of a city by social phenomenon,
atmosphere, and subjective impressions that they encounter. The image is expanded not
only to the city but also to the nation (Park, 2010). The factors that affect image formation
of tourists in the city are various tourism resources; historic buildings, city landscapes,
museums, theaters, concerts, sporting events, etc. These tourist attractions and resources
promote and attract tourists to the destination market. Therefore marketers and
researchers usually study on the visitors and tourists‘ perceived image on the city (Kim,
2008).
City tourism area is the place where the city residents live; therefore, the city tourist
attractions and image should be established from the residents‘ way of life and culture
(Park, 2010). Due to the nature of city tourism, major resources and facilities of city
tourism should meet a variety of user groups‘ needs during its development process.
Especially, the residents‘ demands as much as the tourists‘ demands are also an
important consideration (Kim, 2010). In this respect, many studies pointed out that
residents‘ view of the city image should be preceded before evaluating tourists‘ view (Kim,
2005; Park, 2010). In other words, tourist destination market should be carefully examined
through the lens of residents‘ eyes and researches on measuring residents‘ perceived
image should be conducted first before measuring tourists‘ positive or negative image of
city (Kim, 2010).
The purpose of this study is to examine the residents‘ perceived image of their city or local
area as a tourism destination. This allows marketers and policy makers to understand
various perception of the residents‘ image of the city so that it helps to set practical tourism
strategies and to develop appropriate tourism products. This will help to revitalize city
tourism by knowing residents‘ perception and by sharing their identity to minimize negative
effect of city tourism development.
To achieve this purpose, it is important to understand resident subjectivities. Residents are
concerned with good governance and cultural integrity, and they aware of their role as
stakeholders in tourism in their communities (Hunter, 2012b). In this study, residents of
Seoul, a 600-year-history site, and a potential international tourist city were interviewed
using Q method in order to evaluate their subjectivities toward Seoul‘s image. This implies
that tourism research should focus on understanding and coordinating resident
subjectivities so as to inform government planning and decision making.
2. Literature Review
Destination Image
Destination Image is becoming important for major urban tourism destination of big cities
like Seoul. Image of destination is mentioned in several research reports and is identified
in several models as a powerful factor within the decision-making process for potential
travelers in the anticipation stage (Gartner, 1993). Image is assumed to have a more
significant role in personal subjectivity, in that the individual has difficulty obtaining
objective measures on the important product attributes (Gensch, 1978). A tourism product
requires subjective judgments rather than objective measurement, as it cannot be tried
before visiting (Um and Crompton, 1992). Phelps (1986) categorized destination images
into primary and secondary depending on the information sources used. While primary
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
images are formed through internal information such as past experiences, secondary
images are influenced by information received from some external sources. Mansfeld
(1992) suggested that one of the basic functions of secondary information sources was to
create images of destinations.
According to Mackay and Couldwell (2004), photographs are vital to successfully creating
and communicating images of a destination. Since image represents a simplification of a
large number of associations and pieces of information connected with places (Day,
Skidmore and Koller, 2002), visual images are very powerful marketing tools enabling the
destination to communicate a variety of images in a compressed format. While this general
image perspective has been valuable to understanding the impact of advertising
messages, little attention has been given to visual image research (Choi, Lehto and
Morrison, 2007) A number of image studies have suggested effective destination
positioning strategies to appeal to potential visitors, by either measuring existing images
(Chaudhary, 2000), or examining the structure and formation dynamics of image (Baloglu
and McCleary, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Gartner, 1993).
However understanding of how residents perceive their own regions has not received
attention from scholars. Numerous studies on residents‘ perceptions of tourism have been
conducted the issues include tourism destination development of a special region or
country, casinos and theory development or conceptualization (Kim and Petrick, 2005).
Only a few of recent studies are focusing on residents‘ perception of tourism destination
(Hunter, 2011; 2012b; Park, 2010).
Seoul, Center of Korean history and culture
Seoul is now clearly one of the world‘s major cities in terms of the nature of its connections
with the rest of the world and in terms of its size and location in a dynamic world region. It
is linked worldwide through the flow of commodities, information and people. It is notable
for its large population size, the relatively high average standard of living it affords its
residents and its importance as the urban center for the 6th powerful city in the world (Shin
and Timberlake, 2006, Global Power City Index 2013).
