Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding
and destination image
Hailin Qu a, *, Lisa Hyunjung Kim b,1, Holly Hyunjung Im c, 2
a
William E. Davis Distinguished Chair, School of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
School of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
c
Department of Hotel Management, College of Culture and Tourism, Jeonju University, Republic of Korea
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 22 July 2009
Received in revised form
10 March 2010
Accepted 22 March 2010
Despite the significance of destination branding in both academia and industry, literature on its
conceptual development is limited. The current study aims to develop and test a theoretical model of
destination branding, which integrates the concepts of the branding and destination image. The study
suggests unique image as a new component of destination brand associations. It is proposed that the
overall image of the destination (i.e., brand image) is a mediator between its brand associations (i.e.,
cognitive, affective, and unique image components) and tourists’ future behaviors (i.e., intentions to
revisit and recommend). The results confirmed that overall image is influenced by three types of brand
associations and is a critical mediator between brand associations and tourists’ future behaviors. In
addition, unique image had the second largest impact on the overall image formation, following the
cognitive evaluations.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Destination branding
Destination image
Brand image
Brand associations
Cognitive image
Affective image
Unique image
Overall image
Loyalty
1. Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that tourism destinations must be
included in the consumers’ evoked set, from which an ultimate
decision is made (Cai, Feng, & Breiter, 2004; Dana & McClearly,
1995; Leisen, 2001; Tasci & Kozak, 2006). However, consumers
are generally offered various destination choices that provide
similar features such as quality accommodations, beautiful scenic
view, and/or friendly people. Therefore, it is not enough for
a destination to be included in the evoked set; instead the destination needs to be unique and differential to be selected as a final
decision. From this perspective, the concept of destination branding
is critical for a destination to be identified and differentiated from
alternatives in the minds of the target market.
Although not explicitly examined in the context of branding,
destination image should be regarded as a pre-existing concept
corresponding to destination branding (Pike, 2009). In fact, the core
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 405 744 6711; fax: þ1 405 744 6299.
E-mail addresses: h.qu@okstate.edu (H. Qu), hj.kim@okstate.edu (L.H. Kim),
hollyim@jj.ac.kr (H.H. Im).
1
Tel.: þ1 405 744 6711; fax: þ1 405 744 6299.
2
Tel.: þ82 63 220 2553; fax: þ82 63 220 2736.
0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.014
of destination branding is to build a positive destination image that
identifies and differentiates the destination by selecting a consistent brand element mix (Cai, 2002). The image of a destination
brand can be described as “perceptions about the place as reflected
by the associations held in tourist memory” (Cai, 2002, p. 723).
From the definition an instant question rises: what are these
associations? There is no doubt that many studies rooted from
destination image were conducted to investigate the proposed
destination branding (e.g., Cai, 2002). Unfortunately, however,
there is still paucity in understanding brand associations and image
of a destination brand. This study seeks to understand the nature of
a relationship between these concepts.
Based on the knowledge that destination image is a total
impression of cognitive and affective evaluations (Baloglu, 1996;
Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Hosany,
Ekinci, & Uysal, 2007; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000; Stern &
Krakover, 1993; Uysal, Chen, & Williams, 2000), it is suggested
that brand associations should include cognitive and affective
image components (Pike, 2009). These two components are widely
accepted as influential indicators of destination image (Baloglu,
1996; Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999;
Hosany et al., 2007; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000; Stern &
Krakover, 1993; Uysal et al., 2000).
466
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
This study argues that unique image of a destination needs to be
regarded as an important brand association to influence the image
of a destination brand. Creating a differentiated destination image
has become a basis for survival within a globally competitive
marketplace where various destinations compete intensely. A
strong, unique image is the essence of destination positioning for
its ability to differentiate a destination from competitors to get into
the consumers’ minds, which simplify information continuously
(Botha, Crompton, & Kim, 1999; Buhalis, 2000; Calantone,
Benedetto, Hakam, & Bojanic, 1989; Chon, Weaver, & Kim, 1991;
Crompton, Fakeye, & Lue, 1992; Fan, 2006; Go & Govers, 2000;
Mihalic, 2000; Mykletun, Crotts, & Mykletun, 2001; Uysal et al.,
2000). Consequently, this study proposes that destination branding should emphasize the unique image of a destination, which
exercises a power to differentiate it from competitors. The current
study proposes that unique image should be regarded as a brand
association.
The purpose of this study is to develop and test a theoretical
model of destination branding through adopting both destination
image studies and traditional branding concepts and practices.
Specifically, the current study examines the relationships among
brand associations (i.e., cognitive, affective, and unique image
components), brand image (i.e., overall image of a destination), and
tourists’ future behaviors. For this purpose, an empirical test was
conducted in the state of Oklahoma, in which successful destination
branding is necessary to overcome its lack of clear destination
image.
Oklahoma was once considered the land of opportunity because
of the oil industry from the 1890s through the 1920s. People came
from all parts of the world to seek their fortunes in Oklahoma’s
teeming oil fields (Kurt, 1999). Several decades later, however, the
perception of the state’s history became deteriorated and the
tourism industry is still battling an image rooted in the State’s 100year history. The basic perception of Oklahoma is that it is flat,
dusty, and windblown (Kurt, 1999). The state’s tourism promoters
have begun to recognize the important role of the image of Oklahoma in boosting the state’s tourism industry. This has driven the
state to launch and implement the $4 million “Oklahoma Native
America” advertising campaign to increase awareness of Oklahoma
as a travel destination in the minds of visitors (Oklahoma Tourism
and Recreation Department, 2003). However, Oklahoma Tourism
and Recreation Department (OTRD, 2006) reported that only 47% of
respondents were interested in the state of Oklahoma as a tourist
destination. In addition, 39% of those who are uninterested in
Oklahoma admitted that they do not know much about the state.
These results clearly show that the state of Oklahoma is lacking
a strong, positive, and unique destination image in the minds of
potential tourists. Thus, it is critical to identify the image of the
state of Oklahoma and propose the appropriate destination
branding strategy.
The current study focuses on developing and testing a theoretical model of destination branding, as well as exploring the
potential of the State of Oklahoma as a preferred destination brand.
Specifically, the study tries to fill the gap in the literature in three
ways. First, the study aims to incorporate the existing concepts of
branding with destination image studies. This study identifies the
conceptual similarities between the components of destination
image and brand association in the marketing literature, and
suggests different types of destination image (i.e., cognitive, affective, and unique images) as three types of brand associations in
destination branding. Second, the study brings new focus on
unique image. It has been argued as an important dimension of
destination image (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993), yet less recognized
by destination branding scholars. This study theoretically includes
unique image as one type of destination brand associations, and
empirically tests its significance on destination branding. Last, the
study provides a practical insight into Oklahoma as a destination
brand.
