Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/ International versus Domestic Visitors: An Examination of Destination Image Perceptions

Mark A. Bonn, Sacha M. Joseph and Mo Dai Journal of Travel Research 2005 43: 294 DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272033 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/294

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/294.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 5, 2005 What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

FEBRUARY 10.1177/0047287504272033 JOURNAL OF 2005 TRAVEL RESEARCH

International versus Domestic Visitors: An Examination of Destination Image Perceptions

MARK A. BONN, SACHA M. JOSEPH, and MO DAI Potential tourists use various destination attributes to aid in destination image formation. Destination environmental attributes related to the actual product or site have been shown to influence destination image. These environmental attributes can be grouped into two subcategoriesdestination atmospherics and destination service. This study identified significant differences in the ratings of these two categories when comparing three groups of visitors to Florida: Florida (in-state) residents, U.S. domestic (non-Florida), and international. Understanding destination images that past visitors hold about a particular destination may provide useful insights into understanding existing images about that destination and can aid in the development of positioning strategies to alter or maintain these images. This study offers a first step in examining the varying perceptions visitors can hold about a destination based on their country of origin. Keywords: destination image perceptions; international travelers, destination atmospherics and services Tourism as a business has grown into one of the largest income generators worldwide, representing more than 10.2% of world GDP and more than 194 million industry jobs worldwide (World Travel and Tourism Council 2003). With this increased monetary success, the market has expanded and grown into a fiercely competitive arena with tourism destination marketing organizations spanning the globe to attract customers to their respective destinations (Sirgy and Su 2000). In 1995, 576 million people visited international tourism destinations and generated $373 billion in international tourist receipts. The U.S. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries has estimated that the number of international visitors to the United States is approximately 47 million annually with annual receipts totaling as high as $82.3 billion in 2000. Due, however, to terrorism, war, worldwide recession, and recent difficulties with the visa issuance process, international tourist expenditures declined by nearly 15% to $70.3 billion in 2002 (U.S. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries 2002). Now, more than ever, research needs to be conducted on international travelers to better understand their related consumer behavior issues. To take full advantage of this lucrative market, tourism managers are inclined to promote destination images that are intended to maximize site patronage. Extant literature has shown that destination image has a direct causal impact on travel behavior and is a valuable concept when investigating the destination selection process (e.g., Backman and Crompton 1991; Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Goodall 1990; Gartner 1993; Hu and Ritchie 1993; Riley 1995). Potential tourists use various destination attributes to aid in destination image formation. These attributes can take the form of both controllable attributes (destination product, price, place, and promotion) and uncontrollable attributes (personal characteristics; Sirgy and Su 2000). In particular, destination environmental attributes related to the actual product or site have been shown to influence destination image. These environmental attributes can be grouped into two subcategoriesdestination atmospherics and destination service (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Gartner 1989, 1993; Mazanec 1994). Destination atmospherics deals specifically with landscapes, historical attractions, and infrastructures such as accommodations and facilities. Research has shown that tourism managers can manipulate these attributes to create an image that is desirable to the potential visitor (Calantone et al. 1989; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Gray 1986; Mansfield 1992; Palmer and Bejou 1995; Telisman-Kosuta 1989). Likewise, service quality attributes can also create a favorable image in the minds of the potential tourists. Thus, depending on their goal, tourism managers have the option of either maintaining specific service standards to sustain existing images or varying service quality offerings in an effort to alter existing images (Ostrowski, OBrien, and Gordon 1993). It should be noted, however, that tourism managers should not only be concerned with manipulating their destination images to potential visitors, but should also be interested in understanding existing images that potential travelers already possess about their destination, as well as existing images that potential travelers have about their key competitors (Ahmed 1991; Calantone et al. 1989). Understanding destination images that past visitors hold about a particular
Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D., is Dedman Professor in Service Management, Dedman School of Hospitality, College of Business, Florida State University, in Tallahassee. Sacha M. Joseph is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, in Tallahassee. Mo Dai, MBA, MsM, is director of research, Bonn Marketing Research Group, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, February 2005, 294-301 DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272033 2005 Sage Publications