Located to the west of the central region of the Korean Peninsula, Seoul, the capital city of
the Republic of Korea, has been the center of the country in its long history from the
prehistoric era to the present day. Seoul was designated as the capital city with the
establishment of the Korean government in 1948, and became the Seoul Metropolis a year
later. In 1950, Seoul was heavily damaged as the Korean War broke out and couldn‘t
function as a capital for several months. However, post-war reconstruction efforts and the
strong will of its residents saw the city re-emerge as the country‘s central city. Seoul led
the country‘s swift economic growth. Described as being the ―miracle of the Hangang
(River)," South Korea achieved, in 30 to 40 years, the type of industrialization that took
most advanced countries over a century (Seoul Metropolitan Government 2013).
Now in its 600th year of official history, Seoul is a city where Korea‘s traditional and
modern cultures coexist. Seoul is home to more than 10 million inhabitants from all over
the country and around the world, living and working in modern skyscrapers and moving
rapidly through sophisticated infrastructure. At the same time, diverse forms of nature
thrive and permeate throughout, while abundant cultural heritage assets coexist with
modernity. Essentially, Seoul is traditional yet modern, technological yet natural (Korea
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Tourism Organization 2013). Hence Seoul is a good candidate for analysis of a city
perceived destination image for finding residents‘ ideal views using Q method. A long
history of forced reconstruction and historical revisionism, and rapid modern tourist city
development has been made them change or rebuild their city images and representations
of its features.
Q-methodology and tourism research
Broadly, Q-methodology, which evolves from the factor analytic theory, is a means of
extracting subjective opinion. Q method was invented by William Stephenson in the UK in
1935; bring together a theory of the self with a technique of measurement (drawing on his
training in physics), and it was later developed in North America, particularly in psychology
(Brown, 1980; McKeown and Thomas, 1988) and through its own journal, operant
subjectivity. Setting statistical procedures aside, however, what Stepheson (1935)
provides is a means to study the subjectivity involved in any situation. Subjectivity here is
not simple partiality, it refers to nothing more than a person‘s communication of his or her
point of view (Goldman, 1999).
Almost three quarters of a century old, Q-methodology now can hardly lay claim to the
status of a new method for conducting research in the social sciences (Stergiou and Airey,
2011). Brown (1997) reported that the literature on Q-methodology contained nearly 2500
bibliographic entries, most notably in the fields of communication, political science and
philosophy of science, and more recently in the behavioral and health sciences. Today, as
interest in Q methodology continues to raise, a number of researchers from different
intellectual fields such as marketing, public policy, rural research as well as tourism adopt
Q method (Stergiou and Airey, 2011).
In Korea, Q method, which was first introduced in the field of mass communication in the
1970s, has been propagated continuously. Now it is used throughout the field of whole
social sciences and humanities. In tourism studies, subjectivity has been analyzed in terms
of tourism motivations, preferences and attitudes (Kim and Oh, 2009, Kim and Hong,
2009), festival (Jeong and Lee, 2004), leisure satisfaction (Ahn, Yeo and Koo, 2010) and
recognition of wine market (You, 2013; Yu and Hwang, 2013).
3. The Methodology
Q method has been used to investigate social identities (Marshall, 1991), in strategic
planning and design (Popovich and Popovich, 2000), in the study of perception (Huston
and Montgomery, 2006). It can measure individuals‘ affinity with those view, as well as
similarities and divergences amongst individuals (Eden, Donaldson and Walker, 2005).
This technique is described as quantum in that the factors or clusters of subjectivity that
are found are ―irreducibly paradoxical‖ (Brown, 2009). It works on an understanding that
while individuals might update or revise their attitudes toward a discourse (Bahl and Milne,
2006; Hunter, 2012), the clusters of subjectivity will represent indigenous (original and
unique) functional divisions within society (Brown and Kil, 2002).
In this study, a Q sample is a selection of items taken from a Q population and almost any
class of things can serve as items. The items should be self-referent; that is the items
should be things about which sorters can express an opinion (Kim and Oh, 2010). The Q
set used in this research was the same Q-set that was used in the research article,
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
‗Projected Destination Image: A visual Analysis of Seoul‘ written by William Cannon Hunter.
