This art icle was downloaded by: [ Monash Universit y Library]

On: 02 May 2014, At : 02: 45

Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality Marketing &

Management
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and
subscript ion informat ion:
ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ whmm20

Relationship Between Destination Image

and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists to
Consume Cultural Attractions
a b c
Haywant ee Ramkissoon , Muzaffer Uysal & Keit h Brown
a
Tourism Research Unit , Monash Universit y–Berwick Campus , Narre
Warren, Vict oria, Aust ralia
b
Depart ment of Hospit alit y and Tourism Management , Virginia Tech
Universit y , Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
c
School of Business , Cape Bret on Universit y , Sydney, Nova Scot ia,
Canada
Published online: 01 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Haywant ee Ramkissoon , Muzaffer Uysal & Keit h Brown (2011) Relat ionship
Bet ween Dest inat ion Image and Behavioral Int ent ions of Tourist s t o Consume Cult ural At t ract ions,
Journal of Hospit alit y Market ing & Management , 20:5, 575-595, DOI: 10.1080/ 19368623.2011.570648

To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 19368623.2011.570648

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he
“ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis,
our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o
t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions
and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors,
and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent
should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources
of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s,
proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or
howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising
out of t he use of t he Cont ent .

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s &
 Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s-
and- condit ions
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014
 Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20:575–595, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online
DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2011.570648

Relationship Between Destination Image

and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists
to Consume Cultural Attractions

HAYWANTEE RAMKISSOON
Tourism Research Unit, Monash University–Berwick Campus, Narre Warren,
Victoria, Australia
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

MUZAFFER UYSAL
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, USA

KEITH BROWN
School of Business, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada

The cultural tourism market segment has experienced increas-

ing interest in recent years. This article analyzes the structural
relationship between destination image and cultural behavioral
intentions of tourists using the island of Mauritius as a case study.
Drawing from an extant literature review, a conceptual model
was developed which was tested using data collected from tourists
visiting selected cultural and natural heritage sites of the island.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for analyzing the
results. Findings indicated that destination image is a salient fac-
tor influencing the cultural behavioral intentions of tourists. The
research also attempted to investigate which dimensions of image
had the highest influence on behavioral intentions. Results indi-
cated that the cultural attributes of the island exerted the highest
influence on tourists’ behavioral intentions. The theoretical and
managerial implications of the study are discussed. The study
concludes that destination image remains an integral concept
requiring further investigation to understand the cultural tourist’s
behavior.

Address correspondence to Haywantee Ramkissoon, Tourism Research Unit, Monash

University–Berwick Campus, P. O. Box 1017, Narre Warren, VIC 3805, Australia. E-mail:
haywantee.ramkissoon@monash.edu

575
 576 H. Ramkissoon et al.

KEYWORDS Behavioral intentions, cultural tourism, destination

image, Mauritius

INTRODUCTION

The struggle for competitiveness in the tourism industry has triggered the
growth of several new market segments. Consequently, destinations and
their marketing organizations are committing considerable resources to
enhance their images and attractiveness (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000) to attract
tourists to their destinations (Sirgy & Su, 2000). A key challenge for desti-
nation marketers is to provide a differentiated product to the sophisticated
traveler in search of the new and exotic destination. As a result, the cul-
tural tourism market segment has received considerable attention in the
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

recent years (Andersen, Prentice, & Guerin, 1997) providing opportunities to

diversify the traditional standardized mass tourism product of destinations.
While the tourism literature evidences that several factors influence trav-
elers’ behavior to consume tourism products (Lepp & Gibson, 2008; Hsu,
Tsai, & Wu, 2009), to date, investigations into the determinants of cultural
tourism consumption remains inadequate in the literature. Given the increas-
ing importance of this particular market segment for destinations, additional
research is needed to understand the behavior of cultural tourists in an
attempt to bring further theoretical and practical contributions to this field of
study. This article is an attempt to analyze the role of destination image in
a cultural tourism context. Image of destinations has been found to play an
important role in influencing travel behavior and tourist destination choices
(e.g., Baloglu, 1997; Chon, 1990; S. Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002) and has been
found to be an important factor in the tourist decision-making processes
(Hong, Kim, Jang, & Lee, 2006). This article applies the concept of image to
an island destination (Mauritius) and analyzes whether the image travelers
holds about the destination influences their decision to consume the cultural
and heritage product of the place. It uses the existing literature to postulate
that image can be a reasonable determinant of the behavioral intentions of
tourists to consume cultural products of a destination. For the purpose of
this research, behavioral intention is defined as the intention to revisit or
repurchase and willingness to recommend the cultural tourism product to
others. In investigating the relationship between image and cultural behav-
ioral intentions, this article seeks to lead to a better understanding of the role
of image in a cultural tourism context. It also allows for an understanding of
destination image as a determinant of tourist behavior in island states where
the main tourism product remains the three Ss (sand, sun, and sea), though
interest in the cultural tourism market in such economies has intensified.
This calls for a need for destination marketers of the island to develop effec-
tive cultural tourism marketing plans and strategies to provide high quality
and satisfying cultural experiences to tourists. The conceptual framework of
the research is illustrated in Figure 1.
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 577

Behavioral
intentions
Destination to consume
image cultural
attractions

FIGURE 1 The conceptual framework of the research.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Cultural Tourism Defined
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