2. Literature review
2.1. Destination branding
Destination branding can be defined as a way to communicate
a destination’s unique identity by differentiating a destination from
its competitors (Morrison & Anderson, 2002). Similar to the general
knowledge on brands, destination brands exert two important
functions: identification and differentiation. In the branding literature, the meaning of “identification” involves the explication of
the source of the product to consumers. While a product in general
terms represents a physical offering, which can be easily modified,
a place as a product is a large entity which contains various material
and non-material elements to represent it (Florek, 2005). For
example, a place includes tangible attributes such as historical sites
or beaches as well as intangible characteristics such as culture,
customs, and history. Because of the complex nature of a destination to be a brand, generalization of the identity is inevitable. Brand
identity is critical for generalization of desirable characteristics
projected by supplier’s perspective. It explains the expectations of
a supplier about how a brand should be perceived by its target
market. Defining a target market is crucial because some aspects of
a destination may seem positive to one segment while ineffective to
another (Fan, 2006). Based on the projected brand identity,
consumers should develop a relationship with a particular brand by
generating a value proposition either involving benefits or giving
credibility to a particular brand (Aaker, 1996; Konecnik & Go, 2008).
In addition to the function of identification, a destination brand
differentiates itself from its competitors based on its special
meaning and attachment given by consumers. Generally, tourism
destinations emphasize points of parity associations such as high
quality accommodations, good restaurants, and/or well-designed
public spaces (Baker, 2007, p. 101). It is more critical to understand
what associations of a brand are advantageous over competitors
(i.e., points of difference). Points of difference associations help
consumers positively evaluate the brand and attach to the brand
(Keller, 2008, p. 107). In fact, the key to branding is that consumers
perceive a difference among brands in a product category (i.e.,
positioning); because a brand perceived distinctive and unique is
hard to be replaced by other brands.
2.2. Brand identity and image
Previous studies argue that brand identity and brand image are
critical ingredients for a successful destination brand (Cai, 2002;
Florek, Insch, & Gnoth, 2006; Nandan, 2005). The confusion exists
as to the difference between the two concepts. One of the significant points of differentiation is that they are generated based on
two different perspectives; the sender’s and the receiver’s (Florek
et al., 2006). In short, identity is created by the sender whereas
image is perceived by the receiver (Kapferer, 1997, p. 32).
Brand identity reflects the contribution of all brand elements to
awareness and image (Keller, 1998, p. 166). It provides a direction,
purpose, and meaning for the brand and is central to a brand’s
strategic vision and the driver of brand associations (Aaker, 1996).
On the other hand, brand image can be defined as consumer
perceptions of a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in
consumer’s memory (Keller, 2008). To brand a destination, the
sender (i.e., destination marketers) projects a destination brand
identity through all the features and activities that differentiate the
destination from other competing destinations. All the while, the
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
receiver (i.e., a consumer) perceives the image of the place, which is
formed and stored in their minds (Florek et al., 2006).
It should be noted that the relationship between destination
brand identity and brand image is reciprocal. Brand image plays
a significant role in building brand identity (Cai, 2002), whereas
brand image is also a reflection of brand identity (Florek et al.,
2006). That is, consumers build a destination image in their
minds based on the brand identity projected by the destination
marketers. Then, destination marketers establish and enhance
brand identity based on their knowledge about consumer’s brand
image on the particular destination. Thus, destination image is
critical to create the positive and recognizable brand identity.
Positive brand image is achievable through emphasizing strong,
favorable, and unique brand associations. That is, consumers
perceive positive brand image when brand associations are
implemented to suggest benefits of purchasing from the specific
brand. This then creates favorable feelings toward the brand, and
differentiates it from alternatives with its unique image.
2.3. Brand associations
Brand associations influence consumer evaluations toward the
brand and brand choice (i.e., intentions to visit or purchase) (Aaker,
1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 1998; Low & Lamb, 2000; Woodside &
Lysonski, 1989; Um & Crompton, 1990). In the branding literature,
brand associations are classified into three major categories: attributes, benefits, and attitudes (Keller, 1993, 1998). According to
Keller (1993, 1998), attributes are those descriptive features that
characterize a brand. In other words, an attribute is what
a consumer thinks the brand is or has to offer and what is involved
with its purchase or consumption. The benefits that may occur are
the personal value consumers associate with the brand attributes in
the form of functional, symbolic, experiential attachments. That is,
what consumers think the brand can do for them. Brand attitudes
are consumers’ overall evaluations of the brand and are the basis
for consumer behavior (e.g., brand choice).
The image of a place is also an important asset (Ryan & Gu,
2008). Ryan and Gu (2008) emphasize that the image itself is
the beginning point of tourist’s expectation, which is eventually
a determinant of tourist behaviors. In addition, the authors
explained that destination image exerts two important roles for
both suppliers and tourists. The first role involves informing the
supply systems of what to promote, how to promote, who to
promote to and, for the actual product that is purchased, how to
design that product. The second role involves informing the
tourist as to what to purchase, to what extent that purchase is
consistent with needs and self-image, and how to behave and
consume (p. 399).
In the tourism literature, it is widely acknowledged that overall
image of a destination is influenced by cognitive and affective
evaluations (Baloglu, 1996; Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999; Hosany et al., 2007; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000;
Stern & Krakover, 1993; Uysal et al., 2000). Cognitive evaluation
refers to beliefs and knowledge about an object whereas affective
evaluation refers to feelings about the object (Baloglu & Brinberg,
1997; Gartner, 1993; Walmsley & Jenkins, 1993; Ward & Russel,
1981). Unfortunately, the majority of image studies treated destination image as a cognitive evaluation. Only few studies employed
both cognitive and affective components in understanding the
overall image of a destination (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Hosany
et al., 2007; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000; Uysal et al., 2000).
It is important to consider both cognitive and affective components of destination image to build a comprehensive destination
branding model. Acclaiming Gartner’s (1993) Image Formation
Process as the most comprehensive model toward a destination
467
branding, Cai (2002) pointed out the compatibility of Gartner’s
(1993) Image Formation Process and Keller’s (1998) types of
brand association. The author argues that Gartner’s cognitive and
affective image components are conceptually parallel with Keller’s
attribute and benefit brand associations. Pike (2009) further
supports the notion that brand associations in destination branding
should include cognitive and affective image components. Thus,
this study suggests that the brand image of a particular destination
is influenced by the cognitive and affective associations stored in
the consumers’ minds. This rationale is supported by two premises;
(1) the acceptance of destination image as a result of cognitive and
affective evaluations in the tourism literature, and (2) the conceptual similarities of cognitive and affective evaluations between
destination image formation and types of brand association in the
branding literature.
In terms of destination branding, Cai (2002) claims that attitudes may be one type of brand association for building destination
image. However, there is still conceptual confusion between attitudes and destination image (Sussman and Ünel, 1999). Destination
image is also viewed as an attitudinal construct consisted of
cognitive and affective evaluations (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). For
their conceptual closeness, this study takes the side of Baloglu and
McCleary’s standpoint.