The Q-set was selected because it was the concrete representation of Seoul which was
examined through the lens of promotional photographs published in tourist brochures and
guidebooks; Q-set was selected from 951 photographs of Seoul image from the
preponderance of tourism brochures and final Q-set produced including 42 views of Seoul
City in photographs represented proportionally. Some of the Q samples were unclear to
identify and were substituted from the images from on-line which were similar with
concourse of the Q sets. In addition, the quality of photographs was upgraded and the
colour of photographs was changed to monochrome photograph to prevent the
respondents‘ misjudgement by colouristic effects.
A P set is the group of respondents who sort the Q set. The P-set is, by definition, usually
smaller than the Q set. Previous Q studies have used P sets of 30 (Brown 1993; McKeown
and Thomas, 1988, Hunter, 2011), 66 (Fairweather and Swaffield, 2001) and 20
respondents (Hutson and Montgomery, 2006). In this study, the P set consisted of 37
respondents, who were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy that was theorydriven and context-specific (Miles and Huberman, 1994), judgemental and non-random
(Fairweather and Swaffield, 2002), and geared toward seeking a wide variety of points of
view (Patton, 1990). A first wave of respondents was acquired among the researchers‘
circles of family, friends, and acquaintances. Further participants were recruited through
snowballing sampling, where existing participants recruited more participants from their
circles. The p-set includes 37 respondents; 1 teacher, 10 students, 4 self-employed, 1
researcher, 1 professor, 4 part time lecturers, 1 officer, 1 housewife, 12 employers, 1
driver, and 1 chef who are Seoul natives or have lived here long enough (at least for 5
years) to become familiar with the city. The age of the respondents arrange from in their
20s and 60s.
Q sorting was conducted from 1 Oct. 2013 to 31 Oct. 2013. Total 37 respondents are
asked to look closely 42 photographs. The respondents are instructed to begin with a
rough sorting while looking, by dividing the photographs into three piles: statements (s)he
generally agrees with (or likes, finds important, etc), those (s)he disagrees with and those
about which (s)he is neutral, doubtful or undecided. Next, the respondent is asked to rank
order the photographs according to the condition of instruction and to place them in the
score sheet provided. The score sheet is a continuum ranging from most to most, for
instance: with ―most disagree‖ on the one end and ―most agree‖ on the other, and in
between a distribution that usually takes the form of a quasi-normal distribution, as shown
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Q Sorting Distribution
Score
No. of photographs
-4
2
Most dislike
-3
3
-2
5
-1
7
Neutral
0
8
+1
7
+2
5
Most like
+3
3
+4
2
4. Findings
Q sort factor analysis was performed using PCQ software and judgmental rotation, and it
produced four factors that accounted for 25 of 37 sorts, with levels of significance ranging
from 0.40 to 0.88. Twelve sorts were confounded, or found to be statistically in more than
one factor, and they were excluded. The 25 sorts, three factors and scores, and
descriptions of the respondents are presented in Table 2. Eigenvalues and explained
variance are also given for all nine factors tested. In Q method, judgmental rotation is used
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
to manually rotate factors in order to capture the largest number of sorts in the fewest
categories (Eden, Donaldson and Walker, 2005) and to minimize the number of
confounded sorts. It is a reflexive process that seeks theoretically relevant clusters of
subjectivity that are shared by respondents in the P set. Decisions on how factors are
rotated are described as bringing ―the researcher‘s subjectivity into the heart of the
seemingly most quantitative stage of Q‖ (Eden et al., 2005). The three factors identified
through factor analysis by PCQ software, even though six factors could be identified in
accordance with eigenvalue. Table 2 also shows that the total variance of 66%. In that
case, the results are statistically significant if research results show that eigenvalue is over
1.00 and total variance is over 60% in general.