During the recent years, cultural tourism has grown both in importance and
in complexity and has become an attractive component of many destina-
tions, a segment which has become favored by millions of holiday makers
(Walle, 1996). Cultural tourism is defined as “tourism constructed, prof-
fered and consumed explicitly or implicitly as cultural appreciation, either as
experiences or schematic knowledge gaining” (Prentice, 2001, p. 8). Much
attention has been paid to the production and consumption processes of
cultural tourism (Edensor, 1998; Gunn, 1988; Leiper, 1990). Its existence
can be attributed to the fact that people want to experience living places
and cultures other than their own environment (Prentice, 2001), in a sense,
driven by curiosity to experience new environments (Wang, 1997). Cultural
tourism has been conceptualized as the transient consumption of aesthetic
difference of the exotic, which occurs in the search for authenticity and
sincerity (MacCannell, 1976; Urry, 1995). Consumption may also be of the
familiar, and not the exotic. Prentice (2001) gave a comprehensive scoping
of cultural tourism both from a consumer and the producer’s perspectives
by considering and expanding on the definition of cultural tourism as given
by Moscardo and Pearce (1999) and Craik (1995). From a consumer’s per-
spective, cultural tourism ranges from settings (Prentice, 2001) to “moments
of involved or experienced authenticity” (Moscardo & Pearce, 1999, p. 418).
From a producer’s perspective, cultural tourism is the marketing of cultural
products to tourists as cultural experiences (Craik, 1995). Cultural tourism is,
hence, viewed to a great extent as experiential consumption. In fact, expe-
riential cultural tourism is therefore all about understanding tourist behavior
in a search for authenticity and sincerity (Prentice, 2001). Cultural attrac-
tions encompass museums, music and dance, gastronomy, festivals, drama,
arts, history, fortifications, monuments amongst many others which may
act as major draws for tourists in quest of authenticity or “the culturally
different.”
In the present study I conceptualized cultural tourism consumption as
behavioral intent to consume cultural products in the focal decision context.
Following Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), Petrick, Morais, and Norman (2001)
 578 H. Ramkissoon et al.

argued that the decision regarding the future intentions of consuming a

product is more salient than the actual consumption of the product. A sim-
ilar argument is shared by Jang, Bai, Hu, and Wu (2009), reflecting the
importance of further research regarding behavioral intent. A review of the
literature depicts that researchers in the field of tourism have often inter-
preted behavioral intentions as the intention to revisit or repurchase and
willingness to recommend the tourism product to others. Ouellette and
Wood (1998) argued that past behavior has been shown to explain future
behavior intentions. S. F. Sonmez and Graefe’s (1998) and Petrick et al.’s
(2001) findings further supported past behavior as a predictor of travelers’
intentions to revisit. This can possibly be explained by the behavioral per-
sistency of travelers (Cialdini, 1988). Lam and Hsu (2006) equally argued
that past behavior enhanced the predictive intentions of travelers to choose
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

Hong Kong as a travel destination. This explains the theory of planned

behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as a valid model to predict behavioral intent. The
theory suggests that behavioral intent signifies motivational components of
the traveler’s behavior representing the degree of conscious efforts that they
will exert to perform that behavior. For example, Ryu and Jang (2006) found
a positive causal relationship between past behavior and tourists’ intention
to consume the local cuisine at travel destinations.
Another significant indicator of favorable postpurchase behavioral
intentions is positive word-of-mouth of the product to others (Boulding,
Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993). Reichheld and Sasser (1990) also regarded
recommendation of the product to others as a specific indicator of future
behavioral intent. Williams and Soutar (2009) argued that this is important in
tourism since it relies on positive word-of-mouth for new business. Zeithaml,
Berry, and Parasuraman (1993) emphasized that consequently these are pri-
mary means of information for consumers. Tourists who had a satisfactory
experience are more likely to recommend the destinations they have visited
to friends and relatives (Beeho & Prentice, 1997). Convergent with this find-
ing, Hutchinson, Lai, and Wang (2009) further argued that tourists who have
revisit intentions are more likely to recommend the destination to others.
Liu and Jang (2009) in their investigation of postdining behavioral intentions
used word-of-mouth, recommendation, and repeat purchase as indicators.
In view of this, behavioral intention seems to be an important con-
cept in understanding tourist choice of tourism products and future motives
and behavior. From this perspective, any attempt to understand behav-
ioral intention will bring further contribution to the tourism knowledge
base. Given this, the process through which individuals decide on the
consumption of the cultural tourism product is an important theme to be
considered in tourism marketing research. Tourists’ intentions to consume
cultural resources of a destination remain a complex process that needs to
be well studied for the successful promotion of cultural tourism. Destination
marketers seeking to market their cultural and heritage products should
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 579

understand how destination image affects tourists’ cultural behavioral inten-

tions. Within the scope of this research, I attempt to investigate destination
image as a salient factor influencing tourists to visit a destination for its
cultural attractiveness.

Destination Image
Researchers provide a wealth of studies on destination image and related
aspects (e.g., C. Chen & Tsai, 2007; Pike & Ryan, 2004; Stepchenkova &
Morrison, 2006, 2008; Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007; Yuksel & Akgul,
2007). The concept of image plays a fundamental role in promoting tourist
destinations. Crompton (1979) defined destination image as an attitudinal
concept consisting of the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

