Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Wang Jiayi
 -- 1420 2022-04-04 20:41:22 |
2 format correct
Conner Chen
 -36 word(s) 1384 2022-04-06 04:24:18 | |
3 format correct
Conner Chen
 -78 word(s) 1306 2022-04-06 04:41:14 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Jiayi, W.; Zhu, D.; , . Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21358 (accessed on 26 December 2024).
Jiayi W, Zhu D,  . Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21358. Accessed December 26, 2024.
Jiayi, Wang, Dan Zhu,  . "Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21358 (accessed December 26, 2024).
Jiayi, W., Zhu, D., & , . (2022, April 04). Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21358
Jiayi, Wang, et al. "Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection." Encyclopedia. Web. 04 April, 2022.
Sustainable Tourism Destination Image Projection
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14053073

A successful and positive tourism destination image (TDI)  would promote tourists’ visitation and benefit the sustainable development of the destination. Except destination management organizations(DMO), Web 2.0 era enables tourists to be an important agent to project TDI.

tourism destination image

1. Introduction

Tourism destination image (TDI) is a classical inquiry in tourism research [1][2]. A successful and positive image would promote tourists’ visitation and benefit the sustainable development of the destination. During the past five decades, a cluster of studies has been researching TDI separately from both the projected image on the destination supply side and the perceived image generated from the tourist side [3][4][5][6][7][8].
However, in the Web 2.0 era when tourists have free and flexible access to publish their real destination experience, the traditional distinction between the projected image from the supply side and the perceived image from the demand side becomes blurred [1][9]. Potential tourists may simultaneously receive the projected TDI from the online generated content of destination management organizations (DMOs), mass media, and tourists, such as from microblogs, advertisements, movies and travelogues. Furthermore, a new cycle of TDI projection and perception begins after these new tourists visit the destination and publish travel notes. Hence, tourists also participate in the TDI projection, making the TDI construction more dynamically evolute, involving conflicting, negotiating, competing, or integrating processes between different sources of online destination information. Rather than a fixed or stable concept, TDI should be more perceived as a constructive and accumulative process [1].

2. Tourism Destination Image

Dating back to 1975 when Hunt [10] firstly proposed the concept of “tourism destination image”, it has received extensive research attention from multiple disciplines for nearly five decades. Most literature focuses on exploring tourists’ perceived image, i.e., the mental construct of tourist’s individual impressions of and ideas about a certain tourism destination [11]. A large quantity of work has been accumulated on TDI, including the examination of its conceptualization and dimensions [11][12][13][14], the formation process and influencing factors [9][13][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], assessments and measurements [14][20][22], and its impact on tourists’ decision making and behavior [17][23][24][25][26]. For example, Kislali et al. divide tourist perceived destination image into the primary and secondary image, with the former referring to a tourist’s destination image after real visitation and the latter referring to the image generated from secondary sources of information beyond one’s own experience [9]. The secondary image is further divided into organic and induced images according to whether the source of information is not directly aimed at promoting the destination (organic) or intentionally promoting this destination (induced) [15][27][28]. Lai and Li summarized the three classical models of the TDI structure. They are the three-dimensional model (from functional to psychological characteristics, from common to unique image attributes, and from individual attributes to holistic impressions) [29][30], the causal-networking model (mainly referring to the ‘‘cognitive-affective-conative model’’ [31], the ‘‘cognitive affective-overall model’’ [13]), and the core-peripheral model [12][32]. Even though there are continuous debates about TDI structuring, another group of scholars contend that TDI should be understood as a holistic construct or gestalt experience [9][33][34][35][36].
Besides the tourist’s perceived image, a group of literature distinguishes TDI according to different subjects that give birth to relevant concepts such as residents’ destination image [16] and the image projected mainly by DMOs [8][37][38]. Before the Web 2.0 era, the distinction between the projected and the perceived TDI is relatively clear, since the expense of publishing the printed brochures and guidebooks or shooting the official destination-marketing advertisements “imparts a certain degree of authority on the marketers’ behalf” [1] (p. 222). Following this line of thought, many scholars are examining the impacts of destination marketing strategies or TDI projection on the tourists’ image perception [27][39], or comparing the differences between the projected images from the destination supply side and the perceived images from the demand side [3][5][6][8][40].
However, in the increasingly developed Web 2.0 world, the boundary between the official projected TDI and tourists’ perceived TDI becomes more and more blurred [1][41][42]. The tourism officials and organizations can utilize social media platforms to promote the destination image [43]. Individual tourists can also freely express and publish their evaluations of or visiting experiences to the destination, relying on multiple sources of online platforms such as social media and online travel agencies (OTA), creating User-Generated Content (UGC) [44]. Recent studies have found the obvious influence of UGC on the formation of perceived TDI among potential tourists [17][45][46][47][48]. In other words, UGC is increasingly implicated as an important alternative source away from traditional DMOs and destination marketers to project the TDI. Some studies even indicate possible inter-influences between UGC and the DMO-published content in cocreating a successful TDI in this globalized internet environment [49][50][51]. Generally, the study of TDI experiences a paradigm shift from a stable and fixed concept to a dynamic and accumulative process under the constructivism perspective, especially after stepping into the Web.2.0 era [9][52][53].
In this context, a new question emerges: How do the official DMOs and the tourists influence each other’s TDI projections through their online generated content? Is it possible for DMOs to refer to the tourists’ UGC when exploring a TDI that is attractive and sustainable enough to attract potential tourism markets? What are the crucial influencing factors in this process? The answers to these questions are important to the sustainable development of the tourism destination and would shed light on its marketing and management practices. Currently, relevant diachronic process analysis of the inter-influences between DMO and tourists concerning their online generated content to construct the projected TDI is lacking in literature.