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 295

destination may also provide useful insights into understanding existing images about that destination and can aid in the development of positioning strategies to alter or maintain these images. Woodside (1982) suggested that one approach to a successful positioning strategy is to match benefits provided by a destination with benefits sought by a target market. The distinction must be made, however, between destination image from the perspective of people who have not yet visited the destination, and yet have gathered image perceptions based on word of mouth, advertising, reading, and interaction with travel agents, versus image perceptions of actual visitors. Both Gartner (1989) and Calantone et al. (1989) examined image strengths and weakness based on specific destination attributes. Their findings suggested that image perceptions of past visitors could differ across attributes and across country of origin. Numerous other studies have investigated the differences between image perceptions of repeat and or past visitors and visitors who are yet to visit a particular destination (Ahmed 1991; Chon 1990; Fakeye and Crompton 1991; Hu and Ritchie 1993). All of these researchers agreed that image modifications do in fact occur after a potential tourist has actually visited a destination. Thus, image perceptions of both past and potential visitors as well as country of origin have to be considered when determining a specific positioning strategy for a destination. Traditionally, however, destinations have used the same destination images or enticements to attract tourists regardless of their country of origin. Extant literature has demonstrated that this approach is limited because touristic representations via visual imagery are plural in both meaning and ideology. This suggests that various cultural or nationalistic backgrounds can result in multiple interpretations, aesthetic preferences, or judgments, thereby aiding in the formation of multiple destination images (Berlyne 1977; Britton 1979; Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983). As a development of this strain of research, the purpose of this study is twofold. First, we seek to identify important destination attributes that contribute to image perceptions from past visitors. Second, based on an underlying assumption that various cultures differ in terms of their experiences of an environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989), we seek to examine the differences in image perceptions based on country of origin between international and U.S. domestic travelers visiting Florida.

destination marketing organization management and their advisory board.

Survey Instrument
From 1994 to 1997, 22,188 completed surveys were obtained through personal interviews with visitors to the Tampa Bay region of Florida. Open-ended items pertaining to destination image were used in an effort to create future categories of those most frequently mentioned destination attributes. An expert panel was subsequently formulated to conduct interrater reliability on the open-ended responses generated. In addition, panel and focus group discussions were held with industry and community leaders to include the practitioners perspective on key destination image attributes. As a result of this process, these responses were refined into a list consisting of 10 specific dimensions. In 1997, the survey was pretested on 6,055 visitors to the Tampa Bay, Florida, region for face validity, wording sequence, and other potential errors, and modifications were made prior to administration. Based on the responses of those visitors, the 10 dimensions were confirmed as highly important image assessment dimensions for tourists visiting the Tampa Bay region of Florida. A 10-item, 9-point Likerttype scale (1 = strongly disagree and 9 = strongly agree) was then developed to capture each of the 10 components of destination image perceptions. These dimensions were then included in the 1998-2003 survey instrument. In addition to destination image perceptions and information regarding individual opinions and interests, the survey instrument also asked questions related to socioeconomic, demographic, and psychographic information as well as information regarding trip purpose, behaviors, and activities. Between 1998 and 2003, approximately 31,000 responses were obtained from personal interviews with visitors to the Tampa Bay region using professional surveyors whom, as a group, were fluent in multiple languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, and English. The use of multilingual surveyors greatly reduced the risk of encountering response problems due to language and cultural differences. Of this total, 14,205 individuals responded to and provided evaluations for the entire set of 10 destination attributes. SPSS 10.0 was used to reduce the data set to 50% and again to 25% to allow for a more manageable data set and also to ensure that statistical significance was not obtained simply due to the extensive nature of the data set. Statistical tests conducted on the total sample yielded the exact same results when applied to the two smaller data sets. Because maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was not used in our analyses, any data reduction issues became moot.