tourist holds of a destination. Destination image is regarded as a multidi-

mensional construct by several scholars (e.g., Lawson & Baud-Bovy, 1977;
Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006). This view was further supported by Blain,
Levy, and Ritchie (2005), in contemplating that the image of a destination
is intended to convey the overall idea or experience that the visitor can
expect at the destination. It can include common functional and psycholog-
ical traits or more distinguishing or unique features, events, feelings, and
auras (Govers, Go, & Kumar, 2007a). These conceptualizations suggest that
destination image is complex in nature, involving many aspects that eventu-
ally contribute to the formation of the total image in the mind of the travelers
(Govers et al., 2007b).
The analysis of destination image more recently further investigated
the experiential dimension of tourism consumption as behavioral elements,
along with the cognitive and affective elements (e.g., Pike & Ryan, 2004;
White, 2004). This is particularly relevant for cultural tourism since the lat-
ter is experiential in nature, where the consumption is an end in itself but
whereby destination image can play a significant role. Destination image
has become a crucial aspect of destination marketing strategies (Chon, 1990;
Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002), thus making it an important arena of
research due to its intrinsic multidimensionality (Hunter, 2008). As noted by
Kim and Richardson (2003), it has emerged as a pivotal marketing concept in
the tourism industry. It is considered by marketing and tourism researchers
as one of the most important and influential factors in consumers’ destination
selection process (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a).
Tapachai and Waryzak (2000) argued that very few studies have ana-
lyzed those dimensions of image that affect decisions to visit particular
places. However, most recently quite a few studies have investigated the
dominant factors that affect destination formation (Beerli & Martin, 2004;
G. H. Lee, Cai, & O’Leary, 2006; Mercille, 2005; Ramkissoon, Nunkoo, &
Gursoy, 2009). Researchers have conceptualized destination image as
cognitive and affective image components (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a;
 580 H. Ramkissoon et al.

S. Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Affective image components reflect the feelings
of the tourist about a destination (Lin, Morais, Kerstetter, & Hou, 2007) while
the cognitive image as argued by Pike and Ryan (2004) focuses on the tangi-
ble aspects hence consisting of beliefs and knowledge about the destination.
Lin et al. (2007) further concluded that the strength of the affective and cog-
nitive attributes give rise to unique destination images in the minds of the
tourists. A number of empirical studies found a strong and direct association
between travelers’ perceived image of the destination and their destination
choices (Bojanic, 1991; Gartner, 1989; G. H. Lee, O’Leary, & Hong, 2002;
Milman & Pizam, 1995). Visitors are conditioned by the image they have of
the destination with more positive and favorable images influencing their
choice of destinations (Chi & Qu, 2008). Several authors (e.g., Alhemoud &
Armstrong, 1996; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Johnson & Thomas, 1992) simi-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

larly posited that destinations with stronger positive images have a higher
probability of inducing the potential visitor to choose the destination. As
a result, this gives rise to an increase in the already intense competition
among destinations (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Buhalis, 2000). Uysal,
Chen, and Williams (2000) further noted that some places may require
increasing their supply resources to match the demand thus providing an
enhanced image of the destinations. Indeed, as mentioned by Chaudhary
(2000) and Fakeye and Crompton (1991), effective destination positioning
strategies are often used to appeal to potential visitors. One such exam-
ple is the development of a competitive image and positioning strategy for
the city of Macau (Choi, Lehto, & Morrison, 2007). Additionally, it should
be noted that tourists’ intentions to revisit destinations in the future largely
depend on their positive perception of the destination (Bojanic, 1991; Chi &
Qu, 2008). Their individual subjective perception determines their subse-
quent behavior and destination choice (Chon, 1990; 1992; Echtner & Ritchie,
1991). Their prepurchase images combined with their postpurchase percep-
tion of the destination influence their attitudes towards the latter (Goodrich,
1977). It is therefore important to identify the image held in the minds of
visitors. Interestingly, Shani, Wang, Hudson, and Gil (2010) argued that the
image in historical films have a positive influence on tourists’ desire and like-
lihood to visit a destination. Shani, Chen, Wang, and Hua (2010) in studying
the prepurchase and postpurchase perception of China as a destination con-
cluded that the postpurchase results showed significant improvements in
their future behavioral intentions to visit China. Beerli and Martin (2004)
equally noted the importance of past experience as a significant factor
predicting destination image.
The need for more research is required to deepen the understanding of
destination image in influencing tourist travel behavior. Consequently, the
present study proposes to explore destination image as a determinant of
tourists’ behavioral intentions to consume cultural tourism attractions. From
the preceding discussion it can be contended that the concept of destination
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 581

image has a crucial importance in cultural tourism and helps to understand

the cultural tourists’ behavior. The latter discussion informs the following
proposition:
Destination image has a positive influence on tourists’ behavioral
intentions to consume cultural attractions.

METHODOLOGY

Using the island of Mauritius as a case study, this article focuses on under-
standing the role that destination image plays in influencing the future
behavioral intentions of tourists in the consumption of the island’s cultural
tourism product. The modeling objective impelled a preliminary first stage
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

qualitative survey to help build on the main survey design. Considerable

effort was expended in the design of the qualitative survey. The content
of the questions was determined based on a detailed literature review on
destination image and cultural tourism. Ten renowned natural and cultural
heritage sites of the island were identified and were further categorized
into site types, namely: religious sites, museums, markets, industrial heritage
sites, built heritage sites, commercial redevelopment, gardens, and natural
heritage sites. This reflected the different cultural attributes of the island.
Semistructured interviews were carried out with a total of 40 tourists across
the sites. The length of the interviews varied from 25 to 35 minutes each.
The interviews were tape-recorded with the consent of the participants. The
recorded information was transcribed into keyword written notes on the
same day of the interview to ensure that all the conversational data were
captured while the interview sessions were still fresh in the mind of the
interviewer. Each interview was individually tailored to elicit rich informa-
tion where respondents freely expressed their ideas and opinions. Hence,
the attributes most appropriate to the research to further design the main
survey were extracted.
The next stage of the research adopted a structured approach con-
sisting of a survey questionnaire. Since the structural equation modeling
(SEM) technique was employed to test the proposed structural model, sam-
ple size plays an important role. In general, there is no correct sample size
and larger samples are always preferable. However, it is suggested that in
SEM the sample size should be 100 to 400 to ensure its appropriate use
(Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006). A usable sample size of 300 or greater was
targeted to ensure the solution for the structural model. This involved divid-
ing the population where the numbers at each site would reflect an equal
number in the sample. A total number of 300 usable questionnaires was gen-
erated. Tourists visiting the sites were approached on a next-to-pass basis
and were explained the purpose of the study. Once a person refused to par-
ticipate, the next person was asked to participate. The survey instrument was
 582 H. Ramkissoon et al.