3. The Theoretical Perspective: “Circle of Representation”

It was initially proposed by Urry [54][55] in his seminal book The Tourist Gaze, complemented by the work of Hall, Butler and Jenkins [56][57][58]. It describes the cyclic process of TDI representation in four stages [58]: The first is the stage of image projection. TDIs are projected by mass media collectively. The second is the stage of image perception. The projected TDIs are perceived by individuals and may inspire their visitation to the destination. The third stage is the visitation of tourism icons. At the destination, the tourists will probably visit the tourist icons or sites seen in the projected TDIs. The fourth stage is the reproduction of TDIs. Tourists visiting the tourism icons will photograph their experiences at the site as proof of their visit. These proofs are displayed and spread to others after the trip as another form of image projection. It begins the cycle again by influencing the perceived image of other potential tourists.
Jenkins proved the existence of the cyclic process of TDI representation through an empirical study comparing the images of travel brochures promoting Australia and the pictures taken by the Canadian backpackers to that country [58]. Based on his findings, he further conceptualizes “the circle” as an outward spiral anchored to a central tourism icon. Each whirl of the spiral adds new audiences to the TDI, and they may participate in updating the projection of this tourism icon through producing their own insights. In this way, the TDI is continuously in evolution, with circuitous cultural production and reproduction processes.
Jenkins’ thoughts consider the agency of tourist audiences and possible inter-influences between different agents (e.g., DMO, mass media, tourists) to project TDI. Wijngaarden also proves the agency of tourists in TDI (re)production [59]. Therefore, Jenkins’ developed model of “circle of representation” is more fitting to explain TDI in the Web 2.0 context, where tourists are empowered to use their agency to influence the TDI projection through UGC. On the other hand, the Web 2.0 era also creates a new environment where this model could be tested in the literal context. Through the internet and different social media sources, tourists have more choices for language use to represent their actual or imaginary impressions of the destination. Besides visual materials, such as photography and short videos, literal texts such as microblog texts, travel notes, travel tips, and comments are also widely used [60]. Especially during the recent decade, many studies have proved the function of online literal texts in TDI representation [1][42][50][61].