Although it is argued that cognitive and affective image
components are hierarchically correlated to form a destination
image (Cai, 2002, Gartner, 1993, Woodside & Lysonski, 1989), it is
still possible that each cognitive and affective brand image
component would have unique contributions to the overall image
formation. That is, each association would have a different level of
impact on the overall image formation because brand associations
are not considered equally weighted in terms of performance to
consumers (Keller, 2008, p. 59). The separate treatment of cognitive
and affective components is necessary to examine their unique
effects on consumers’ attitude structure and future behaviors
(Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Russel, 1980; Russel & Pratt, 1980; Russel
& Snodgrass, 1987; Russel, Ward, & Pratt, 1981). Consequently, this
study proposes that positive cognitive and affective components as
separate and independent brand associations would be positively
related to the overall image of a destination (i.e., brand image).
Thus, hypothesis 1 and 2 are established as:
H1: Cognitive image will positively affect the visitor's overall
image of a destination.
H2: Affective image will positively affect the visitor's overall image
of a destination.
The current study examines the cognitive and affective image
components of brand associations that influence brand image (i.e.,
destination image). It is proposed that there is an additional image
component to be considered as a brand association: unique image.
Contrary to common image, unique image is highlighted as
a construct that envisages the overall image of a destination
(Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). According to Echtner and Ritchie (1993),
the overall image of a destination should be viewed and measured
based on three dimensions of attributes: holistic, functionalpsychological, and unique-common characteristics. Uniqueness is
particularly important due to its influence on differentiation among
similar destinations in the target consumers’ minds (Cai, 2002;
Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Morrison & Anderson, 2002; Ritchie &
Ritchie, 1998). One of the purposes of branding is to differentiate
its product from those of competitors (Aaker, 1991, p. 7). Similarly,
destination branding should emphasize a destination’s unique
image to be differentiated from competing destinations by
consumers. In fact, destination branding is partly defined as a way
to communicate the expectations of a satisfactory travel experience
468
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
that is uniquely associated with the particular destination (italics
added) (Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005; Pike, 2009). Uniqueness
provides a compelling reason why travelers should select a particular destination over alternatives. Positive brand image is partly
achieved through the uniqueness of brand associations to the brand
in memory (Keller, 2008, p. 56). Thus, the unique image of a destination is critical to establish the overall image in the consumers’
minds. A strong, unique image would increase the favorability of
the overall image toward the destination. Therefore, it is deduced
that:
destination (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Oppermann, 2000;
Weaver & Lawton, 2002; Yvette & Turner, 2002). It is argued that
a person with a perceived positive image is more likely to recommend the destination (Bigné et al., 2001). Thus, it is expected that
a visitor with positive overall image, as a total impression of
cognitive, affective, and unique images, would be more likely to
revisit the destination and recommend it to others. That is, overall
image would mediate the relationships between destination brand
image and tourist behavior in destination selection. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that:
H3: Unique image will positively affect the visitor's overall
image of a destination.
H4: Visitor's perception of overall image toward a destination will
mediate the relationships between three destination brand
images (cognitive, affective, and unique images) and the visitor's intention to revisit the destination.
H5: Visitor's perception of overall image toward a destination will
mediate the relationships between three destination brand
images (cognitive, affective, and unique images) and the visitor's intention to recommend the destination to others.
2.4. Tourist behaviors
It has been supported that the overall image of the destination is
influential not only on the destination selection process but also on
tourist behaviors in general (Ashworth & Goodall, 1988; Bigné,
Sánchez, & Sánchez, 2001; Cooper et al., 1993; Mansfeld, 1992).
The intentions to revisit the destination and to spread a positive
word-of-mouth have been the two most important behavioral
consequences in destination image and post-consumption
behavior studies.
The intention to revisit has been extensively studied in tourism
research for its signal of customer loyalty. In the marketing discipline, the concept of customer retention has been widely emphasized because attracting new customers is more expensive than
retaining existing customers (Rosenberg & Czepiel, 1984). Previous
studies supported that overall image is one of the most important
factors to elicit the intention to revisit the same destination
(Alcaniz, Garcia, & Blas, 2005; Bigné et al., 2001).
Word-of-mouth (WOM) is defined as “informal, person-toperson communication between a perceived noncommercial
communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an
organization, or a service” (Harrison-Walker, 2001, p. 63). Due to
the intangible nature of a service product, a consumer’s purchase
decision usually involves higher levels of perceived risk than
purchasing manufactured products. Positive WOM is an excellent
source to reduce perceived risk for its clarification and feedback
opportunities (Murray, 1991). In addition, it is considered an
important information source influencing consumer’s choice of
Fig. 1 represents the conceptual framework of building destination branding.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling
The target population of this study was domestic visitors, who
stopped at five selected welcome centers in Oklahoma during an
eight-week period in July and August 2002. A confidence interval
approach was used to determine the sample size, suggested by
Burns and Bush (1995). With 50% of the estimated variability in the
population (Burns & Bush, 1995), the sample size was set at 379
(n ¼ 379) at the 95% confidence level. Assuming a response rate of
25% and unusable rate of 5%, a total of 1264 (379/0.30) people were
approached to participate in the survey.
Two stages of sampling approach were used in this study:
proportionate stratified sampling and systematic random sampling
(SRS). The top five largest welcome centers (Thackerville, Sallisaw,
Colbert, Erick, and Miami) were selected in terms of number of total
attendance in July and August 2001 (OTRD, 2002). The subsample
size of each welcome center was then stratified proportionately.
Cognitive
image
H1
Unique
image
H2
H3
Intention to
revisit
H4
Overall
image
H5
Affective
image
Fig. 1. A model of destination branding with hypothesized paths.
Intention to
recommend
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
The next step was to select the interval of the samples (nth) by
using a SRS. The interval of the sample (nth) was determined by
dividing the previous total visitor number of the five welcome
centers by the number of attendance at each of the five welcome
centers. Every nth visitor who stopped at the five welcome centers
was approached to participate in the survey. A random starting
number for each day was created. A set of questionnaires along
with an instruction letter was distributed to the five welcome
centers according to a proportionate subsample size for each
welcome center.
3.2. Instrument
The survey questionnaire consisted of four major sections. The
first section included questions relating to the individual travel
behavior of respondents and the information source used prior to
planning a trip to Oklahoma. The travel behavior items included the
number of times they visited Oklahoma, purpose for the trip, length
of stay, and total trip spending.
The second section was developed to assess the respondent’s
cognitive, affective, and perceptions of overall image toward
Oklahoma as a travel destination. To generate a complete list of the
respondent’s perceptions associated with cognitive images,
a method used by Echtner and Ritchie (1993) was adapted. During
the review of the literature on destination image measurement, all
the attributes used in the previous studies were recorded and
grouped by the researcher into a “master list” of attributes. In
addition, two focus group sessions were held with twelve participants each developing multi-item scales capturing various aspects
of Oklahoma’s image as a travel destination. For additional input,
various travel literature and promotional brochures on Oklahoma’s
tourism were also reviewed. The last step was to have a panel of
expert judges, who are academics and practitioners in the areas of
tourism, marketing, and consumer behavior, examine the complete
list of attributes to eliminate redundancies and to add any missing
attributes. Finally, 28 items relating to cognitive image were
selected and respondents were asked to rate Oklahoma as a travel
destination on each of 28 attributes on a 5-point Likert scale where
1 ¼ Strongly Disagree (SD); 2 ¼ Disagree (D); 3 ¼ Neutral (N);
4 ¼ Agree (A); and 5 ¼ Strongly Agree (SA).