a survey questionnaire scheduled for self-completion by the visitors. They

were asked to work sequentially through the schedule under the supervision
of the researcher. This allowed the latter to take the respondents through the
questions if necessary. Exit surveys at all sites were considered impractical
since visitors were often observed to be hurrying by at that point. It was also
observed that there were souvenir sellers waiting for the tourists at the exits
of some of the sites making it busy and therefore difficult to survey. The
fieldwork was undertaken in the months of January, February, and March
2009 in all types of weather. If the weather was wet, several respondents
were observed to be under the shelters at the sites. They were approached
and requested for their participation in the survey.
Schedules consisted of three sections and were available in three lan-
guages: English, French, and German. The first section of the questionnaire
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

included a 15-item destination image scale. Destination image was oper-

ationalized as the general attributes of image at a destination, and was
developed from a comprehensive review of previous literature and the
employment of the qualitative research findings from the semistructured
interviews with tourists in the preliminary survey. A total of 15 items were
generated from the aforementioned survey. These were rated on a 5-point
Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The items,
good value for money, a lot of cultural attractions/cultural attractiveness, and
interesting cultural attractions were adapted from Baloglu and Mangaloglu
(2001) and Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b) and adapted to the present
study. These were also revealed in the preliminary survey. It should addi-
tionally be noted that the item cultural attractiveness has also been used in
Castro, Armario, and Ruiz (2007) destination image scale. The item nice to
learn about local customs was adopted and slightly modified from Baloglu
and Mangaloglu (2001) for the purpose of this study. Spectacular scenic land-
scape was adapted from Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b), Beerli and
Martin (2004), and Tapachai and Waryszak (2000) and was slightly modified
in the light of the qualitative findings. Rich and varied gastronomy and great
variety of flora and fauna were equally derived from Beerli and Martin (2004)
and were adapted to the study. Furthermore, famous destination, pleasant
weather, exotic destination were adopted from Castro et al. (2007). The lat-
ter items were equally reflected in the qualitative findings of the preliminary
survey. Different cultures at one destination were derived from the qualita-
tive survey showing that culture was an important factor for the visitors. This
measurement item was also supported by Baloglu and Mangaloglu (2001),
Govers et al. (2007a, 2007b), and G. Lee and Lee (2009) who used cul-
ture as an item in the measurement of destination image. The item peaceful
place to rest was elicited from the preliminary qualitative findings and is in
line with Tapachai and Waryszak (2000) measurement item calm. Hospitable
people, gathered from the qualitative findings, was in line with Baloglu and
Mangaloglu (2001), Beerli and Martin (2004), and G. Lee and Lee (2009).
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 583

Finally, items safety and security and easy accessibility were adopted from
Castro et al. (2007) and Chi and Qu (2008), respectively. Construct reliability
of the destination imagery measurement scale was assessed using the reli-
ability and validity measure of internal consistency through a pretest. The
slight modifications included the rewording of some items, which was based
on the judgment of tourism professors in the field of tourism research. The
reworded items were further validated by other tourism researchers to check
readability and consistency within the Mauritian context.
The second section of the questionnaire presented a 5-item scale to
measure the tourists’ behavioral intentions to consume cultural attractions.
These items have been defined in the light of literature and adapted to the
present study. Item 1, If I can, I have the intention of coming back to this
cultural destination, and Item 5, I would give good references of this cultural
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

destination to others, are consistent with C. Chen and Tsai (2007) where
behavioral intentions was operationalized as “the visitor’s judgment about
the likeliness to revisit the same destination or the willingness to recommend
the destination to others” (2007, p. 1116). This was equally consistent with
González, Comesana, and Brea (2007), which also reflected the other items
that have been slightly modified and adapted to the study. These items were,
I would encourage my family and friends to come and I would continue to
come even if the prices were higher. The item I want to visit this cultural
destination has been employed and slightly modified from Lam and Hsu
(2006). The destination image measurement scale was further validated by
other tourism researchers to check readability. The last section of the survey
questionnaire consisted of questions relating to the demographic profile of
the tourists.
Following the scale development process, it was also necessary to con-
duct a pretest of the scale items to ensure construct validity of the survey
instrument. Since the scale items were adopted from previous studies in
literature and slightly modified, it was important to validate the measure-
ment items. The questionnaire was pretested with a sample of 115 tourists
visiting Le Gorges National Park, a renowned cultural and natural heritage
attraction of the island. This sample size met the ratio criteria for the scales
measured by maintaining a ratio of at least five responses for every one
variable in each of the scales measured. Permission to conduct the survey
was obtained from the management of the park prior to conducting the sur-
vey. Firstly, a preliminary data analysis was performed by using a Cronbach
reliability test on the pretest survey data (N = 115) and if alpha was high
(0.50 or higher; Zaichkowsky, 1985), this suggested that the constructs were
reliable. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the questionnaire
constructs in the pretest ranged from 0.67 to 0.80, which exceeded the rec-
ommended level of 0.50. This suggested that the questionnaire was internally
consistent and provided an initial indication that the proposed scales were
reliable. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then used to detect scale
 584 H. Ramkissoon et al.