When a respondent‘s factor loading exceeds a certain limit (usually: p < 0.01), this called a
defining variable. The difference score is the magnitude of difference between an item‘s
score on any two factors that is required for it to be statistically significant. When an item‘s
score on two factors exceeds this difference score, it is called a distinguishing item. An
item that is not distinguishing between any of the identified factors is called a consensus
item (Van Exel and De Graaf, 2005). In this study, three consensus items were found
among three clusters. They were 03Han3 (Han River city), 22city10 (Cityscape buildings
and gate) and 34fest5 (Festivals palace performers). Distinguishing items were found 5
items for cluster A; 15city3 (Cityscape stream), 16city4 (Cityscape market), 31fest2
(Festivals drums 1), 32fest3 (Festivals drums 2), 40cul2 (Culture women dance), 1 item for
cluster B; 02Han2 (Han River 63), 2 items for cluster C; 36map2 (Map subway), 38sim2
(Simulation of Dongdaemun history and cultural park). The extreme scores (–4, 1, 2) were
found in cluster A and the item was Korean traditional Boochae-choom (40cul2, Culture
women dance).
Table 2: Q Sort Factor Analysis
Three Factors identified in statistical analysis
Cluster A: 22 sorts
Cluster B: 1 sort
1. M 38 Researcher (0.88)
18. F 26 Employed (0.56)
2. M 26 Student (0.77)
19. F 27 Student(0.77)
4. F 61 Housewife (-0.48)
5. F 26 Student (0.48)
20. M 28 Employed (0.61)
6. M 50 Employed (0.79)
21. F 30 Student (0.75)
Cluster C: 2 sorts
8. M 49 Officer(0.54)
22. F 36 Lecturer (0.76)
9. F 39 Employed (0.70)
24. F 25 chef(0.79)
10. M 44 Self Employed (0.79)
26. F 27 Employed.(0.50)
17. F 25 Student (-0.40)
12. M 37 Self Employed (0.43)
30. F 27 Employed (0.47)
28. M 26 Student (-0.51)
14. M 31 Student (0.66)
33. F 23 Employed (0.47)
15. F 37 Lecturer (0.79)
34. F 37 Lecturer.(0.82)
16. F 59 Professer.(0.53)
36. M 58 Self Employed (0.72)
confounded or not significant, 12 sorts: 3, 7, 13, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 11, 25
Eigen Values and % variance
Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Totals
eigens
13.62
2.87
1.77
1.53
1.16
1.13
0.86
0.77
0.75
24.45
%variance
37
8
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
66
Cluster A Graphical
Cluster B Graphical
Cluster C Graphical
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
7 6 11 9 3 5 20 1 27 15 7 3 1 6 16 25 2 26 18 7 2 6 3 1 28 27 25
40 31 21 12 4 13 25 2 29 21 19 8 4 9 31 28 33 27 37 8 5 10 11 4 34 29 26
37 32 14 8 15 26 28
39 11 5 10 32 29 38
15 9 14 19 13 40 31
39 16 10 17 33
17 18 12 34 30
12 21 20 16 41
41 18 23 22 36
20 23 13 40 36
39 24 22 17 42
19 24 34
35 14 41
36 23 30
42 30 38
37 22 42
38 33 32
35
24
35
* Descriptions key: Gender: M=Male, F=Female, Age: n=Age
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Each cluster is defined quantitatively by its statistical correlation externally and by
statements held in consensus, internally. Cluster A, which included 22 respondents who
agreed that 27mon3 (Monument Seoul Tower), 29mon5 (Monument Namdaemun night)
are the most representative Seoul images. But they believed that 07Han7 (Han River
windsailing), 40cul2 (Culture women dance) couldn't represent Seoul. In case of 40cul2
(Culture women dance), they suggested that it rather showed the image of Korea culture
itself. Cluster B is the smallest cluster, which included only one respondent who disagreed
that skyscraper with heavy traffic (15city3; Cityscape stream, 21city9; Cityscape street) are
the image of Seoul. Following interview after the Q sorting, she thought that skyscrapers
with heavy traffics are the scene that you could see everywhere in big cities; therefore
these pictures cannot represent the image of Seoul. Whereas, she believed that 27mon3
(Monument Seoul Tower), 26mon2 (Monument Seoul Station) maximally represent Seoul.
Cluster C included two respondents who strongly didn't agree that modern and future
building represents the image of Seoul. They chose 18city6 (Cityscape hotel and pagoda)
and 37sim1 (Simulation Yongsan) as the most disagree images due to the fact that they
are unfamiliar with that pictures. During the mini interview they said that they haven‘t seen
the buildings in the picture and pictures are not relevant to the image of Seoul. We also
discover that P-set of cluster C is composed of students in their 20s. Therefore we
carefully suggested that the picture 18city6 is not the place they usually visited and the
picture 37sim1 is the blue print of future Yongsan complex.