Affective image of destination was measured by using affective
image scales developed by Russel et al. (1981). The scale included
four bipolar scales: Arousing-Sleepy, Pleasant-Unpleasant, ExcitingGloomy, and Relaxing-Distressing. A 7-point semantic-differential
scale was used for all four bipolar scales where the positive poles
were assigned to smaller values: 1 ¼ arousing and 7 ¼ sleepy,
1 ¼ pleasant and 7 ¼ unpleasant, 1 ¼ exciting and 7 ¼ gloomy, and
1 ¼ relaxing and 7 ¼ distressing. In addition, the scale of overall
image measurement was modified from Stern and Krakover (1993).
The respondents were asked to rate their perception of overall
image of Oklahoma on a 7-point scale with 1 being very negative
and with 7 being very positive.
The third section was to identify the attributes that make
Oklahoma unique from neighboring states (Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, and Texas) as a travel destination. A total of 15 items were
derived from the image study of Plog Research (1999a, 1999b) and
various travel literature and promotional brochures on Oklahoma
as well as neighboring states with a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree). Although some of the
similar measures were used for capturing cognitive and unique
images of Oklahoma, they should be considered as different
measures because cognitive image measures the perceptions of the
general quality of tourist experiences in Oklahoma as a travel
destination (without any comparison with other destinations)
while unique image has more focus on comparison of measures
469
between Oklahoma and neighboring states. It is possible that one
image item perceived strong in cognitive image could be less strong
when compared with neighboring states/competitors. For example,
attributes such as beaches, oceans, and tropical climate are the
general characteristics that represent Jamaica as a tourist destination, yet they are not perceived unique when the focus becomes
uniqueness of the destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993).
Additional two questions were included to determine the
respondent’s intention to revisit Oklahoma and the respondent’s
intention to recommend Oklahoma as a favorable destination to
others with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ most unlikely; 5 ¼ most
likely). The final section was devoted to collecting demographic
information about the respondents.
A pilot test was performed to assess how well the survey
instrument captured the constructs it was supposed to measure,
and to test the internal consistency and reliability of questionnaire
items. The first draft of the survey instrument was distributed to 20
randomly selected visitors who stopped at Thackerville Welcome
Center, the largest welcome center among the 12 Oklahoma
welcome centers in terms of number of visitors. A total of 20
questionnaires were collected at the site.
The results of the reliability tests for each dimension showed
that Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for cognitive items and 0.75 for
uniqueness of Oklahoma, indicating above the minimum value of
0.70, which is considered acceptable as a good indication of reliability (Hair et al., 1998). Based on the results of the pilot test and
feedback from OTRD, the final version was modified considering
questionnaire design, wording, and measurement scale.
3.3. Data analysis
Principal component analyses were used to determine the
underlying dimensions of the cognitive and unique image
components of Oklahoma. Confirmatory factor analysis and SEM
were utilized to test the conceptual model of destination branding.
The data was processed with the statistical package SPSS 16.0 and
LISREL 8.8.
4. Results
4.1. Underlying dimensions of cognitive image
The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant
(c2 ¼ 3431.49, p ¼ 0.00), indicating that nonzero correlation existed. The overall value of MSA was 0.930, which was well above the
recommended threshold of sampling adequacy at the minimum of
0.50 (Hair et al., 1998). These two tests suggested that the data was
suitable for an exploratory factor analysis. A principal component
analysis with orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to
identify underlying dimensions of cognitive image.
Based on the eigenvalue greater than one, scree-plot criteria,
and the percentage of variance criterion, five factors were chosen
which captured 58.5% of the total variance. Among the 28 image
attributes, four items had communalities less than .50 and factor
loading less than .40. These variables are “lots of adventurous
activities,” “reasonable cost of shopping centers,” “a wide choice of
accommodations,” and “availability of facilities for golfing/tennis.”
When there are variables that do not load on any factor or whose
communalities are deemed too low, each can be evaluated for
possible deletion (Hair et al., 1998). The dropping of these variables
with low communalities and low factor loadings increases the total
variance explained approximately 4% (from 58.5% to 62.1%). The
results of the principle component analysis with orthogonal
(VARIMAX) rotations are shown in Table 1. The scree plot indicated
that four factors may be appropriate; however, based on
470
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Table 1
Dimensions of cognitive destination image.
Attributes
Factor loadings
Factor 1: Quality of experiences
Easy access to the area
Restful and relaxing atmosphere
Reasonable cost of hotels/restaurants
Scenery/natural wonders
Lots of open space
Friendly local people
F1
Communality
.798
.723
.662
.651
.589
.574
Factor 2: Touristic attractions
Local cuisine
State/theme parks
Good place for children/family
Welcome centers
Good weather
Cultural events/festivals
Good shopping facilities
.719
.645
.641
.570
.641
.591
F2
.667
.663
.648
.645
.627
.617
.501
Factor 3: Environment and infrastructure
Clean/unspoiled environment
Infrastructure
Availability of travel information
Easy access to the area
Safe and secure environment
.657
.645
.663
.605
.562
.597
.606
F3
.744
.705
.698
.697
.573
Factor 4: Entertainment/outdoor activities
Entertainment
Nightlife
Water sports
A wide variety of outdoor activities
.671
.602
.702
.630
.601
F4
.727
.678
.658
.640
.688
.610
.653
.639
Factor 5: Cultural traditions
Native American culture
A taste of cowboy life and culture
Eigenvalue
Variance (%)
Cumulative variance (%)
Cronbach’s alpha
F5
.591
.461
8.8
19.4
19.4
0.86
5.3
13.1
32.5
0.76
a combination of scree plot and eigenvalue greater than one
approach, five factors were retained.
The scale reliability for each factor was tested for internal
consistency by assessing the item-to-total correlation for each
separate item and Cronbach’s alpha for the consistency of the entire
scale. Rules of thumb suggest that the item-to-total correlations
exceed .50 and lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is .70 (Hair et al.,
1998). The results of the item-to-total correlation indicated that
each of the five factors exceeded the threshold of .50 ranging
between .63 and .74. The results showed that the alpha coefficients
for the five factors ranged from .71 to .86.
Factors were labeled based on highly loaded items and the
common characteristics of items they included. The factors’ labels
are “Quality of Experiences” (Factor 1), “Touristic Attractions”
(Factor 2), “Environment and Infrastructure” (Factor 3), “Entertainment/Outdoor Activities” (Factor 4), and “Cultural Traditions”
(Factor 5). These five factors were later used to construct summated
scales as independent variables for structural equation modeling
(SEM) for hypotheses testing.