METHOD Data Collection

From 1994 to 2003, visitors to the Tampa Bay region in Florida were personally interviewed as a part of a comprehensive, destination marketing research project. A randomized day/site/time methodology was used to obtain information on specific travel behaviors of visitors to the area. Professionally trained surveyors were used to administer a 111-item survey to these visitors based on their on-site travel experience. A total of 53,864 completed surveys were obtained from visitors in and around the Tampa Bay region of Florida throughout this time period. Respondents were interviewed at common visitor locations as determined by

Sample
The respondents to the surveys tended to be white and married, with an average age of 45. There were slightly more women (54.5%) than men (45.4%), and a large percentage (80%) of the sample had attended either a technical school or college. The majority of the respondents reported an annual income of $40,000 or more. Table 1 gives the demographic profile of the respondents. In-state visitors represented 38.7% of all respondents, domestic visitors represented 49.4%, and international visitors accounted for the remaining 11.9%. Table 2 gives a breakdown of the top 10 visitor origins for all three geographic segments.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

296

FEBRUARY 2005 TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS U.S. Domestic Visitors Florida/ (N = 5,495) 44.5 45.4 54.6 90.2 3.7 4.3 0.7 1.0 5.2 14.6 16.2 15.6 24.8 23.6 70.0 19.7 3.1 7.1 3.5 17.7 5.4 24.7 31.9 16.9 U.S. Domestic Visitors Non-Florida/ (N = 7,012) 46.2 48.0 52.0 92.4 3.8 1.7 0.9 1.3 4.7 7.5 10.4 12.5 26.2 38.7 72.3 17.8 3.3 6.6 2.8 15.1 4.8 21.9 35.7 19.8

Demographics Average age (years) Gender (%) Male Female Race (%) Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Other Household Income (%) Less than $20,000 $20,000-29,999 $30,000-39,999 $40,000-49,999 $50,000-74,999 $75,000 and above Marital Status (%) Married Single Widowed Divorced Education Level (%) Less than high school High school graduate Technical school graduate Some college College graduate Postgraduate

International Visitors (N = 1,698) 44.8 57.4 42.6 77.6 1.8 7.2 4.2 9.1 5.5 8.6 14.7 14.4 21.5 35.3 73.0 20.2 2.6 4.2 1.3 17.1 7.3 15.7 40.6 17.9

Total (N = 14,205) 45.4 48.1 51.9 89.9 3.5 3.3 1.2 2.1 5.0 10.5 13.2 14.0 25.1 32.3 71.5 18.8 3.2 6.5 2.9 16.3 5.3 22.3 34.8 18.4

Note: Some categories may not equal to 100% due to rounding errors. TABLE 2 TOP TEN VISITOR ORIGINS TO TAMPA, FLORIDA (1998-2003) U.S. Domestic Visitors/Florida (%) St. Petersburg (23.0) Orlando (16.7) Surrounding counties (Pasco, Hernando, Citrus: 12.8) Sarasota (12.3) Miami (9.5) Lakeland (5.9) Fort Meyers (5.9) West Palm Beach (4.5) Jacksonville (3.2) Gainesville (2.5) Total (96.5) U.S. Domestic Visitors/ Non-Florida (%) New York (12.5) Pennsylvania (6.9) Michigan (6.5) Illinois (5.8) Massachusetts (5.7) Ohio (4.5) New Jersey (4.1) Georgia (3.8) Texas (3.7) Wisconsin (3.2) Total (56.7) International Visitors (%) United Kingdom (35.5) Canada (21.0) Brazil (11.8) Germany (6.5) Puerto Rico (2.4) Taiwan (2.3) Norway (1.7) Argentina (1.6) Venezuela (1.0) Switzerland (1.0) Total (84.7)