5. Summary and Conclusions
Understanding destination image is an important component of successful tourism
planning and marketing. The projected destination image should be a tool that can help to
transform and improve the city (Zukin, 1991) and increase tourism. The findings revealed
three types of subjectivities. Clusters A, B and C illustrate symbolic monuments are the
most representative images of Seoul while differing in terms of their disagree images on
Seoul. It shows that respondents of each cluster expressed relevant and sometimes
contradictory perceived destination image of Seoul. The respondents of each clusters
agreed and their favourable images are:
 Namsan Tower
 Namdaemun Gate(Sungnyemun, National treasure No.1)
 Seoul Station
According to Hunter(2012a)‘s study it was found that image of Seoul focuses on
showcasing the city‘s waterways, shopping districts, historic city gates and festivals and
cultural events. Especially, Han River as Seoul destination image is also seen in many
brochures and is well explained by Seoul government when they promote Seoul as a
destination market; however Han River was not chosen for the representative image of
Seoul. It is suggested that the river itself is not the unique representation as a tourism
destination feature. Namdaemun, Namsan Tower, and Seoul Station, however, are
considered to be the unique representations in which people can see only in Korea. These
clusters of operant subjectivity are being dependent upon experience, knowledge and
circumstances (Bahl & Milne, 2006). During the interview, respondents generally agreed
with the pictures that they are familiar with such as the photos of Seoul's symbolic
monuments. Most disagreed with the photos that show city views, simulation and Korean
culture; Korean traditional dance; they think that the photos represent Korea culture not
Seoul. People in their 20s generally disagree with the photos of history and culture.
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
In this research, how the residents of Seoul recognize their own city was demonstrated.
Residents‘ perception of residential city is significantly meaningful because the identity of
destination is derived from the residents‘ perception of their own city. Touristic
representations are ‗true‘ descriptions of destinations and their residents. They convey the
objectivity of sights and experiences. They are signs that put forward the best, or worst of
places that is operationally inseparable from the practices of the tourism industry (Hunter
2011). Our attempt to research residents‘ views has three contributions to tourism
marketers and policy makers. The implication for destination management is that more
attention should be given to the planning and development of the image. First, by
recognizing that touristic representations are actually a network of diverse subjectivities,
policy makers can focus their energies by encouraging promotional strategies that focus
on the unique characteristics of residents at a destination rather than on a collection of
cultural or indigenous things. Thus, it is recommended that tourism planner and
developers should focus on understanding and coordinating residents‘ perceived
destination image of Seoul when planning and promoting Seoul as a destination market.
Second, to promote the city effectively, it is suggested to imply memory mechanism; to
retain long-term memory, the information should be episodic and repeated constantly
(constant stimuli); therefore, constant and episodic message (image of Seoul) should be
sent to tourists. Final contribution is to focus and capitalize on the agreed images to
promote the city effectively and to correct negative images of Seoul. When creating PR
brochures and images etc, the agreed images and their connotation should be carefully
examined. It will have a tremendous contribution to plan and make a decision clearly for
marketers and policy makers. Future study using Q method will cover verbal and visual
representations of the destination image. Also Multi-method approaches can focus on the
comparative analysis between residents and visitors, analysis of travel testimonials and
personal accounts to inform better and more accurate destination promotion strategy.
References
Ahn, BW, Yeo, IS and Koo, CM 2010, A Q-methodology Study on the Leisure Satisfaction
Patterns for Leisure Activity participants, Journal of human movement Science,
Vol.49, No.3, pp. 103-113.
Baloglu, S and McCleary, KW 1999, A model of destination image formation, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol.26, No.1, pp.868-897.
Bahl, S and Milne, GR 2006, Mixed methods in interpretive research: An application to the
study of the self concept, In R.W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research
methods in marketing (pp. 198-218). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brown, SR 1993, A primer on Q methodology, Operant Subjectivity, Vol.16, pp.91-138.
Brown, SR 1997, The history and principles of Q methodology in psychology and the
social sciences, Kent, OH: Department of Political Science, Kent State University.