4.2. Underlying dimensions of unique image of Oklahoma
The results of a measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated that unique image set was
appropriate for factor analysis. Based on the eigenvalue greater
than one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of variance criterion, three factors were extracted through principal component
analysis with oblique (PROMAX) rotations. The three-factor model
captured 46.1% of the total. A total of three items had communalities less than .50 and factor loading less than .40. These variables
2.1
12.9
45.5
0.75
1.4
9.8
55.3
0.72
.626
.578
1.2
6.8
62.1
0.71
are “value for money,” “a wide variety of state/theme parks,” and
“moderate prices for hotel/restaurant/shopping.” The dropping of
these variables with low communalities and low factor loadings
increases the total variance explained approximately 6% (from
46.1% to 52.3%). Table 2 shows the results of the principle component analysis with oblique (PROMAX) rotations. The scree plot
indicated that three factors may be appropriate. A combination of
Table 2
Dimensions of unique destination image.
Attributes
Factor loadings
Factor 1: Native American/Natural
environment
Native American/Western cultures
Friendly and helpful local people
Scenery and natural wonders
Restful and relaxing atmosphere
Clean environment
F1
0.81
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.67
Factor 2: Appealing destination
Appealing as a travel destination
Entertainment/nightlife
A wide choice of outdoor activities
Shopping
Safe and secure environment
0.76
0.70
0.67
0.56
0.53
F2
0.75
0.71
0.69
0.62
0.60
Factor 3: Local attractions
Lots of tourist attractions
Cultural/historical attractions
Eigenvalue
Variance (%)
Cumulative variance (%)
Cronbach’s alpha
Communality
0.70
0.72
0.62
0.60
0.56
F3
0.83
0.65
3.9
32.5
32.5
0.85
1.2
10.3
42.8
0.74
1.1
9.5
52.3
0.71
0.74
0.69
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Table 3
Three-construct measurement model.
Variables/indicators
Table 5
CFA results e modified model construct loadings (t values in parentheses).
Indicator loadings on constructs
Perceptual/
cognitive image
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x11
x12
Quality of experiences
Touristic attractions
Environment and infrastructure
Entertainment/outdoor activities
Cultural traditions
Native American/natural
environment
Appealing destination
Local attractions
Pleasant
Arousing
Relaxing
Exciting
471
Unique
image
Variables
Affective
image
Quality of experiences
Touristic attractions
Environment and infrastructure
Entertainment/outdoor activities
Native American/natural
environment
Appealing destination
Local attractions
Pleasant
Relaxing
Exciting
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
Loadings
Reliability
Variance
extracted
0.86
0.85
0.74
0.75
0.80
(11.54)
(12.86)
(10.29)
(10.55)
(11.53)
0.88
0.69
0.76
0.59
0.69
0.65
0.64
0.71
0.50
(6.82)
(6.27)
(6.23)
(7.12)
(4.78)
0.65
0.50
standardized coefficients exceeding or very close to 1.0; (3) very
large standard errors associated with any estimated coefficients
(Reisinger & Turner, 1998). In the case of negative error variances
(Heywood case), no offending error variances were found in the
estimates for the measurement model. If correlations in the standardized solution exceed 1.0 or two estimates are highly correlated,
one of the constructs should be removed (Hair et al., 1998). Based
on this, two indicators for exogenous variables, which were greater
than 1.0 was deleted. The deleted variables were “cultural traditions” (cognitive image) and “arousing” (affective image). The
modified measurement model was then re-estimated for assessing
overall model fit. The overall model fit statistics for the CFA were
good (c2, 61.02 df ¼ 49, p < .05, GFI ¼ .97, AGFI ¼ .94, TLI ¼ .90),
indicating that the individual indicators are behaving as expected.
With the overall model being accepted, each of the constructs
can be evaluated separately by (1) examining the indicator loadings
for statistical significance and (2) assessing the construct’s reliability and variance extracted. First, for each variable, the t values
associated with each of the loadings exceed the critical values at the
0.05 significance level (Hair et al., 1998). These results indicated
that all variables were significantly related to their specified
constructs, verifying the posited relationships among indictors and
constructs.
Next, estimates of the reliability and variance extracted
measures for each construct were assessed to determine whether
the specified indicators were sufficient in their representation of
the constructs. The results of loadings with t values and computations for each measurement are shown in Table 5. In terms of
reliability, two exogenous constructs, cognitive image (0.88) and
unique image (0.76), exceed the suggested level of 0.70. Affective
image (0.65), however, is close to the threshold of 0.70; thus
marginal acceptance can be given on this measure. The results of
estimates of the reliability measure for three constructs with all
significant t values support the convergent validity of the items in
scree plot and eigenvalue greater than 1 approach selected three
factors.
Factors were labeled based on highly loaded items and the
common characteristics of items they included. They are labeled
as “Native American/Natural Environment” (Factor 1), “Appealing
Destination” (Factor 2), and “Local Attractions” (Factor 3) (Table 2).
The item-to-total correlation of each factor met the cutoff of .50,
indicating the range between .62 and .75. The alpha coefficients
for the three factors through the Cronbach’s alpha test range from
.71 to .85.
4.3. Measurement model
Through principal component analyses, the five underlying
dimensions of cognitive image and the three dimensions of unique
image were identified. In addition, one of the constructs in the
hypothesized model, affective image, has four measures including
pleasing (X9), arousing (X10), relaxing (X11), and exciting (X12).
Combined, all these twelve constructs were operationalized in the
measurement model (Table 3). There is no reason to expect
uncorrelated perceptions; thus the factors are allowed to correlate
as well (Hair et al., 1998).
For purposes of CFA in this study, a covariance matrix was
employed (Table 4). LISREL program (version 8.8) was chosen to
estimate the measurement model and the construct covariances.
4.4. Offending estimates
Before evaluating the measurement model, offending estimates
were examined. The common examples are: (1) negative error
variances or nonsignificant error variances for any construct; (2)
Table 4
Covariance matrix for CFA.
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x11
x12
Variables
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10
x11
x12
Quality of experiences
Touristic attractions
Environment and infrastructure
Entertainment/outdoor activities
Cultural traditions
Native American/natural environment
Appealing destination
Local attractions
Pleasant
Arousing
Relaxing
Exciting
15.13
13.44
6.38
3.94
2.87
2.99
1.57
1.27
0.46
0.01
1.60
0.36
19.18
7.61
5.9
3.27
3.34
1.93
1.71
0.33
0.21
1.28
0.56
9.83
4.75
1.98
2.5
1.94
1.12
0.28
0.07
0.77
0.02
6.04
1.31
1.69
1.50
0.97
0.06
0.04
0.43
0.21
1.63
1.12
0.67
0.41
0.15
0.03
0.53
0.06
3.90
1.49
0.98
0.15
0.10
0.53
0.06
2.64
1.06
0.18
0.17
0.56
0.13
1.40
0.13
0.12
0.31
0.13
0.90
0.03
0.21
0.02
0.84
0.02
0.05
2.01
0.30
1.25
472
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Table 6
SEM results: standardized parameter estimates for SEM model construct loadings (t value in parentheses) e structural model.