RESULTS Dimensions of Image Assessment

A principal components factor analysis was then conducted on the destination image instrument to confirm the

various facets of the destination image construct. Individual items were assessed for discriminant validity within the destination image construct using VARIMAX rotation. Based on eigenvalues of more than 1, two destination importance factors were generated. These factors support existing literature that group image destination assessment into

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 297

environmental atmospherics attributes and service attributes (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Gartner 1989, 1993; Mazanec 1994). A Cronbachs alpha of .85 was achieved for the entire scale with alphas ranging from .77 to .78 for the individual factors. The first factor was labeled service image perceptions (service), and the second was named environmental image perceptions (environment). It should be noted that a large percentage of the variance was explained by the service factor (44%) with only 11% explained by the environmental factor. This may, however, be due to the fact that pretesting indicated that items within the destination image scale needed to be refined (reduced) in an attempt to capture as many dimensions as possible while limiting respondent fatigue. Thus, a limited number of items were used to evaluate the environmental factor, resulting in reduced variance. Each item was considered to fall within a factor based on factor loadings of .40 or higher. Items with factor loadings of less than .40 and items that loaded on two factors were eliminated from the analysis (Ford, MacCallum, and Tait 1986). Table 3 outlines the factor analysis results for the service and environment image dimensions. The dependent measures were highly correlated,1 and therefore a MANOVA was used to test the effects of visitor origin on image perceptions of the destinations service and environment attributes. Visitor origin was divided into three geographical groups: Florida (in-state), U.S. domestic visitors (non-Florida), and international visitors. Tukeys honestly significant difference (HSD) and Duncans multiple range tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in the factor mean scores of the various visitor groups. Descriptive statistics for the dependent measures are outlined in Table 4. The MANOVA found a significant main effect for visitor origin (international versus domestic non-Florida and instate) on both dependent measures of destination service perceptions and destination environment perceptions, Wilks lambda = .99, F (4,28406) = 13.13, p < .001. This lies in tandem with previous work done on multicultural destination image assessment (Berlyne 1977; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; MacKay and Fesenmaier 2000). This preliminary analysis demonstrated that international visitors perceived service image perceptions lower when compared with those in-state and domestic segments (M = 6.25, SD = 1.88). In-state visitors rated service image perceptions the highest (M = 6.51, SD = 1.85), followed by domestic visitors (M = 6.50, SD = 1.86). International visitors rated environmental image perceptions lower than all groups (M = 6.84, SD = 2.00). In-state visitors rated environmental image perceptions highest (M = 7.24, SD = 1.93) and were followed by domestic visitors (M = 7.21, SD = 1.88, Table 4). Tukeys HSD and Duncans multiple range tests revealed statistical significant differences at the .001 alpha level between image perceptions of both service and environment for international visitors versus those for domestic and in-state visitors. No significant differences were found between the image perceptions of domestic and in-state visitors, p .05 (Tables 5 and 6). The second phase of analysis explored in detail the service and environmental image perception dimensions to add understanding to what makes international visitors perceive service and environmental factors in a significantly different way from in-state and domestic visitors. A MANOVA was conducted to test the effects of visitor origin on the 10

individual service and environmental image perception dimensions. Once again, Tukeys HSD and Duncans multiple range tests revealed statistical significant differences between image perceptions of both service and environment for international visitors versus those for in-state and domestic visitors. Three out of six dimensions within the service factor were found to be statistically significant (p < .001). Specifically, signage, value for the dollar, and ground transportation all were perceived significantly lower by international visitors when compared with the other two groups. Results also confirmed that three out of the four environment dimensions were statistically different. Again, international visitors perceived variety of things to do, clean environment, and climate significantly lower when compared with in-state and domestic visitors (see Tables 7 and 8).