dimensionality. It is widely utilized and broadly applied in social sciences

(Costello & Osborne, 2005). One of the main goals was to establish a few
representative items from a large number of intercorrelated measures for the
measurement of a construct. Using the pilot study data, an exploratory fac-
tor analysis using principal component method with varimax rotation was
conducted for the two constructs to examine their dimensionalities. Also,
the Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity
were examined to determine the appropriateness of factor analysis. Kaiser
(1974) recommended accepting values greater than 0.5 as acceptable. To
ensure whether each factor identified by EFA has only one dimension and
each attribute loads only on one factor, a significant Bartlett’s test of spheric-
ity is also required. Attributes with a loading factor of less than .40 were
eliminated from the analysis (J. S. Chen & Hsu, 2001) and only factors with
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

eigenvalues of equal to or greater than 1.0 were extracted for further analysis
(Child, 1970). The two items peaceful place to rest and hospitable people
from the destination image measurement scale were deleted since they had
double loadings. The item, I would continue to come even if the prices
were higher in the behavioral intentions scale was also deleted since it had
a factor loading less than 0.40. It was concluded that the destination image
construct would be measured by 13 items retained out of the 15 items, and
the behavioral intentions construct would be measured with four retained
items of the initially proposed list of five.

RESULTS

A total of 300 questionnaires were used for the main survey analysis. Out
of the 320 collected questionnaires 20 were eliminated as the data were
being coded because they were incomplete. The demographic characteris-
tics of tourists surveyed in this study were measured by their country of
origin, gender, age, marital status, current position, and job type (Table 1).
Results indicated that the main market segment was Europe, accounting for
87% of the total number of tourists. This fits with the general statistics from
Central Statistical Office (2009), reflecting Europe as the main source mar-
ket for the island. The surveyed respondents comprised of 49.3% of male
and 50.7% of female, with the majority being married (60%). The majority
of the respondents were found to be between 30 and 39 years old. Results
further indicated that the tourists were mostly white-collar workers. Also, it
was noted that most visitors (83%) were on their first trip to the island.
Since the study was context-specific, it was decided to rerun an
exploratory factor analysis on the constructs with the main sample size
(N = 300) for scale refinement. The factors for destination image were
factor analyzed using a principal components analysis with varimax rota-
tion to identify any underlying dimension. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 585

TABLE 1 Profile of Survey Sample Population (N = 300)

Dimension Frequency Valid %

Country of origin
Europeans 261 87
France 135 45
United Kingdom 74 24.7
Germany 36 12
Spain 5 1.7
Italy 4 1.3
Holland 3 1
Czech Republic 2 .6
Switzerland 2 .6
Non-Europeans 39 13
India 25 8.3
Reunion Island 8 2.7
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

South Africa 3 1
Japan 1 .3
Egypt 1 .3
Pakistan 1 .3
Gender
Male 148 49.3
Female 152 50.7
Age
15 or younger 3 1
16–19 5 1.7
20–29 78 26
30–39 88 29.3
40–49 69 23
50–59 30 10
60 or over 27 9
Marital status
Now married 180 60
Widowed 7 2.3
Divorced 24 8
Separated 6 2
Never married 43 14.3
Living together 40 13.3
Social profile of respondents
White-collar workers 266 88.7
Skilled/manual workers 16 5.3
Unemployed (students, 18 6
homemaker, not in
employment)
Travel characteristics
First-timers 249 83
Repeaters 51 17

of sample adequacy (.746) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (0.000) indi-
cated that the data was acceptable to conduct exploratory factor analysis.
Four components were extracted explaining 62.82% of the variance. The
coefficient reliability was calculated for each and ranged from .650 to .827,
reflecting that they were all reliable (Table 2). Four factors were extracted
 586 H. Ramkissoon et al.

TABLE 2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Destination Image

Factor Explained Reliability

Factors loading Eigenvalue variance % coefficient

Destination Image 1 4.008 30.83 .715

Learn about local customs .783
Great variety of flora and fauna .742
Different cultures at one destination .791
Spectacular scenic landscape .812
Destination Image 2 1.561 12.01 .827
Cultural attractiveness .874
Interesting cultural activities .870
Destination Image 3 1.444 11.10 .698
Exotic destination .809
Famous destination .780
Pleasant weather .727
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

Destination Image 4 1.154 8.88 .650

Easy accessibility .734
Safety and security .719
Good value for money .641
Rich and varied gastronomy .542
Total variance explained 62.82
Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.746; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p = 0.000.

and were labeled as Destination Image 1, Destination Image 2, Destination

Image 3, and Destination Image 4. The four factors were treated as indicators
retained for further analysis.
Using a principal components analysis with varimax rotation,
exploratory factor analysis was run on the behavioral intentions construct.
Only one component was extracted explaining 59.18% of the total variance.
The reliability coefficient was .754 (Table 3) showing that this construct can
be retained for further analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis was further employed to test the
measurement structures of destination image and behavioral intentions. The
chi-square value for the destination image (summated scale) construct was

TABLE 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Behavioral Intentions

Factor Explained Reliability

Factors loading Eigenvalue variance coefficient

Behavioral intentions 2.367 59.18 .754

Would give good reference to .857
others (BI1)
Want to visit this cultural .786
destination (BI2)
Would encourage family and .763
friends to come (BI3)
I have the intention of coming .658
back (BI4)
Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.743; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p = 0.000.
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 587

7.80 (df = 2, p = .020). The goodness of fit indices reflected an acceptable

fit with an RMSEA of 0.09, which was slightly higher than the threshold of
.08 but met the requirement of a moderate good fit of .10 (Byrne, 1998).
The other goodness-of-fit indices were all above their cut-off values with
the comparative fit index (CFI = .97), the goodness of fit index (GFI = .99),
and the incremental fit index (IFI = .97) and the adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI = .94). Overall, the four indicators for the destination image
construct were retained for further analysis.
A total of four items labeled as Behavioral Intentions 1, Behavioral
Intentions 2, Behavioral Intentions 3, and Behavioral Intentions 4 were
utilized to evaluate whether the collected data fit the model of tourists’
behavioral intentions to consume cultural attractions. The results of the esti-
mation of the CFA reflected a well-fitting model with a chi-square value of
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