Endogenous
constructs
Overall image
Revisit
Recommend
Cognitive factors
Unique factors
Affective factors
Structural
equation fit (R2)
Overall Image
Revisit
Recommend
0.000
0.41 (3.61)**
0.25 (2.02)*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.62 (4.58)**
0.000
0.000
0.35 (2.49)*
0.000
0.000
0.21 (1.96)*
0.000
0.000
0.53
0.43
0.21
Note: *Significant at 0.05 level (critical value ¼ 1.96).
**Significant at 0.01 level (critical value ¼ 2.576).
each scale. In terms of variance extracted, all three constructs,
cognitive image (0.69), unique image (0.59), and affective image
(0.50), exceed or just meet the threshold value of 0.50.
4.5. Structural model
Based on the results of CFA, the structural model was tested. The
overall model fit statistics show that the model is acceptable to
represent the hypothesized constructs (c2, 57.49 df ¼ 49, p < .05,
CFI ¼ .98, GFI ¼ .97, AGFI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .03, RMSR ¼ .074). All the
paths proposed in the structural model were statistically significant
and of the expected positive direction (Table 6). Thus, all five
hypotheses failed to be rejected.
Hypothesis 1, the more positive cognitive image of a destination,
the more likely visitors would have the positive overall image of the
destination, was failed to reject (standardized coefficient ¼ 0.62; t
value ¼ 4.58; Sig. 0.01). Hypothesis 2 also failed to be rejected
(standardized coefficient ¼ 0.21; t value ¼ 1.96; Sig. 0.05), supporting that the visitor’s perception of overall image is positively
influenced by affective image. Hypothesis 3 tested the positive
relationship between unique image and overall image. It also failed
to be rejected (standardized coefficient ¼ 0.35; t value ¼ 2.49;
Sig. 0.05), suggesting that the unique image of a destination has
a positive influence on overall image. The results confirmed that
cognitive image has the strongest effect on overall image, followed
by unique and affective images, respectively. Hypotheses 4 and 5
tested the mediating role of overall image on the relationships
between the three destination brand images and tourist behaviors
(i.e., intention to revisit and intention to recommend). The results
supported the mediating role of overall image.
As a final approach to model assessment, we compared the
proposed model with a competing model. A nested model
approach was adopted as the competing models strategy. The first
model (MODEL 1) positions overall image in a fully mediating role
between three types of brand associations (i.e., cognitive, unique,
and affective images) and the intentions to revisit and recommend
(see Fig. 2). The second model (MODEL 2) allows for both direct and
indirect effects (mediated through overall image) of the brand
associations on intentions to revisit and recommend. The results of
a c2 difference test suggested that there is no significant difference
1
2
Estimated Full
Mediatio
Model
(Model 1)
2
1
3
3
1
2
Competing
Partial
Mediation
Model
(Model 2)
2
1
3
3
1=
1 = Cognitive Image; 2 = Unique Image; 3 = Affective Image
Overall Image; 2 = Intention to revisit; 3 = Intention to recommend
Fig. 2. Path diagrams of estimated full model (MODEL 1) and competing partial model (MODEL 2).
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
0.27
X1
0.29
X2
0.47
0.49
0.86
0.85
0.74
0.36
X5
0.51
X6
0.59
X7
X8
0.62
0.62 (4.58)**
0.75
X9
0.70
X10
0.57
0.66
H2
0.69
Unique
Image
Intention to
revisit
H4
0.80
0.35 (2.49)*
Overall
Image
0.41 (3.61)**
H5
0.65
0.25 (2.02)*
0.64
Intention to
recommend
0.21 (1.96)*
0.71
0.50
Y2
H1
H3
0.64
0.57
Y1
Cognitive
Image
X3
X4
473
Affective
Image
0.45
0.50
Y3
0.75
Note: * Significant at p < .05 (critical value=1.96); ** Significant at p < .01 (critical value=2.576).
2
= 57.49; df = 49; p value = 0.38; NFI = 0.71; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.030.
Variance explained (R2) in Overall image ( 1) = 0.53; Intention to revisit ( 2) = 0.43;
Intention to recommend ( 3) = 0.21.
Fig. 3. Results of destination branding model.
between MODEL 1 and MODEL 2 (Dc2 ¼ 3.45, Ddf ¼ 6). Therefore,
the parsimonious model (MODEL 1) is retained.
Fig. 3 shows the model of destination branding.
5. Conclusions and implications
This study aimed to test a theoretical model of destination
branding. It was proposed that destination image (i.e., brand image)
is a multi-dimensional construct, influenced by the cognitive,
unique, and affective images that collectively affect tourist behaviors. Overall, the results showed that destination image exerts
a mediating role between the three image components as the brand
associations and the behavioral intentions. Strong and distinctive
destination image should not only be a goal of branding practices in
capturing consumers’ minds but also as a mediator to influence
consumer behaviors, directly related to the success of the tourist
destinations. Therefore, in the competitive tourism market, tourist
destinations must establish a positive and strong brand image,
derived from the cognitive, unique, and affective image associations, to increase repeat visitors and to attract new tourists to the
destination.
The results confirm the previous argument that the image of
a destination directly influences intentions to revisit and recommend the destination to others (Alcaniz et al., 2005; Bigné et al.,
2001). Although not explained in the results, this study found
that overall image was perceived more positively by repeat visitors
than by first time visitors (at p .01). It supports the relationship of
overall image on revisits. Furthermore, in tourism, where its
consumption is relatively infrequent, the positive influence of
overall image on recommendations should be emphasized more so
than before. For potential tourists, recommendation is an important
information source in forming an image toward the particular
destination (Bigné et al., 2001). Thus, tourism destinations need to
provide favorable experiences to tourists, in which they will create
a positive image and recommend the place to others in turn helping
potential tourists develop a favorable image that affects the destination choice.
It is interesting to note that through comparing the competing
model to the proposed full mediating model, the more conservative
mediating model is supported. It means that rather than being
impacted by the distinct image components, tourist behaviors are
influenced by the total impressions of the destination, which is the
combination of the cognitive, unique, and affective image components. It supports the argument by Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) that
image components are closely intertwined and may not be isolated
unless the subjects are inquired in that way. In other words, it is the
overall image, as a total impression based on the three image
components, which influences tourists’ future behaviors.
As expected, cognitive image positively influences overall
image. This result confirms the results of other studies (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999; Stern & Krakover, 1993), arguing for the positive
effect of cognitive image on overall image. The results show that
a cognitive image (i.e., the belief s and knowledge of attributes of
the destination) is the most influential brand association to form
overall image.