DISCUSSION
Destination image has been a heavily researched and discussed topic for both practitioners and researchers alike for the past decade. The highly competitive nature of the tourism marketplace dictates that tourism marketers have a thorough understanding of not only how they would like their destination to be perceived but also how it is presently perceived to adequately implement measures to alter or maintain such images. To ensure that potential tourists do in fact encounter favorable destination images, tourism managers and marketers have embarked on extensive campaigns that span enormous geographical regions. In many instances, however, these campaigns offer the exact images despite the varying natures of the markets they are meant to target. Previous research has suggested that nationals of various geographic regions interpret visual imagery and experiences differently dependent on their country of origin (Berlyne 1977; Britton 1979; Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983). This phenomenon has not, however, been examined in the past 10 years, and these study findings suggest that despite the onset of globalization and the introduction of the Internet (which serve to increase cultural awareness and decrease worldwide cultural distances), visitors still have different destination perceptions based on their geographic origin. Table 2 illustrates the breakdown of the respondents visitor origin, indicating that more than 56% of those international visitors we interviewed came from either the United Kingdom or Canada, two countries with similar cultural backgrounds to that of the United States. Nonetheless the perceptions differ. This suggests that there is a need for further research and deeper investigation as to how and why these differences exist, with a thorough analysis of the various image perceptions as they vary throughout the different international markets. This study offers findings that illustrate the differences in destination image perceptions among in-state, domestic, and international visitors to the Tampa Bay region of Florida. Although considerable work has been done on destination image as a whole, far less has investigated the differences in destination image assessments for domestic versus international visitors. This study was a first step in the examination process, because we focused here on illustrating that there are clear differences between international and domestic perceptions of important image destination characteristics, with the understanding that to address perception differences and

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

298

FEBRUARY 2005 TABLE 3 FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR IMAGE ASSESSMENT SCALE Factor Loadings .71 .73 .76 .60 .60 .48 .73 .77 .78 .67 Variance Explained 44.4 Reliability Coefficient .77

Factor Service factor Ease of getting around Friendliness of residents Level of service Signage Value for the dollar Ground transportation Environmental factor Variety of things to do Clean environment Climate Perception of safety Total

Eigenvalue 4.44

1.07

10.7

.78

55.1

.85

tailor products accordingly, marketers and tourism professionals must first be aware that these differences still exist. The next step in the process will then seek to ascertain the depth of these differences. Based on the tremendous economic impact that international travel has on the U.S. economy, there is an ongoing need for market intelligence that relates to a greater understanding of international destination perceptions. More recently, the impact of terrorism, war, world economic recession, and recent difficulties with the visa issuance process have caused considerable economic constraints for those U.S. destinations dependent on international visitors and their associated spending. As a result, there is an ongoing need for research that examines the perceptions of visitors from these international destinations to continuously improve the product offerings available in the United States. These findings concur with the notion that image assessments vary across geographic regions, indicating that actual visitors interpret service and environmental factors dependent on their geographic origin. The results suggest that international visitors coming to the Tampa Bay region have higher service and environmental standards when judging this destination compared to in-state and domestic visitors. This results in international visitors having lower service and environmental perceptions of the destination when compared to in-state and domestic visitors. Closer examination of the service and environmental factors indicate (as outlined in Tables 7 and 8) that differences were only found in three of the six service dimensions. Significant differences were found between domestic (in-state and out-of-state) and international visitors on the issues of signage, value for the dollar, and ground transportation. Indeed, on investigation into the Tampa area, these differences are somewhat understandable, as we will attempt to outline below. Signage in most Florida destinations, including the Tampa area, is generally written in one languageEnglish. When traveling internationally, however, signage is typically expressed in multiple languages. As a result, this may be an area of contention by international tourists based on the perceived inadequacy as it relates to international standards. Value for the dollar is yet another area that was perceived lower by international visitors; however, during the studys

TABLE 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR DEPENDENT MEASURES Image Assessment Factor Overall Service Factor In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Total Overall Environment Factor In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Total Mean 6.51 6.50 6.25 6.47 7.24 7.21 6.84 7.18

