Place branding has been applied to the promotion of nations, with a growing trend toward the more specific branding of urban destinations. In essence, nation and city branding are anchored in similar processes, albeit at different levels of governance
[1][2][3][4]. This research uses destination branding to encapsulate these processes at differing levels, including cities. Historically, place branding and destination branding have emerged from a variety of disciplines, including marketing, public relations, international relations, public administration, public diplomacy, tourism, communication, and geography
[5][6]. Not surprisingly, the diverse definitions of place branding is on par with the variety of disciplines contributing to the development of this body of knowledge
[7]. Regardless, destination branding can be reduced to the concepts invoked in people’s minds when branding principles are applied to a place
[8]. These associations can be modified to develop new and more desirable destination images. Scholars have developed and tested several models, items, and scales to analyze destination branding, with much of this focusing specifically on cities
[9][10]. Regardless of the diverse and often contested interpretations of place branding
[11], there appears to be consensus on place image playing a crucial role in destination branding
[9][12][13][14][15]. Destination images have been studied since the early 1970s when a seminal study
[16] examined the role of image in the development of tourism
[17]. The depth and complexity of destination image have produced hundreds of studies investigating its various dimensions linked to overall place image
[9][18][19][20][21][22][23]. In addition to the determinants of destination image, it is also essential to explore where destination image leads. Several studies have shown that there is a relationship between destination image and visitor behavior
[24].