The significance of unique image on overall image warrants
a need for more attention on this construct from destination
branding scholars. Interestingly, its effect was even larger than the
affective image component, which has received more consideration
than unique image in the destination image literature. The results
also show that uniqueness of a destination has the second largest
influence on overall image. The importance of unique image also
lies in its usefulness to positioning the destination brand. Because
unique image is an excellent source for differentiation (Echtner &
474
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Ritchie, 1993), it needs to be identified and emphasized to improve
overall image and increase the points of difference among various
alternatives. Thus, little attention has focused on the construct in
the literature, unique image should be considered as a critical brand
association to expand our knowledge of destination image to the
next level of destination branding.
This work supports the results of Baloglu and McCleary’s (1999)
study that affective image is significantly influential on overall
image. However, contrary to Baloglu and McCleary’s findings,
which found the stronger impact of affective evaluation on overall
image than that of cognitive evaluation, this study found that
cognitive image is more influential on the overall image. The
difference between the two results may be due to (1) the different
treatment on the cognitive construct, (2) investigation of the
different stages of destination image formation, and/or (3) inclusion of unique image in this study. First, Baloglu and McCleary
(1999) used three separate variables to understand the cognitive
evaluation of a destination while the current study adopted one
variable to measure the cognitive image construct. This procedure
might produce different results. In addition, while Baloglu and
McCleary’s study examined the image prior to the actual visitation
to the destination, this study explored the complex image to
understand the phenomenon. That is, affective image may have
more impact on overall image before actual visitation whereas
cognitive image may exert more influence on overall image when
actual visitation is realized. Furthermore, the inclusion of unique
image should influence the weaker impact of affective image on
overall image. It is argued that affective image can be diverse
among different destinations and used for positioning strategy
(Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997). It is possible that the differentiating
contribution of affective image on overall image is explained partly
by unique image, leading to much weaker contribution of affective
image on overall image than those of cognitive and unique image
components. Future research should examine the relationship
among the three image components for a more clear understanding
on destination branding.
As Cai (2002) claimed, destination image cannot expand to
destination branding without the consideration of brand identity.
This study argued that brand identity needs to be created and/or
enhanced based on a clear understanding of the destination image
that consumers have formed. Based on the results, the current
study claims that cognitive, unique, and affective evaluations on
destination must be identified to understand the brand image of
a destination for its significant effects on overall image. Moreover,
the perceived image (i.e., brand image or overall image of a destination) should be assessed with the projected image (i.e., brand
identity) by the destination. The assessment offers information to
build the desired image that is consistent with the brand identity of
the destination (Cai, 2002). If the perceived image is not consistent
with brand identity, the source(s) of the problem must be identified
and corrected (Kotler & Gertner, 2004). Promoting brand identity
without fixing the current problems would cause negative wordof-mouth communications due to the discrepancy between the
expectations and the actual performance. Positioning strategy must
be implemented to create the desired brand image in the minds of
the target market. In addition, tourism destinations should monitor
the destination image regularly to examine if the projected image is
well adopted by tourists. This is because consistency of core identity is critical for the success of long-term oriented destination
branding practices.
In addition to the theoretical contribution on destination
branding, this study provides practical implications especially
salient for the state of Oklahoma. Based on the results of the study,
a positioning strategy of the State of Oklahoma as a destination
brand is proposed (Table 7). It reflects all the key components of
a destination brand including its positioning, its rational (head) and
emotional (heart) benefits and associations, together with its brand
personality (Morgan & Pritchard, 2004).
Positioning strategy should start with identifying the strong
elements that uniquely differentiate a destination from competitors
(Crompton et al., 1992). The current study identified several differentiating attributes of the State of Oklahoma such as “Native American/western heritage,” “restful atmosphere,” “clean environment,”
and “natural beauty.” As Aaker and Shansby (1982) suggested, only
one or at the most two attributes should be used for brand positioning. Emphasizing too many attributes simultaneously may
deteriorate the maximum level of implementation of core identity.
Consequently, “Land of Native American and western heritage” is
recommended as a positioning proposition for the state of Oklahoma.
The positioning of Oklahoma as a land of Native American and
western heritage is translated into the rational benefit of encountering unspoiled wilderness, western heritage, and natural and
dramatic beauty. Further, these benefits offer visitors the emotional
benefits of feeling uplifted by the spirituality of the natural environment, relaxed by the unspoiled and clean countryside, and fulfilled by experiencing the western heritage and history of Oklahoma.
Finally, the culmination of these brand attributes is a destination
personified by relaxed, down to earth, pleasant, and traditional yet
open-minded traits. This should become the essence of Oklahoma. In
summary, the findings of the overall study provide a clear brand
position for Oklahoma’s destination brand. Brand Oklahoma
emerged as a clear, focused strategy with a defined purpose and
personality. Oklahoma’s pristine environment and Native American
heritage make it well suited to marketing a clean, nature-based
tourism destination with friendly, spirited people and the freedom
and space to travel. Once the brand identity with strong and
distinctive attributes and brand personality are proposed, it is critical
to provide an integrated and consistent marketing communications
to the target market. It is possible through partnerships and cooperations between the government and the industry.
5.1. Limitations and recommendations for future study
One limitation of this study is that the data collection was
conducted in the summer. A traveler’s characteristics and images of
the state of Oklahoma as a travel destination may vary by season
(e.g., summer, winter, etc.). For example, a traveler who has visited
Oklahoma in the summer season may vary from a different image
and perception toward Oklahoma as a travel destination as opposed
to that who has traveled in the winter. Thus, the findings of this
Table 7
A positioning strategy of the state of Oklahoma as a destination brand.
Positioning
Rational benefit
Emotional benefit
Personality
Land of Native American
and western heritage
I feel uplifted by the spirituality of the natural environment.
I feel relaxed by the unspoiled and clean countryside.
I feel fulfilled by experiencing the western heritage
and history of Oklahoma.
I feel soothed by the open, unspoiled outdoors.
Unspoiled wilderness
Tradition
Western heritage
Natural and dramatic beauty
Friendly local people
Note: Adopted from the brand architecture of Britain (source: Morgan & Pritchard, 2002, pp. 34e35).
Relaxed
Down to earth
Pleasant
Hearty and friendly
Traditional yet open-minded
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
study are limited to images of Oklahoma for summer pleasure
travelers. To overcome this limitation, a survey can be conducted in
different seasons. Then, the results of the survey should be
analyzed if there are any differences in image and perceptions of
Oklahoma between travelers in different seasons.
Second, the population of this study was limited to visitors who
stopped at the selected five welcome centers out of twelve in
Oklahoma. Although these five welcome centers were selected
based on the total number of visitors, the results may be only
applicable for the travelers from these welcome centers. It may not
be generalizable for those who did not stop by any of the welcome
centers during their trip to Oklahoma. In addition, the total
response rate was low (24.5%), suggesting that this study was
limited to generalizing the large portion of visitors who did not
participate in the survey.