SD
1.85 1.86 1.88 1.86 1.93 1.88 2.00 1.91

N
5,495 7,012 1,698 14,205 5,495 7,012 1,698 14,205

timeframe, the U.S. dollar was considerably higher than both the Canadian dollar and the euro. This may explain why some international visitors do not rate the value for dollar dimension very highly, because their buying power was somewhat reduced in the United States compared to their home country during this studys time frame. Ground transportation was documented in this studys findings as another problematic area for international visitors. In fact, this is one visitor issue that the Tampa Bay area has been aware of, and it has since taken strategic actions to improve the city of Tampas ground transportation system. Based on the findings generated from the ongoing visitor research program, Tampa recently implemented a trolley system that runs from the downtown convention center to popular visitor sites including historical districts, entertainment facilities, food service establishments, and lodging properties. On closer examination of the environmental dimensions, we offer some explanations as to the differences indicated between domestic (in-state and out-of-state) visitors as compared with their international counterparts. International visitors rated the variety of things to do dimension significantly lower than domestic visitors. This may be due to the fact that

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 299 TABLE 5 MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ON PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE FACTORS Variables Service Environmentb Error Service Environment Total Service Environment Multivariate F = 13.13 Wilks lambda = .99 p = .000 a. R 2 = .39. b. R 2 = .28. TABLE 6 TUKEYS HONESTLY SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE (HSD) AND DUNCANS MULTIPLE RANGE TESTS Variables Service Perceptions (Tukeys HSD) In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Service Perceptions (Duncans) In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Environment perceptions (Tukeys HSD) In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Environment perceptions (Duncans) In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International *p .001. Mean* Significance
a

Sum of Squares 97.689 186.537 49,117.088 51,822.130 64,4026 78,4308

df
2 2 14,203 14,203 14,205 14,205

Mean Square .719 36.683 3.458 3.649

F
14.123 25.560

Significance (p) .000 .000

6.496 6.509 6.247 6.496 6.509 6.247 7.209 7.238 6.871 7.209 7.238 6.871

.957 .957 .000 .778 .778 .000 .818 .818 .000 .546 .546 .000

5,495 7,012 1,698 5,495 7,012 1,698 5,495 7,012 1,698 5,495 7,012 1,698

value for the dollar is an issue, and as a result the cost of entertainment and various activities may be either out of reach or simply considered too expensive for some of these international visitors. Second, there is the additional issue of language barriers that may be causing some interference. We conducted a content analysis of regional electronic tourism promotional literature looking for activities designed specifically for an international audience in which entertainment was offered in a language other than English and identified only a few examples. This suggests that only a very limited number of attractions cater to international visitors who speak another language. On the issue of clean environment, international visitors were less satisfied than both in-state and domestic visitors. These results may be affected by prior expectations based on visitor origins and higher existing

environmental standards in their home countries. Climate was also rated lower by international visitors when compared with in-state and domestic visitors. There is a clear need for further investigation into climate and all other dimensions to clarify which of the many explanations offered above turn out to be the most pertinent as they relate to the lower perceptions of international visitors on environmental and service destination attributes. Perhaps analyses according to season visited by visitor origin would provide deeper understanding about perceptual differences among the three groups of visitors. Despite an attempt to be scientific in our data collection and in the interviewing process, we must outline what we consider to be some of the limitations of the present study. First, although six service dimensions were explored, only four environmental dimensions were investigated. This may have contributed to the 55.1% variance explained obtained in our analysis. Although respondent fatigue is always a consideration, further research needs to investigate both environmental and service factors in greater detail to better understand the reasons behind the differences between domestic and international evaluations of environmental attributes. Recent trends in the industry suggest that there has been an increase in the number of environmentally aware tourists (Ayala 1996; Travel Industry Association of America 2003). As a result, environmental attributes are taking on greater significance in destination assessment. Thus, further research in this area can only lead to the generation of improved products and services better suited to the new millennium traveler. Second, although the 10 dimensions selected were done so based on extensive pretesting and survey refining, further research needs to be conducted that focuses specifically on the service image and environmental image factors separately in an effort to ascertain which dimensions are most important and perhaps include any new considerations that may have been omitted in this general image destination assessment. Third, seasonality may influence visitor responses. Tremendous demands on the service providers during peak seasons could cause a possible decline in quality and services provided by the various industry stakeholders. Thus, more research is necessary to examine if and how these perceptions vary by season.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