Retrieved from http://facstaff.uww.edu.
Brown, SR 1980, Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science,
London: Yale University Press.
Brown, SR 2009, Q technique, method and methodology: Comments on Stentor
Danielson‘s article, Field Methods, Vol.21, No.3, pp.238-241.
Brown, SR and Kil, BO 2002, Exploring Korean values, Asia Pacific: Perspectives, Vol.2,
No.1, pp.1-8.
Chaudhary, M 2000, India‘s image as a tourist destination: A perspective of foreign
tourists, Tourism Management, Vol.21, No.3, pp.293-297.
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Choi, S, Lehto, XY and Morrison, AM 2007, Destination image representation on the web:
Content analysis of Macau travel related websites, Tourism Management, Vol.28,
pp.118-129.
Day, J, Skidmore, S and Koller, T 2002, Image selection in destination positioning: A new
approach, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.8, No.2, pp.177-186.
Echtner, CM and Ritchie, JR 1993, The measurement of destination image: An empirical
assessment, Journal of Travel Research, Vol.31, No.4, pp.3-13.
Eden, S, Donaldson, A and Walker, G 2005, Structuring subjectivities? Using Q
methodology in human geography, Area, Vol.37, No.4, pp.413-422.
Fairweather, JR and Swaffield, SR 2001, Visitor experiences of Kaikoura, New Zealand:
An interpretive study using photographs of landscapes and Q method, Tourism
Management, Vol.22, No.3, pp.219-228.
Gartner, WC 1993, Image Formation Process, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
Vol.2, No.3, pp.197-212.
Gensch, DH 1978, Image-Measurement Segmentation, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol.15, pp.384-94.
Goldman, I 1999, Q-methodology as process and context in interpretivism,
communication, and psychoanalytic psychotherapy research, The Psychological
Record, Vol.49, pp.589–604.
Hunter, WC 2011, Rukai indigenous tourism: Representations, cultural identity and Q
method, Tourism Management, Vol.32, pp.335-348.
Hunter, WC 2012a, Projected Destination Image: A Visual Analysis of Seoul, Tourism
Geographies, Vol.14, No.3, pp.419-443.
Hunter, WC 2012b, Understanding resident subjectivities toward tourism using Q method:
Orchid Island, Taiwan, Journal of Sustainable Tourism (Available online).
Hutson, G and Montgomery, D 2006. How do outdoor leaders feel connected to nature
places? A Q-method inquiry, Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, Vol.10, No.2,
pp.29-39.
Jung, HY and Lee, DG 2004, A Study on Q Typology of Regional Festival Website Users‘
Attitudes, Korean society and public administration, Vol.15, No.2, pp.325-346.
Kotler, O, Haider, DH and Rein, Y 1993, Marketing places: Attracting investment, industry
and tourism to cities, states and nations. New York: The free press.
Kim, BS 2010, Development of Urban Tourism: Through the Improvement of City Image,
Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, Vol.13, No.3, pp.354-379
Kim, SS and Petrick JF 2005, Residents‘ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA2002 World
Cup: the case of Seoul as a host city, Tourism Management, Vol.26, pp.25-38.
Kim, HJ 2008, New paradigm of urban tourism, Urban affair monthly magazine, Vol.43,
No, 474, pp.11-20.
Kim, HK and Hong JS 2009, A study on the motivation and attitudinal factors of overseas
travelers -Approach to Q-Methodology-, Journal of tourism management research,
Vol.4, pp.51-75.
Kim, HK and Oh, SJ 2009, A Q Methodological Approach to Tourism Motivation and
Preference Typology, Journal of tourism and leisure research, Vol.21, No.2, pp.69-88
Kim, HK and Oh, SJ 2010, Motivations behind People‘s Participation in Festivals: a Q‐
factor Analysis, Journal of Human Subjectivity, Vol.8, No.2, pp.5-22.
Lim, GS 2013, The Impact on Tourism Development Support the Local Society Attachment
of Residents‘ and Recognition of Tourism Influence : Based on Ilsan Resort in Ulsan,
Northeast Asia Tourism Research, Vol.9, No.1, pp.43-63.
Mackay, KJ and Couldwell, CM 2004, Using visitor-employed photography to investigate
destination image, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.390-396.