3.34, df = 2, RMSEA = .047, and a root mean square residual (RMR) = .01.
Other fit indices (GFI = .99, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, the Normed Fit
Index [NFI] = .99, the Non-Normed Fit Index [NNFI] = .99), AGFI = .97)
reflected good fits. These goodness-of-fit indices indicate a good model fit
(Shumacker & Lomax, 2006).
The proposed relationship was tested using structural equation model-
ing (SEM). The strength of the model was determined using appropriate
statistics and measurement model fits. Assessment of the overall mea-
surement model using the 2 constructs destination image and behavioral
intentions with a total of 8 indicators (Destination Image 1, Destination
Image 2, Destination Image 3, Destination Image 4, Behavioral Intentions 1,
Behavioral Intentions 2, Behavioral Intentions 3, Behavioral Intentions 4)
revealed that the data reasonably fitted the model. The LISREL 8.80 struc-
tural equation package with the maximum likelihood method of estimation
was used. The goodness-of-fit indices indicated a chi-square value of 33.42
with df = 19 (p = 0.02). The value of the GFI was reported at .97 being
indicative of a good fit according to Byrne (1998) and Hu and Bentler (1995).
The RMR represented a value of .02, which equally met the requirement of a
well-fitting model. Byrne (1998) noted that RMR should be close to .05 and
less. The value of the RMSEA (.05) was within the acceptable level for this
hypothesized measurement model (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996;
Mueller, 1996). The AGFI value was .95 representing a well-fitted model
(Byrne, 1998). The NNFI value of .96 and NFI value of .95 were accepted
since they represented an adequate fit to the data (Hooper, Cooghlan, &
Mullen, 2008). Further, all indicators’ loadings indicated significant t values
ranging well above +1.96. In view of the statistical goodness-of-fit indices,
it was concluded that the hypothesized model was reliable and valid for
further analysis using SEM.
The structural model with path estimates is shown in Figure 2.
Consequently, the results of the structural model supported the proposi-
tion that destination image has a positive influence on tourists’ behavioral
 588 H. Ramkissoon et al.

IMG1A
0.78
IMG1B
0.74
IMG1
IMG1C 0.79
BI1
0.81 b = .52; t = 5.72; p < 0.01
IMG1D
0.86
IMG2A 0.87
IMG2
0.79 BI2
0.87
IMG2B b = .58; t = 6.16; p < 0.01 BI
0.76
IMG3A
0.81 b = .28; t = 3.78; p < 0.05 BI3
IMG3B 0.78
0.73 IMG3 0.66
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

IMG3C
BI4
IMG4A
0.73 b = .23; t = 3.16; p < 0.05
IMG4B
0.72
IMG4
IMG4C 0.64

IMG4D 0.54

FIGURE 2 The structural model.

intentions to consume cultural attractions. Results of the structural model

revealed a chi-square value of 33.42 with df = 19 (p < .05). The other
goodness-of-fit statistics suggested that it was an acceptable and fairly well-
fitting model to the data (GFI = .97, RMSR = .02, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .05,
AGFI = .94, NFI = .95, NNFI = .95). As noted, the different components of
image were good predictors of behavioral intention of travelers. However,
Destination Image 1 and Destination Image 2 were found to have the most
significant influence on the cultural behavioral intentions of tourists. This is
indicated by the higher beta coefficients and t values (Destination Image 1:
b = .52, t = 5.72, p < .01; Destination Image 2: b = .58, t = 6.16, p < .01).

Discussion and Implications

The literature related to destination image has well reflected the influence
of this construct on tourist’s behavior (Bigné, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001;
Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; C. Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005). However, C. Lee et al.
(2005) further argued that though there is a general consensus among schol-
ars regarding the influence of destination image on tourists’ behavior, little
empirical research has been conducted indicative of knowledge gaps yet to
be addressed (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Destination image literature has
focused mostly on the pretrip decision-making process (e.g., Gartner, 1989;
Mathieson & Wall, 1982) when in fact there is a dearth of empirical studies on
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 589

the influence of destination image on postdecision behavior (C. Lee at al.,

2005). In an attempt to bridge the gap in literature, this study attempted
to test the structural relationship between destination image and cultural
behavioral intentions.
The empirical findings from the structural relationship analysis indi-
cated that destination image appears to have a significant effect on future
behavioral intentions of tourists to consume cultural attractions. This find-
ing is consistent with C. Chen and Tsai (2007) who argued that destination
image conditions the after decision-making behavior of tourists. In other
words it has an influence on their future behavioral intentions. Bigné et al.
(2001) in their investigation of tourism image and postpurchase behavioral
intentions further emphasized that destination image is not limited only to
destination choice but affects the behavioral intentions of tourists in gen-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