300

FEBRUARY 2005 TABLE 7 MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ON PERCEPTIONS OF DESTINATION SERVICE DIMENSIONS

Variables Service Factor Dimensions Ease of getting around In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Friendliness of residents In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Level of service In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Signage* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Value for the dollar* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Ground transportation* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International *p .001.

Mean

Sum of Squares 6.93

df
2

Mean Square 3.46

F
0.51

6.66 6.60 6.69 6.81 6.95 6.93 6.81 6.75 6.77 6.47 5.96 5.26 6.10 6.00 5.34 4.77 5.05 4.69

28.64

14.32

1.93

30.79

15.39

2.24

982.48

491.24

51.52

353.20

176.60

22.89

156.32

78.16

7.25

TABLE 8 MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ON PERCEPTIONS OF DESTINATION ENVIRONMENT DIMENSIONS Variables Environmental Factor Dimensions Variety of things to do* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Clean environment* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Climate* In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International Perception of safety In-state (Florida) Domestic (non-Florida) International *p .001. Mean Sum of Squares 63.65

df
2

Mean Square 315.33

F
40.50

7.55 7.62 6.64 6.91 7.12 6.90 7.61 8.03 7.22 6.77 6.77 6.96

73.96

36.98

5.20

537.03

268.52

36.14

24.60

12.30

1.65

CONCLUSION
The economic significance of international visitors suggests the importance of understanding destination perceptions of international visitors to our region. As a result, more research needs to focus on what is important to these international visitors and why they are important. As researchers, it

is imperative that we first establish that differences do exist before we delve into the issues of what and how. The popular press has highlighted the pervasive nature of the Internet and the recent trend in globalization, all pointing to the creation of the global village in which people today are more alike than they are different. Past research in the area of image perceptions suggests just the opposite: that people from

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 301

different backgrounds and cultural orientations have different image perceptions of destinations (Berlyne 1977; Britton 1979; Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983). This study validates past research, suggesting that although 10 years have passed since these first articles were written and much has changed through advancements in information technology, much has remained the same. The findings from this study indicate that despite the technological revolution and the influence of globalization, differing cultural backgrounds still lead to different image perceptions. Much of the past research was built on image perceptions of potential tourists from various geographic regions (e.g., Ostrowski, OBrien, and Gordon 1993). This study involves viewpoints from actual visitors, thereby offering empirical validation of previous research on the subject of image perception. This study is a preliminary step in attempting to uncover not only what draws international visitors to U.S. destinations but also what ensures their return. The impact of world economic recession, terrorism, war, and the difficulty associated with visa issuance processes have collectively caused a reduction in the number of annual international visitors to the United States, including Florida. If we are to increase these numbers again, destination marketing organizations need to better understand what is important to international visitors during their on-site experiences. Researchers need to further examine existing destination perception differences among key international markets for the United States as well as look into how these differences vary across markets. Based on the results generated in this study, the message is clear: international visitors have higher service image expectations and standards, and they place more importance on environmental factors, than do domestic visitors. This implies that U.S. destination managers not only have to improve current standards but also need to stress their improvement of these dimensions in their marketing campaigns. Various governmental agencies and tourism bureaus have invested considerable resources into training tourism stakeholders to ensure better products and higher service quality. If we are to successfully achieve this objective, tourism destination marketing and management professionals need to fully understand how these dimensions are perceived across their different target markets. This improved understanding will allow them to assess their strengths and weakness in an effort to better cater to the international visitors and ultimately allow a competitive advantage to occur.