References

  1. Hunter, W.C. The social construction of tourism online destination image: A comparative semiotic analysis of the visual representation of Seoul. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 221–229.
  2. Kock, F.; Josiassen, A.; Assaf, A.G. Advancing destination image: The destination content model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 61, 28–44.
  3. Grosspietsch, M. Perceived and projected images of Rwanda: Visitor and international tour operator perspectives. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 225–234.
  4. Ferrer-Rosell, B.; Marine-Roig, E. Projected Versus Perceived Destination Image. Tour. Anal. 2020, 25, 227–237.
  5. Chan, C.-S.; Zhang, Y. Matching projected image with perceived image for geotourism development: A qualitative-quantitative integration. Asian Geogr. 2018, 35, 143–160.
  6. Bui, T.L.H. Congruency between the projected and perceived tourism destination image of Vietnam. J. Int. Bus. Res. 2011, 10, 1–13.
  7. Briciu, V.A.; Nechita, F.; Demeter, R.; Kavoura, A. Minding the Gap Between Perceived and Projected Destination Image by Using Information and Communication Platforms and Software. Int. J. Comput. Methods Herit. Sci. 2019, 3, 1–17.
  8. Andreu, L.; Bigné, J.E.; Cooper, C. Projected and Perceived Image of Spain as a Tourist Destination for British Travellers. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 9, 47–67.
  9. Kislali, H.; Kavaratzis, M.; Saren, M. Destination image formation: Towards a holistic approach. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 22, 266–276.
  10. Hunt, J.D. Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 2016, 13, 1–7.
  11. Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G.; Garcıía, H.C. Destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 56–78.
  12. Lai, K.; Li, Y. Core-periphery structure of destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 1359–1379.
  13. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K.W. A model of destination image formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897.
  14. Agapito, D.; Oom do Valle, P.; da Costa Mendes, J. The Cognitive-Affective-Conative Model of Destination Image: A Confirmatory Analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 471–481.
  15. Wang, D.; Chan, H.; Pan, S. The Impacts of Mass Media on Organic Destination Image: A Case Study of Singapore. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 20, 860–874.
  16. Stylidis, D. Residents’ destination image: A perspective article. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 228–231.
  17. Pan, X.; Rasouli, S.; Timmermans, H. Investigating tourist destination choice: Effect of destination image from social network members. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104217.
  18. Isaac, R.K.; Eid, T.A. Tourists’ destination image: An exploratory study of alternative tourism in Palestine. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 22, 1499–1522.
  19. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681.
  20. Afshardoost, M.; Eshaghi, M.S. Destination image and tourist behavioural intentions: A meta-analysis. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104154.
  21. Hernández-Mogollón, J.M.; Duarte, P.A.; Folgado-Fernández, J.A. The contribution of cultural events to the formation of the cognitive and affective images of a tourist destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 170–178.
  22. MacKay, K.J.; Fesenmaier, D.R. An Exploration of Cross-Cultural Destination Image Assessment. J. Travel Res. 2016, 38, 417–423.
  23. Su, D.N.; Nguyen, N.A.N.; Nguyen, Q.N.T.; Tran, T.P. The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 100634.
  24. Lu, Q.; Atadil, H.A. Do you dare to travel to China? An examination of China′s destination image amid the COVID-19. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 40, 100881.
  25. Phau, I.; Shanka, T.; Dhayan, N. Destination image and choice intention of university student travellers to Mauritius. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 758–764.
  26. Kim, J.-H. The Impact of Memorable Tourism Experiences on Loyalty Behaviors: The Mediating Effects of Destination Image and Satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 856–870.
  27. Stepchenkova, S.; Morrison, A.M. The destination image of Russia: From the online induced perspective. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 943–956.
  28. Chon, K.S. The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion. Tour. Rev. 1990, 45, 2–9.
  29. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. J. Travel Res. 2016, 31, 3–13.
  30. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The meaning and measurement of destination image. J. Tour. Stud. 1991, 2.
  31. Gartner, W. Image formation process. J. Travel Res. 1993, 28, 16–20.