eral. Several researchers have argued that tourists’ destination image may
be enriched or changed after their trip (Li & Vogelsong, 2006; Martin &
Bosque, 2008). Mansfeld (1992) also argued that destination image influ-
ences future intentions to revisit and willingness to recommend. Knowing
what visitors think about a destination therefore is very important in prod-
uct development and marketing (Trojan, 2005). From the cultural tourism
perspective, the analysis of the relationship between destination image and
tourists’ behavioral intentions to consume cultural attractions confirmed that
the image of the destination would be a determinant of future intentions
of tourists in cultural tourism consumption. It can be argued that tourists
having a favorable image of the cultural attractions they are consuming
would perceive their onsite experience positively which in turn would
lead to greater cultural behavioral intentions. A positive image of the des-
tination may lead to revisitation (intention to return) and willingness to
recommend.
Besides investigating the relationship between overall image and cul-
tural behavioral intentions, the research also attempted to study those
components of image that had the highest influence on tourists’ behavioral
intentions. Given that few researchers have analyzed the influence of spe-
cific destination attributes on decision-making (Tapachai & Waryszak, 2000),
the study contributed to those studies that investigated those dimensions
of image influencing behavior of travelers. Results from the SEM analy-
sis indicated that attributes in factor Destination Image 1 (learn about the
local customs, great variety of flora and fauna, different cultures at one des-
tination, spectacular scenic landscape) and Destination Image 2 (cultural
attractiveness, interesting cultural activities) had the highest influence on
tourists’ cultural behavioral intentions. Such image attributes have also been
widely studied in the literature and are considered to be the most com-
mon ones in tourist destination image studies (Gallarza et al., 2002). These
results are encouraging for the tourism marketing authorities of the island.
Findings suggest that the destination marketing organizations attempting
 590 H. Ramkissoon et al.

to promote the cultural attributes of the island should attempt to mar-

ket these attributes to potential travelers. Tourism brochures and other
information sources should be designed specifically to provide informa-
tion on the island’s culture, landscape, diversity, local customs and flora
and fauna. Such provision of information on the cultural attributes of the
island is likely to induce a positive image in the minds of potential travel-
ers. Destination managers should attempt to improve or build the image
of the destination to facilitate loyal visitors or recommending behavior.
This further implies that destination marketers should develop and pur-
sue a cultural image-development agenda, by focusing on those image
attributes that had the highest influence on cultural behavioral intentions
of tourists.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

CONCLUSION

Tourist behavior has been viewed as an important research arena both in

academia and in the tourism industry. This study developed and empirically
tested a structural model that attempts to investigate the influence of desti-
nation image on cultural behavioral intentions of tourists. It is hoped that the
focus of tourism policy would be on the best use of the island’s resources
to enhance the image of the cultural tourism product thus enabling the
island to gain a competitive advantage in the global market place. From
these discussions, this study may conclude that the cultural tourism sector in
island destinations can help to increase visitor numbers significantly. Since
the development of the cultural tourism industry in island destinations is
relatively new as compared to developed countries, it is expected that the
exploratory findings of this study would assist producers of cultural tourism,
tourism marketers and planners to develop appropriate strategies to pro-
mote and market cultural tourism. It is expected that this research study has
provided further insights of destination image as a determinant of future
behavioral intentions of tourists in a cultural tourism context. Nevertheless,
one of the main limitations of the study is that it did not attempt to inves-
tigate the affective image components. This needs to be considered as an
essential suggestion for future research.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alhemoud, A. M., & Armstrong, E. G. (1996). Image of tourism attractions in Kuwait.
Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 76–80.
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 591

Andersen, V., Prentice, R., & Guerin, S. (1997). Imagery of Denmark among visitors
to Danish fine arts exhibitions in Scotland. Tourism Management, 18, 453–464.
Baloglu, S. (1997). The relationship between destination images and sociodemo-
graphic and trip characteristics of international travelers. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 3, 221–233.
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Greece
and Italy as perceived by U.S.-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism
Management, 22, 1–9.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999a). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868–897.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999b). U.S. international pleasure travelers’ images
of four Mediterranean destinations: A comparison of visitors and nonvisitors.
Journal of Travel Research, 38, 144–152.
Beeho, A. J., & Prentice, R. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

tourists: A case of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism Management,

18(2), 75–87.
Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31, 657–681.
Bigné, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluations
variables and after purchase behavior. Tourism Management, 22, 607–616.
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights
and practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel
Research, 43, 328–338.
Bojanic, D. D. (1991). The use of advertising in managing destination image.
Tourism Management, 12, 352–355.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process
model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal
of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21, 97–116.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:
basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Castro, C. B., Armario, M., & Ruiz, M. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity
on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behavior.
Tourism Management, 28, 175–187.
Central Statistics Office. (2009). Economic and social indicators: International travel
and tourism (Issue No. 781). Port-Louis, Mauritius: Ministry of Finance and
Economic Empowerment.
Chaudhary, M. (2000). India’s image as a tourist destination: A perspective of foreign
tourists. Tourism Management, 21, 293–297.
Chen, C., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioural intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115–1122.
Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2001). Developing and validating a riverboat gaming
impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 459–476.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destina-
tion image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach.
Tourism Management, 29, 624–636.
 592 H. Ramkissoon et al.

Child, D. (1970). The essentials of factor analysis. New York, NY: Holt.
Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Destination image representa-
tion on the Web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism
Management, 28, 118–129.
Chon, K. S. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review and
discussion. Tourism Review, 45, 12–19.
Chon, K. S. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: An extension. Tourism
Review, 47(1), 2–8.
Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Costello, A., C., & Osborne, J., W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor anal-
ysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Craik, J. (1995). Are there cultural limits to tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
3(2), 87–98.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation desti-

nation and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of
Travel Research, 17, 18–23.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of
destination image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2–12.
Edensor, T. (1998). Tourists at the Taj: Performance and meaning at a symbolic site.
London, England: Routledge.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective
first-time and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel
Research, 30(2), 10–16.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image toward a
conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.
Gartner, W. (1989). Tourism image attribute measurement of state tourism products
using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2),
16–20.
González, M. E. A., Comesana, L. R., & Brea, J. A. F (2007). Assessing tourist behav-
ioral intentions through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction.
Journal of Business Research, 60, 153–160.
Goodrich, J. N. (1977). A new approach to image analysis through multidimensional
scaling. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 3–7.
Govers, R., Go, F., & Kumar, K. (2007a). Virtual destination image: A new
measurement approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 977–997.
Govers, R., Go, F., & Kumar, K. (2007b). Promoting tourism destination image.
Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 14–23.
Gunn, C. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Hong, S., Kim, J., Jang, H., & Lee, S. (2006). The roles of categorization, affec-
tive image and constraints on destination choice: An application of the NMNL
model. Tourism Management, 27, 750–761.
Hooper, D., Cooghlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination person-
ality: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 638–642.
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 593