NOTE
1. The correlations were .5 between service and environmental image perceptions (p < .001, 2-tailed).

REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). The Influence of the Components of a States Tourist Image on Product Positioning Strategy. Tourism Management, 12 (December): 331-40.

Ayala, H. (1996). Resort Ecotourism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, 37 (October): 46-53. Backman, S., and J. Crompton (1991). Differentiating between High, Spurious, Latent and Low Loyalty Participants in Two Leisure Activities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (2): 1-17. Baloglu, S., and K. McCleary (1999). U.S. International Pleasure Travelers Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison of Visitors and Nonvisitors. Journal of Travel Research, 38 (November): 144-52. Berlyne, D. (1977). Psychological Aesthetics. In Handbook of CrossCultural Psychology, vol. 3, edited by H. Triandis and W. Lamberts. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 323-61. Britton, R. (1979). The Image of the Third World in Tourism Marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 6: 318-29. Buck, R. (1977). The Ubiquitous Tourist Brochure: Explorations in Its Intended and Unintended Use. Annals of Tourism Research, 4: 195-207. Calantone, R., A. di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D. Bojanic (1989). Multiple Multinational Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 28: 25-32. Chon, K. (1990). The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion. Tourist Review, 45 (2): 2-9. Echtner, C., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1993). The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (Spring): 3-13. Fakeye, P. C., and J. L. Crompton (1991). Image Differences between Prospective, First Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Fall): 10-16. Ford, K. J., R. C. MacCallum, and M. Tait (1986). The Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Review and Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39 (Summer): 291-315. Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Technique. Journal of Travel Research, 28: 16-20. (1993). Image Formation Process. In Communication and Channels Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Muzaffer Uysal and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. New York: Haworth, pp. 191-215. Goodall, B. (1990). How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. In Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of Destination Regions, edited by B. Goodall and G. Ashworth. London: Routledge, pp. 1-17. Gray, J. (1986). Marketing to Tourism. Speech to Northeast Missouri Travel and [Tourism] Conference, Hannibal. Hu, Y., and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1993). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (Fall): 25-34. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKay, K. J., and D. R. Fesenmaier (2000). An Exploration of CrossCultural Destination Image Assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38 (May): 417-23. Mansfield, Y. (1992). Tourism: Toward a Behavioral Approach. Oxford: Pergamon. Mazanec, J. (1994). Consumer Behavior. In Travel Tourism Hospitality Research, edited by J. R. B. Ritchie and C. R. Goeldner. New York: John Wiley, pp. 294-99. Ostrowski, P., T. OBrien, and G. Gordon (1993). Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty in the Commercial Airline Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 32: 16-24. Palmer, A., and D. Bejou (1995). Tourism Destination Marketing Alliances. Annals of Tourism Research, 3: 616-29. Riley, R. W. (1995). Prestige Worthy Tourist Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 630-49. Sirgy, M., and C. Su (2000). Destination Image, Self Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research, 38 (May): 340-52. Telisman-Kosuta, R. (1989). Tourist Destination Image. In The Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, edited by S. Witt and L. Moutinho. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 555-61. Thurot, J., and G. Thurot (1983). The Ideology of Class and Tourism Confronting the Discourse of Advertising. Annals of Tourism Research, 10: 173-89. Travel Industry Association of America. (2003). Domestic Travel Report 2003. Washington, DC: Travel Industry Association of America. Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), U.S. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI), International Trade Association (ITA), Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Commerce. 1996-2002. International Travel to the U.S.: 1992-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. Woodside, A. G. (1982). Positioning a Province Using Traveler Research. Journal of Travel Research, 20 (Winter): 2-6.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 12, 2013