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Mansfeld, Y 1992, From motivation to actual travel, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19,
No. 3, pp.399-419.
Marshall, H 1991, The social identities of women lawyers, Operant Subjectivity, Vol.14,
pp.106-121.
McKeown, BF and Thomas, DB 1988, Q methodology (Series: Quantitative applications in
the social sciences, Vol.66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miles, MB and Huberman, AM 1994, Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Oh, JH and Yoon, YS 2009, Impact of Place Attachment, Priority, Evaluation, Satisfaction
toward Tourism Development and Demographic Attributes of Residents on Support,
Cognition of Effectiveness of Tourism Development - The Case of Kangwon
Province, Korean Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.24, No.5, pp.275-295.
Patton, MQ 1990, Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.), Newbury Park,
CA:Sage.
Park, JA 2010, A study of the perception on Urban Image and Urban Tourism, Korean
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.25, No.5, pp.231-248.
Phelps, A 1986, Holiday destination image: The problem of assessment—an example
developed in Minorca, Tourism Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.168-180.
Popovich, MN and Popovich, K 2000, Use of Q methodology for hospital strategic
planning, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol.45, No.6, pp.405–414.
Shin, KH and Timberlake, M 2006, Korea‘s Global City, Structural and Political
Implications of Seoul‘s Ascendance in the Global Urban Hierarchy, International
Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol.47, No.2, pp.145-173.
Shin, YC 2006, Urban geography and urbanology, Seoul: Purungil.
Stephenson, W 1953, The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Stergiou, D and Airey, D 2011, Q-methodology and tourism research, Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol.14, No.4, pp.311-322.
Um, S and Crompton, JL 1992, The Roles of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitates in
Pleasure Travel Destination Decisions, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp.18-25.
Van Exel, J and De Graaf, G 2005, Q Methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from
http://www.jobvanexel.nl.
You, HS 2013, A Q-methodology Study on the Perception of Domestic Wine Market for
Wine Mania, Northeast Asia Tourism Research, Vol.9, No.1, pp.123-145.
Yu, BH and Hwang, Jh 2013, Wine Experts‘ Subjectivities of Young-Dong Red Wine made
from Campbell-Early Grape : Q Method, Journal of Tourism Sciences, Vol.37, No.3,
pp.103-123
Zukin, S 1991, Landscapes of Power: from Detroit to Disneyworld (Berkeley: University of
California Press).
Korea Tourism Organization 2013, http://www.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/
Seoul Metropolitan Government 2013, http://english.seoul.go.kr/
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
Appendix
FULL Q SET
01Han1
(Han River night)
02Han2
(Han River 63)
03Han3
(Han River city)
04Han4
(Han River night bridge)
05Han5
(Han River panorama)
06Han6
(Han River activities 1)
07Han7
(Han River windsailing)
08Han8
(Han River map 1)
09Han9
(Han River simulation)
10Han10
(Han River map 2)
11Han11
(Han River bridge and boat)
12Han12
(Han River activities 2)
13City1
(Cityscape over Han River)
14city2
(Cityscape nightscape)
15city3
(Cityscape stream)
16city4
(Cityscape market)
17city5
(Cityscape myeongdong)
18city6
(Cityscape hotel and pagoda)
19city7
(Cityscape stream)
20city8
(Cityscape stream lights)
21city9
(Cityscape street)
22city10
(Cityscape buildings and gate)
23city11
(Cityscape bridge and stream)
24city12
(Cityscape from above)
25mon1
(Monument Namdaemun)
26mon2
(Monument Seoul Station)
27mon3
(Monument Seoul Tower)
28mon4
(Monument Gwanghwamun)
29mon5
(Monument Namdaemun night)
30fest1
(Festivals lanterns stream)
31fest2
(Festivals drums 1)
32fest3
(Festivals drums 2)
33fest4
(Festivals Gwanghwamun)
34fest5
(Festivals palace performers)
35map1
(Map tourist)
36map2
(Map subway)
Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
17 - 18 February, 2014, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-44-3
37sim1
(Simulation Yongsan)
38sim2
(Simulation Dongdaemun)
41cul3
(Culture men dance)
42cul4
(Culture palace guards)
39cul1
(Culture museum display)
40cul2
(Culture women dance)