Hsu, T, Tsai, Y., & Wu, H. (2009). The preference analysis for tourist choice of
destination: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 30, 288–297.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application (pp. 1–15). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunter, W. C. (2008). A typology of photographic representations for tourism:
Depictions of groomed spaces. Tourism Management, 29, 354–365.
Hutchinson, J., Lai, F., & Wang, Y. (2009). Understanding the relationships of qual-
ity, value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers.
Tourism Management, 30, 298–308.
Jang, S., Bai, B., Hu, C., & Wu, C. E. (2009). Affect, travel motivation, and travel
intention: A senior market. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(1),
51–73.
Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1992). The analysis of choice and demand in tourism.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

In P. Johnson, & B. Thomas (Eds.), Choice and demand in tourism (pp. 1–12).
London, England: Mansell.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion pictures impacts on destination images.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 216–237.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel
destination. Tourism Management, 27, 589–599.
Lawson, F., & Baud-Bovy, M. (1977). Tourism and recreational development.
London, England: Architectural Press.
Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002
world cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 839–858.
Lee, G., & Lee, C. (2009). Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived
by Korean and Japanese leisure travelers: Importance-performance analysis.
Tourism Management, 30, 922–931.
Lee, G. H., Cai, L. A., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). www.branding.states.US: An anal-
ysis of brand-building elements in the U.S. state tourism Web sites. Tourism
Management, 27, 815–828.
Lee, G. H., O’Leary, J. T., & Hong, G. S. (2002). Visiting propensity predicted by
destination image: German long-haul pleasure travelers to US. International
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(2), 63–92.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourists attractions system. Annals of Tourism Research, 17,
367–384.
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2008). Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role,
perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29,
740–750.
Li, X., & Vogelsong, H. (2006). Comparing methods of measuring image change: A
case study of a small-scale community festival. Tourism Analysis, 10, 349–360.
Lin, C., Morais, D., Kerstetter, D., & Hou, J. (2007). Examining the role of cognitive
and affective image in predicting choice across natural, developed, and theme-
park destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 183–194.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: What
affects customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 28, 338–348.
 594 H. Ramkissoon et al.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. London,
England: MacMilan.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research,
19, 399–419.
Martin, H. S., & Bosque, I. A. R. D. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29, 263–277.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
New York, NY: Longman Scientific and Technical.
Mercille, J. (2005). Media effects on image: The case of Tibet. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(4), 1039–1055.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a
destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 21–27.
Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. L. (1999). Understanding ethnic tourists. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 416–434.
Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduc-
tion to LISREL and EQs. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The mul-
tiple process by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.
Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C. (2001). An examination of the deter-
minants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Research, 40, 41–48.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison
of cognitive, affective and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42,
333–342.
Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential cultural tourism: Museums and the marketing
of the new romanticism of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 19(1), 5–26.
Ramkissoon, H., Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2009). How consumption values influ-
ence destination image formation. In A. G. Woodside, C. M. Megehee, & A. Ogle
(Eds.), Advances in culture, tourism and hospitality research: Perspectives on
cross-cultural, ethnographic, brand image, storytelling, unconscious needs, and
hospitality guest research (Vol. 3, pp. 143–168). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to service.
Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105–111.
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Critical issues and
new developments. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41–71.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: A sustainability
perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1–7.
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel des-
tination: The modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 30, 507–516.
 Destination Image and Behavioral Intentions of Tourists 595

Shani, A., Chen, P., Wang, Y., & Hua, N. (2010). Testing the impact of a promo-
tional video on destination image change: Application of China as a tourism
destination. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 116–133.
Shani, A., Wang, Y., Hudson, S., & Gil, S. M. (2010). Impacts of a historical film
on the destination image of South America. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15,
229–242.
Shumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2006). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision
making by travelers. Tourism Management, 26, 815–832.
Sirgy, M., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self congruity and travel behavior:
Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340–352.
Sonmez, S., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorted destination image? The case of Turkey.
Journal of Travel Research, 41, 185–196.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 02:45 02 May 2014

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past
travel experience and perception of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research,
37, 171–177.
Stepchenkova, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2006). The destination image of Russia: From
the online induced perspective. Tourism Management, 27, 943–956.
Stepchenkova, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2008). Russia’s destination image
among American pleasure travelers: Revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tourism
Management, 29, 548–560.
Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial image
in tourist destination selection. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 37–44.
Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Measurement of desti-
nation brand using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28,
1529–1540.
Trojan, R. N. (2005). Tourism research and performance reporting. In R. Harrill
(Eds.), Fundamentals of destination management and marketing (pp. 49–74).
Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Lodging Association.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. London, England: Routledge.
Uysal, M., Chen, J. S., & Williams, D. R. (2000). Increasing state market share through
a regional positioning. Tourism Management, 21, 89–96.
Walle, A. H. (1996). Habits of thoughts and cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23, 874–890.
Wang, N. (1997). Vernacular House as an attraction: Illustration from Hutong tourism
in Beijing. Tourism Management, 18, 573–580.
White, C. J. (2004). Destination image: To see or not to see? International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 309–314.
Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value satisfaction and behavioral intentions in
an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 413–438.
Yuksel, A., & Akgul, O. (2007). Postcards as affective image makers: An idle agent
in destination marketing. Tourism Management, 28, 714–725.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants
of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy and Marketing
Science, 21(1), 1–12.