Development of a scale measuring destination image

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop the scale of destination image (SDI) to assess destination image affecting the consumption associated with tourism.Design/methodology/approachThe scale was developed through four steps: review of literature, formulation of a preliminary scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and examination of predictive validity by a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. The preliminary scale consisted of 32 items. Employing a systematic sampling method, a total of 199 research participants responded to a mail survey.FindingsIn the CFA with maximum likelihood estimation, four factors with 18 pertinent items are retained. This four‐factor model displays good fit to the data, preliminary construct validity, and high reliability. The SEM analysis reveals that the SDI is found to be positively predictive of tourism behavioral intentions.Originality/valueThis paper develops an original multi‐dimensional 18‐item scale measuring destination image from the perspective of tourists, which can provide academicians and practitioners with a reliable and valid analytical tool to assess destination image.

Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination

“…Specifically, a tourist's pre-trip interest moves from the impersonal scenery and destination related touristic activities to the personal enjoyment and delights they anticipate for themselves and their intimates (Dann, 1993). Consequently, the recognition of conative image as an antecedent of the intention to revisit a destination reintroduces the need to examine conative images, which contradicts the suggestions of previous researchers who considered that the intent or action component of image is analogous to behavior (Çakmak & Isaac, 2012;Gartner, 1996;Hallmann et al 2014;Lee, 2009;Nadeau et al, 2008;Prebensen, 2007;Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009;Stylidis, Belhassen, & Shani, 2014;White, 2005;Zhang et al 2014) or who disregarded conative image when examining images (Assaker 2014;Bigné, Sánchez & Sanz, 2009;Byon & Zhang, 2010;Hudson et al, 2011;Lam & Hsu, 2006;Lin, Morais, Kerstetter, & Hou, 2007;Ryan & Cave, 2005;San Martin & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2008).…”

A study on country images, destination beliefs, and travel intentions: A structural equation model approach

“…Everyone who is involved in the destination management and marketing is well aware that if tourists have a weak or even neutral image of the destination, they will likely not consider it worth the visit. In fact, empirical evidences clearly support this: Destination image (whether based on true representation of what the destination has to offer or not) is an important predictor of travel-related behavior (see, e.g., Byon & Zhang, 2010;Nadeau, Heslop, O'Reilly, & Luk, 2008;De Nisco, Mainolfi, Marino, & Napolitano, 2015). For example, destination image is found to have a significant influence on the destination choice, the travel intentions, and the postvisit behavior (see, e.g., Agapito, Oom de Valle, & da Costa Mendes, 2013;Kim & Perdue, 2011;Baloglu & McCleary, 1999;Beerli & Martin, 2004a, 2004bFakeye & Crompton, 1991).…”

From Landscape to Mindscape: Spatial Narration of Touristic Amsterdam

“…Many papers contemplating city image focus on its formation model through scale development [23,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. Culture, entertainment, infrastructure, shopping centers, safety, sport facilities, and services are frequently examined as important items composing the residents' and tourists' mental pictures of cities [29].…”