Third, there may be other factors influencing the development
of destination image. This study was limited to the included variables, which are consistently and repeatedly mentioned and
partially supported by empirical results in the literature. Therefore,
the results of this study may have excluded additional destination
brand associations that might have helped better explain tourist
destination choice behavior. For example, socio-psychological
travel motivations of an individual were suggested by numerous
tourism scholars as a crucial construct to form tourism destination
images. Future research should investigate additional destination
brand associations that may influence overall image and tourist
behaviors.
Fourth, the number of questions measuring certain constructs in
the model is constrained by the practical need to develop a parsimonious questionnaire. The findings are limited to the selected
items measuring the related constructs. We suggest that future
research utilize more items to measure designated constructs.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25
(3), 56e62.
Alcaniz, E. B., Garcia, I. S., & Blas, S. S. (2005). Relationships among residents’ image,
evaluation of the stay and post-purchase behavior. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 11(4), 291e302.
Ashworth, G., & Goodall, B. (1988). Tourist image: marketing considerations. In
B. Goodall, & G. Ashworth (Eds.), Marketing in the tourism industry: The
promotion of destination regions (pp. 213e238). London: Routledge.
Baker, B. (2007). Destination branding for small cities: The essentials for successful
place branding. Portland: Creative Leap Books.
Baloglu, S. (1996). An empirical investigation of determinants of tourist destination
image. Unpublished dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal of
Travel Research, 35(4), 11e15.
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt,
Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents.
Tourism Management, 22(1), 1e9.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),
607e616.
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: insights and
practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel
Research, 43(4), 328e338.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive
position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4),
341e352.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97e116.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (1995). Marketing research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cai, A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 720e742.
Cai, L. A., Feng, R., & Breiter, D. (2004). Tourist purchase decision involvement and
information preferences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 138e148.
475
Calantone, R. J., Benedetto, A. D., Hakam, A., & Bojanic, D. C. (1989). Multiple
multinational tourism positioning using correspondence analysis. Journal of
Travel Research, 28(2), 25e32.
Chon, K. S., Weaver, P. A., & Kim, C. Y. (1991). Marketing your community: image
analysis in Norfolk. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31(4),
31e37.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (1993). Tourism: Principles and
practice. London: Pitman Publishing.
Crompton, J. L., Fakeye, P. C., & Lue, C. (1992). Positioning: The example of the lower
Rio Grande Valley in the winter long stay destination market. Journal of Travel
Research, 31(2), 20e26.
Dana, C. J., & McClearly, K. W. (1995). Influencing associations’ site-selection
process. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 61e68.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13.
Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: what is being branded? Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 12(1), 5e14.
Florek, M. (2005). The country brand as a new challenge for Poland. Place Branding,
1(2), 205e214.
Florek, M., Insch, A., & Gnoth, J. (2006). City council websites as a means of place
brand identity communication. Place Branding, 2(4), 276e296.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 2(2/3), 191e215.
Go, F., & Govers, R. (2000). Integrated quality management for tourist destinations:
a European perspective on achieving competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21
(1), 79e88.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication
and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential
antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60e75.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination
personality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1
(1), 62e81.
Kapferer, J. (1997). Strategic brand management. Great Britain: Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing
brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing
brand equity (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Konecnik, M., & Go, F. (2008). Tourism destination brand identity: the case of
Slovenia. Brand Management, 15(3), 177e189.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2004). Country as brand, product and beyond: A place
marketing and brand management perspective. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, &
R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition
(2nd ed.). (pp. 40e56) Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260e269.
Kurt, K. (1999 December 27). Oklahomans are still trying to shake dust from state’s
image. The Sunday Oklahoma A1.
Leisen, B. (2001). Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination. Journal of
Services Marketing, 15(1), 49e66.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand
associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350e368.
Mackay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 417e423.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19
(3), 399e419.
Mihalic, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination: a factor of
tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1), 65e78.
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2002). Contextualizing destination branding. In
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding (pp. 10e41).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2004). Meeting the destination branding challenge. In
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the
unique destination proposition (2nd ed.). (pp. 59e78) Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Morrison, A., & Anderson, D. (2002). Destination branding. Available from: http://
www.macvb.org/intranet/presentation/DestinationBrandingLOzarks6-10-02.
ppt Accessed 18.05.03.
Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: consumer information
acquisition Activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10e25.
Mykletun, R. J., Crotts, J. C., & Mykletun, A. (2001). Positioning an island destination
in the peripheral area of the Baltics: a flexible approach to market segmentation. Tourism Management, 22(5), 493e500.
Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage:
a communications perspective. Brand Management, 12(4), 264e278.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Department (OTRD). (2002). Available from:
http://tourism.state.ok.us/travel_and_tourism.htm. Accessed 05.07.04.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Department (OTRD). (2003). Available from:
http://tourism.state.ok.us/travel_and_tourism.htm Accessed 05.07.04.
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Department (OTRD) (2006 November 8). Oklahoma tourism segmentation.
476
H. Qu et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 465e476
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39
(1), 78e84.
Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home
destinations. Tourism Management, 30(6), 857e866.
Plog Research, Incorporation (1999a). The 1999 American traveler survey: Oklahoma
as a destination.
Plog Research, Incorporation (1999b). Travelers’ awareness and perception of Oklahoma as a leisure destination.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). Asian and western cultural differences: the new
challenge for tourism marketplaces. Journal of International Hospitality, Leisure
& Tourism Management, 1(3), 21e35.
Ritchie, J. R. B., Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding to tourism destination: past
achievements & future challenges. In: Marrakech, Morocco: Annual congress of
the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism.
Rosenberg, L. J., & Czepiel, J. A. (1984). A marketing approach to customer retention.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(2), 45e51.
Russel, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161e1178.
Russel, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of affective quality attributed to
environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311e322.
Russel, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and environment. In D. Stockols, &
I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 245e280). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Russel, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: a factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13(3), 259e288.
Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2008). Destination branding and marketing: the role of
marketing organizations. In H. Oh (Ed.), Handbook of hospitality marketing
management (pp. 383e411). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Stern, E., & Krakover, S. (1993). The formation of composite urban image.
Geographical Analysis, 25(2), 130e146.
Sussman, S., & Ünel, A. (1999). Destination image and its modification after travel:
An empirical study on Turkey. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer
behaviour in travel and tourism (pp. 207e226). New York: The Haworth
Hospitality Press.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Kozak, M. (2006). Destination brands vs destination images: do we
know what we mean? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 299e317.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432e448.
Uysal, M., Chen, J., & Williams, D. (2000). Increasing state market share through
a regional positioning. Tourism Management, 21(1), 89e96.
Walmsley, D. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (1993). Appraisive images of tourist areas: application of personal constructs. Australian Geographer, 24(2), 1e13.
Ward, L. M., & Russel, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical
environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 110(2), 121e152.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in
the gold coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 270e280.
Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of travel destination choice.
Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 8e14.
Yvette, R., & Turner, L. W. (2002). Cultural differences between Asian markets and
Australian hosts, part I. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 295e315.