  32. Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Lai, K. A Meeting of the Minds: Exploring the Core–Periphery Structure and Retrieval Paths of Destination Image Using Social Network Analysis. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 612–626.
  33. Ryan, C.; Cave, J. Structuring Destination Image: A Qualitative Approach. J. Travel Res. 2016, 44, 143–150.
  34. Reilly, M.D. Free Elicitation Of Descriptive Adjectives For Tourism Image Assessment. J. Travel Res. 2016, 28, 21–26.
  35. Crompton, J.L. An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. J. Travel Res. 2016, 17, 18–23.
  36. Ateljevic, I.; Doorne, S. Representing New Zealand Tourism Imagery and Ideology. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 648–667.
  37. Stepchenkova, S.; Morrison, A.M. Russia’s destination image among American pleasure travelers: Revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 548–560.
  38. Choi, S.; Lehto, X.Y.; Morrison, A.M. Destination image representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 118–129.
  39. Govers, R.; Go, F.M.; Kumar, K. Promoting tourism destination image(Article). J. Travel Res. 2007, 46, 15–23.
  40. Marine-Roig, E.; Ferrer-Rosell, B. Measuring the gap between projected and perceived destination images of Catalonia using compositional analysis. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 236–249.
  41. Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Wu, B.; Wang, Y. Tourism destination image based on tourism user generated content on internet. Tour. Rev. 2020, 76, 125–137.
  42. Ketter, E. Destination image restoration on facebook: The case study of Nepal′s Gurkha Earthquake. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2016, 28, 66–72.
  43. Farhangi, S.; Alipour, H. Social Media as a Catalyst for the Enhancement of Destination Image: Evidence from a Mediterranean Destination with Political Conflict. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7276.
  44. Sun, W. Examining Perceived and Projected Destination Image: A Social Media Content Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3354.
  45. Tomaž, K.; Walanchalee, W. One does not simply … project a destination image within a participatory culture. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100494.
  46. Llodrà-Riera, I.; Martínez-Ruiz, M.P.; Jiménez-Zarco, A.I.; Izquierdo-Yusta, A. A multidimensional analysis of the information sources construct and its relevance for destination image formation. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 319–328.
  47. Kladou, S.; Mavragani, E. Assessing destination image: An online marketing approach and the case of TripAdvisor. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015, 4, 187–193.
  48. Sultan, M.T.; Sharmin, F.; Badulescu, A.; Gavrilut, D.; Xue, K. Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4241.
  49. Wu, M.Y.; Shen, S.H. Research on the relationship between visual materials and destination image in new Media Era. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 5–7.
  50. María Munar, A.; Dioko, L. Tourist—Created content: Rethinking destination branding. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011, 5, 291–305.
  51. Iglesias-Sánchez, P.P.; Correia, M.B.; Jambrino-Maldonado, C.; de las Heras-Pedrosa, C. Instagram as a Co-Creation Space for Tourist Destination Image-Building: Algarve and Costa del Sol Case Studies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2793.
  52. Kim, H.; Chen, J.S. Destination image formation process. J. Vacat. Mark. 2015, 22, 154–166.
  53. Kislali, H.; Kavaratzis, M.; Saren, M. Rethinking destination image formation. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 10, 70–80.
  54. Urry, J. The Tourist Gaze; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1990.
  55. Urry, J. The ‘Consumption’ of Tourism. Sociology 2016, 24, 23–35.
  56. Butler, R.; Hall, C.M. Image and reimaging of rural areas. In Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas; Willey: Chichester, UK, 1998.
  57. Hall, S. The work of representation. Represent. Cult. Represent. Signifying Pract. 1997, 2, 13–74.
  58. Jenkins, O. Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation. Tour. Geogr. 2003, 5, 305–328.
  59. Wijngaarden, V. Tourists’ agency versus the circle of representation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 60, 139–153.
  60. Zhao, Z.; Zhu, M.; Hao, X. Share the Gaze: Representation of destination image on the Chinese social platform WeChat Moments. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 726–739.
  61. Arefieva, V.; Egger, R.; Yu, J. A machine learning approach to cluster destination image on Instagram. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104318.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Wang Jiayi
,
Dan Zhu
,
View Times: 748
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 06 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback