Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: [Link]

Elements of destination brand equity and destination familiarity regarding

travel intention
Hsin-Kuang Chi a, Kuo-Chung Huang a, Huan Minh Nguyen a, b
a
Ph.D. Student, Department of Business Administration, Nanhua University, Taiwan
b
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ton Duc Thang University, Vietnam

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In a highly competitive market, marketing staff are always looking for solutions to strengthen what can be called
Destination brand equity their destination values (unique place, services, and human resources, etc.). They do this by concentrating on
Travel intention vital factors which can enhance their brand equity. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of studies about how
Destination familiarity
destination brand evaluations are related to visitor appraisals. Using the opinions of 531 foreign tourists visiting
Destination awareness
Perceived quality
a destination in Vietnam and a partial least squares (PLS) approach, this study examines four elements of
Destination image destination brand equity (perceived quality, loyalty, awareness, image) regarding travel intentions and the
moderating effect of destination familiarity. Results revealed that brand equity is positively related to travel
intentions. Additionally, destination familiarity has positive moderating effects on destination awareness and
perceived quality of travel intentions. This study offers some managerial insights into the effective building of
destination brand equity.

1. Introduction branding upon visitors’ perception is seen as an important tool to

evaluate intent to visit a place (Pike and Bianchi, 2013). However, a lack
Unlike tangible products, destinations are multidimensional and can of research on destination brand measurement has revealed the
deliver different tourists different experiences. Destinations are seen as complexity of such evaluations.
intangible products, and thus, subjective, and depending upon the route Most empirical research has proposed that familiarity has a positive
of travel, culture, purpose of the visit, educational level and past expe­ correlation to destination image (Baloglu, 2001). Indeed, previous
rience of visitors. For this reason, destination brands become higher visitation itself is a key factor for recurrent trips, assuming return entry
risks because much of what creates the brand can be changed sometimes is relatively easy. First-time visitors often have different observations to
by quite simple human-induced influences, natural events, or, some­ recurrent visitors in that they are more driven by novelty than famil­
times, purposeful intervention. Another factor here is that destinations iarity (Li et al., 2008). Notwithstanding, excessive familiarity also pro­
are unique and not traded in the market. Thus, other destinations cannot vides travelers with emotional attachment rather than the feeling of
directly determine the destination brand equity. Rather, the brand eq­ newness (Kastenholz, 2010) Several scholars have suggested that fa­
uity must be assumed as based upon expenditures, tourists’ revisit versus miliarity and experience contribute greatly to the visitors’ destination
renewal ratios and visit rates overall (Szymanski and Hise, 2000). planning. (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004; Prentice and Andersen, 2000).
It can be argued that globalisation and global tourism have meant Maestro et al. (2007) pointed out that destination familiarity is consid­
increasingly fierce competition within the travel industry (Tasci et al., ered as a procedure to assess the information. Awareness of the quality
2007). In those countries where tourism is one of the key contributors to of service or satisfaction can have an impact on the procedure to eval­
the economy, it seems important that vendors differentiate their desti­ uate destination familiarity and then demonstrate the attitudes and in­
nation brand and value. To improve competitiveness, vendors in coun­ tentions of visitors regarding the destination. Moreover, post-trip
tries with popular travel destinations are likely to not only promote evaluations by tourists are also important to destination marketers as
tourism by emphasizing attractive natural resources, but also to attempt these evaluations can directly affect return visits (Petrick et al., 2001).
to market unique tourism experiences through a differentiated branding Pike and Bianchi (2016) stated that destination brand equity is a
strategy (García et al., 2012). Measuring the effectiveness of destination potential research gap and researchers needed to do more, suggesting

E-mail addresses: hkchi@[Link] (H.-K. Chi), nguyenminhhuan@[Link] (H.M. Nguyen).

[Link]
Received 3 October 2018; Received in revised form 25 November 2018; Accepted 24 December 2018
Available online 26 February 2019
0969-6989/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

that future research should extend to the measurement of re-positioning quality, brand association, brand awareness, and brand loyalty (Aaker,
and re-branding strategies. However, most empirical and conceptual 1991). Keller (1993) was among the first researchers to identify brand
tourism studies have concentrated only upon destination image (Kim equity as “the different effect of brand knowledge on consumer response
and Perdue, 2011; Elliot et al., 2011; Blain et al., 2005; Konecnik, 2004; to the marketing of the brand.” However, Keller did not use brand loy­
Gnoth, 2002; Cai, 2002). Konecnik and Gartner (2007) and Gartner and alty as an element in her study. Yoo et al. (2000) further argued that
Ruzzier (2011) suggested that while destination images play an essential distribution intensity, store image, price, and advertising should also be
role in brand measurement, other dimensions were needed to accurately treated as antecedents of brand equity. Mishra and Datta (2011) and
evaluate the dynamics of destination brand equity. The aforementioned many other researchers have considered brand equity as an independent
researches supported Cai’s (2002) study that images were important to element associated with the value of the brand and have explored other
brand equity and brand evaluation, however other elements were brand-related dimensions, such as perceived quality, brand awareness,
needed to accurately evaluate destination brand equity. Furthermore, brand personality, brand associations, brand communication, or brand
diversified quantitative methods are necessary to effectively recognize name as significant components of brand loyalty.
constituent elements of brand equity dynamics (Chan and Marafa, The literature has been widely split (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011)
2013). Hence, this study to extend a perceived academic gap that can be between conceptions of ’brand equity’ and ’brand loyalty’ that have
said to be due to measuring destination brands from the perspective of been defined with a widespread background within marketing (Aaker
tourists. and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993) although later
studies show relatively minimal attention related to destination brand
2. Literature review equity in the tourism field (Pike, 2007; Konecnik, 2006; Harish, 2010;
Dooley and Bowie, 2005). The research has essentially incorporated
2.1. Destination branding findings based on product brand equity into the field of destination
brand equity (e.g., Yoo et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2001 and 2002;
Destinations are seen as products, and the concept of tourist desti­ Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1991). Kim and Kim (2005) defined destination
nation branding is a created or manufactured one (Prichard and Morgan, brand equity as perceptual equity (perceived quality, image, aware­
1998). However, there are certain obstacles when determining desti­ ness). Consequently, Kim and Kim (2005) treated destination loyalty
nation branding. Differentiated from service products, the destination of (behavioral equity) as one of the derivatives of perceptual equity.
travel involves many factors, such as accommodation, attractions, Travelers’ viewpoints relied upon their knowledge of the destination
tourism policy, tourism industry (Cai, 2002). The name of a destination brand and its particular elements, enabling them to discuss brands as
is almost predefined by the current name of the place (Kim et al., 2009) well as destination brand equity.
and therefore, the definition of destination brand is quite small and Destination marketers have realized the growing importance of
dispersed in theory. One of the most cited definitions of destination brand equity in promoting their destinations. As noted in some mar­
brands is the definition introduced by Ritchie and Ritchie (1998). keting materials, the elements of a product brand are not applied
Accordingly, the destination brand is a name, logo, or graphic used to directly to the services (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). Therefore, the in­
identify and distinguish the differences between places. As well as dividual components of a brand will change, depending on the compo­
conveying a promise about potential experiences in that place for sition of products or services. Boo et al. (2019) stated that the
tourists, the destination brand must contribute to enhancing and development and measurement of brand equity are challenging due to
consolidating positive memories associated with a place (Ritchie & the complexity of a destination. Theoretically, a destination brand
Ritchie, 1998). Researchers have emphasized the importance of brand­ consists of both intangible and tangible elements. Visitors sense these
ing as a component of marketing to create the image, logo, and components by the combination of the functions (measurable and
perception of visitors. Blain et al. (2005) argue that branding simulta­ physical) and psychology of the dimensions of a destination brand.
neously reinforces the uniqueness, supports the formation, development Therefore, the value and interest of a destination brand can change in
and displays positive image of the destination to the target market light of how tourist perceive the service or products. There are numerous
(Baker & Cameron, 2008). methods used for measuring elements of a destination brand. The
In most countries, creating destination brand awareness and value method recommended by Kim et al. (2009) employed six factors:
has become a significant strategy due to increased competition between perception, interest, price, popularity, uniqueness, value; those by
destinations (García et al., 2012). A literature survey shows that the Konecnik and Gartner (2007) employed four dimensions: quality, loy­
terms “branding” and “brand” are frequently discussed in tourism alty, awareness, and image; and Boo et al. (2009) applied three di­
studies. (Kaplanidou and Vogt, 2003) reported that a combination of all mensions: quality, image, and awareness.
dimensions related to the travel site creates branding, demonstrating the
personality and identity of a destination, which differentiates itself from 2.2.1. Destination brand awareness (DBA)
its competing brands. Destination branding is important as it plays a Brand awareness is related to the possibility that consumers recall
major role in facilitating tourists’ pre-trip planning from its competitors and are aware of a brand. Therefore, awareness is a necessary and
(Murphy et al., 2007) Additionally, destination branding might support special aspect of brand equity (Tasci, 2018; Lu et al., 2015; Lee and Back,
visitors in enhancing their awareness of a destination after their tourism 2008; Pike et al., 2010; Boo et al., 2009). It is the first step in forming and
experiences (Qu et al., 2011). García et al. (2012) proposed that the developing brand value. In other words, consumers can distinguish a
success of destination branding can be shown in the format of a pyramid brand that has been seen or heard before. In tourism, awareness has a
consisting of four constructs as follow: awareness, image, perceived key role in tourists’ travel intentions (Yuan and Jang, 2008). Therefore,
quality, and loyalty. an important issue is how to create travelers’ awareness of a destination
through specific emotions and connections to the destination (Murphy
2.2. Brand equity and destination brand equity et al., 2007). Destination marketing purposes are to increase the desti­
nation awareness of tourists by advertising and creating a distinctive
The emergence of brand equity has provided a focus for researchers brand (Jago et al., 2003). Destination choice is made from the choice set,
and managers and increased the important role of marketing strategy based on the evaluation criteria of travelers. More specifically, desti­
(Keller, 2003). The definition and meaning of brand equity have been nation marketers must raise awareness of visual images associated with
debated from many different perspectives for different purposes, and no the destination as a means to embedding awareness about the destina­
common viewpoint has emerged. tion brand. For a place to have potential as a destination, it must be
Brand equity was defined as four primary elements: perceived known widely by possible visitors.

2
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

2.2.2. Destination brand image (DBI) 2.3. Travel intention

Destination brand image refers to a collection of connections asso­
ciated with the brand in consumers’ minds, requiring consumers to Laroche and Teng (2001) suggested that the process of choosing a
recreate the brand correctly from memory. The more positive exposure, brand is sequential and continuous; therein the brand understandings
hence, familiarity, a consumer associates with a brand, the more brand are shaped first, followed by three specific elements, ranking via order of
equity increases. Besides, the more unique and favorable images the importance, including attitudes, confidence levels, and purchase in­
consumer holds in his/her memory, the stronger can be the connection a tentions. Bian and Forsythe (2012) demonstrated that a personal trait
consumer has with the destination. Images are used to generate influences his or her behavioral intentions; supposed that trait directly
awareness and diminish risks for travelers considering a destination impacts on intentions regarding a behavior (Szymanski and Hise, 2000).
about which few people know (Gartner, 1994). Destinations widely use Awareness from visitors’ previous experiences results in their future
images in promotional materials to foster awareness of attributes setting travel intentions. Tourism motivation can be considered as an indicator
them apart from competitors. Cai (2002) reported that building of a of their actions as travel thinking can have a big influence on their future
destination brand image has great significance for a destination brand travel decisions (Jang and Namkung, 2009). This finding underlines the
model. Moreover, destination brand image is considered as consumer significance of tourism awareness measurement and brand equity’s
awareness or sentiment associated with a specific brand (Keller, 2003). element identification affecting travel intentions (Stokburger-Sauer,
There have been many approaches to measuring destination brand im­ 2011; Kim and Kim, 2005; Boo et al., 2009).
ages (Gómez et al., 2015; Baloglu et al., 2014). For instance, a scale of
examining Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) was developed in 2.4. Destination familiarity
Lassar et al. (1995) in which the image element was preferred over any
social aspect. Familiarity is often defined in terms of repetition of previous visits
(Milman and Pizam, 1995), the number of earlier visits (Tasci et al.,
2.2.3. Destination brand quality (DBQ) 2007; Sun et al., 2013), or it is used to contrast first visits and revisits
Perceived quality is a vital attribute of brand equity in the sense that (Prentice, 2006). In other words, familiarity is the basis for explaining
it creates value for consumers by differentiating the brand from com­ the differences in the various aspects of travel behavior among regular
petitors and giving consumers a reason to buy (Allameh et al., 2015). A visitors and first time visitors. According to Chen and Lin (2012),
destination quality brand is defined as the perception of travelers destination familiarity allows us to understand how individuals shape
regarding the possibility that the destination can meet their expectations the image of a destination. Prior studies on tourism found that many
(Konecnik and Gartner, 2007). Tourism researchers frequently use visitors feel secure in familiar environments, on the contrary, novel
perceived quality as a construct in conceptualizing a brand equity environments are likely to be riskier for the visitors (Lepp and Gibson,
(Baalbaki and Guzmán, 2016; Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011; Pike, 2010; 2003), although one of the main motivations for tourism is that tourists
Boo et al., 2009). When discussing destination brands, environmental often search for the unfamiliar (Ryan, 2003). An important existing
factors such as service infrastructure are usually considered in measures literature showed that the degree of familiarity or novelty sought on
of perceived quality. Quality is difficult to define precisely because it is vacation are different amongst tourists, which could in turn be under­
subjective; however individuals internally assess quality all the time. stood as different levels of risk that they are willing to perceive or endure
The quality of evaluations can frequently change as comparative stan­ (Lepp and Gibson, 2003).
dards increase the level of experience of travelers. Quality simply meets Milman and Pizam (1995) suggested that destination familiarity
or exceeds the travelers’ expectations. Therefore, to maintain or significantly impacts travel intentions and can potentially play an
enhance quality is a prerequisite for developing brand equity. important role in the travelling decisions. However, tourists with low
familiarity relied more upon external information to decide their travels
2.2.4. Destination brand loyalty (DBL) than tourists with high familiarity (Murphy et al., 2007; Mawby, 2000).
According to Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995), previous research from Visitors can attain a definite level of familiarity created by contact with
marketing scholars shows customer loyalty achieved constant interest as other individuals, travel guides, mass media, and through education
the marketing paradigm relationship emerged. Customer loyalty has (Prentice and Andersen, 2003; Gursoy, 2011).
received considerable attention for over forty years (Oppermann, 2000).
However, in tourism, hospitality and recreation leisure, destination 2.5. Hypothesis development
brand loyalty research is a new phenomenon, relatively mentioned for
approximately the last 10 years (Chanrithy, 2007). In particular, tourism 2.5.1. Brand equity and travel intention
and hospitality scholars have identified “loyalty” as a priority in Previous studies suggested that highly perceived quality of brands
research (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Thus, destination loyalty has plays a significant role in increasing value to brand loyalty and con­
become a critical topic for scholars permitting discussions of its re­ sumers’ purchases (Low & Lamb, 2000). Murphy et al. (2000) found that
lationships perceived value, brand quality and consumer engagement the quality of a trip has a positive effect on the perception of the trip, as
(Boo et al., 2009; Yuksel et al., 2010; Han and Back, 2008). In this paper, well as the travel intentions of tourists. Brand perceived quality is
the description of brand loyalty is taken as equivalent to the intention of defined as key aspect of brand equity in regards to a destination
a tourist to visit a destination. Of the various indicators of brand loyalty, (Deslandes, 2004; Boo et al., 2009).
tourists’ recommendations based on their personal experience/visits are Destination brand image is relevant to brand perceptions in con­
considered a key attribute (Oppermann, 2000; Chen and Gursoy, 2001). sumers’ minds (Arendt and Brettel, 2010; Keller, 1993). As of the
Researchers have referred to repetitive visits in terms of behavioral perspective of travel intentions, destination brand image is seen as the
loyalty (Yousaf et al., 2017; Wu, 2016). fundamental repository, reflecting the significant indicators of customer
Brand loyalty was described as the consumers’ commitment to a segmentation, as well as potential of marketplace, and provides insights
particular brand (Aaker, 1991). The main objective with which brand into the functions and society and a sense of the destination image of the
managers are concerned is the creation of customer loyalty. Generally, tourism industry. Accordingly, destination marketers aim to build a
loyalty measurement is based on two different approaches (Russell-­ distinct, efficient and strong identity image to encourage travel intent in
Bennett et al., 2007; Oppermann, 2000), emphasizing the observations tourists, with of course the expectation of making them loyal return
of loyal customers (Bennett et al., 2000) and examining repurchase in­ visitors (Camarero et al., 2010).
tentions and commitment attitudes to brands. The concepts of loyalty have been widely applied in marketing
strategies to assess the repurchase ability or consumers’

3
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

recommendations (Flavian et al., 2001). Yoon and Uysal (2005) stated that for travelers with less destination familiarity.
that brand loyalty creates benefits to tourist destinations because visi­
tors can revisit or suggest the location to other potential visitors. Visitors 3. Methodology
might be loyalty to a destination or a specific brand and might show
their intentions to revisit a destination in various ways. Ferns and Walls 3.1. Study settings
(2012) studied tourism and showed that loyalty and travel intentions
have a positive correlation. Since the end of the Vietnam-America War in 1975, Vietnam has
The aforementioned evidence shows a positive relationship between been recovering from damage consequent upon the war. Vietnam is the
brand equity and travel intentions. Therefore, the features of brand latest country in Asian to state the significance of tourism to its national
equity could serve as suggestions for potential tourists in determining development (VNAT, 2005). As tourism enlarges and develops rapidly in
their destination choices. Brand equity perception positively impacts on Indochina, Vietnam has been attempting to determine its own position
the overall tourism purposes of foreign tourists. As the literature has so as to take advantage of an emerging industry (Agrusa and Prideaux,
been reviewed, this study proposes hypotheses as follow: 2002). With the combination of natural resources, history and cultural
patrimony, Vietnam has been recognized as an attractive potential
H1. Perceived quality will have a direct and positive influence on
destination for tourism (Cooper, 1997). In 2017, the number of tourists
travel intentions.
who came to Vietnam was estimated to be 12,922,151 arrivals, repre­
H2. Destination brand image will have a direct and positive influence senting a 29.1% growth as compared to the previous year. There is
on travel intentions. potential to attract 20 million international tourists, with the growth of
tourists coming to Vietnam in 2020 if the government continues to
H3. Brand loyalty will have a direct and positive influence on travel
maintain investment in development of the tourism industry (Galaviz,
intentions.
2007; VNAT, 2015).
H4. Brand awareness will have a direct and positive influence on travel
intentions. 3.2. Data collection and sample

2.5.2. Moderating role of destination familiarity This research performed the first phase of a larger project evaluating
Previous studies proposed that increased destination familiarity has the varied features of destination branding. Pre-testing was needed for
a positive affect the decision-making process and destination’s image the questionnaires to ensure clarity of the questionnaires, to guarantee
(Lee et al., 2008; Prentice and Andersen, 2000; Baloglu, 2001). Lin et al. the questions are understandable, and check if changes were necessary
(2014) contended that destination familiarity has moderating effects on before the survey was to be fully deployed. A group of fifty respondents,
the relationships amongst retail destination image and awareness and who had the reasonably similar characteristics with the survey popu­
franchise purchase intentions. The majority of tourists tend to gain lation, were sufficient for the pre-testing. After that, the questionnaire
particular knowledge about a destination that they will be more familiar was reviewed and confirmed through the pretest results. The pre-test
with it. This knowledge can bring them a sense of comfort and security, was undertaken with visitors who had previously traveled to Vietnam.
leading to an increase in their confidence in choosing a destination (Lee The aims of the pretest were to determine the reactions of international
et al., 2008). Similarly, Lee and Lockshin (2011) suggested that the more tourists to the questionnaire, validate the translation of key technical
destination familiarity increases, the less destination images visitors are terms used, estimate the time needed to complete the interview, ascer­
likely to depend on to create product beliefs. In the meantime, Horng tain whether the sequence of the questions solicited the desired infor­
et al. (2012) stated that greater destination familiarity has a positive mation, and to determine whether respondents could understand any of
moderating effect on the relationship between perceived quality and the technical terms. All Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7.
loyalty in travel intention within culinary tourism. Henthorne et al. After the pretest procedure, the research used quantitative data from a
(2013) concluded that repeat tourist visitors present higher levels of mailed survey questionnaire to classify factors and examine their sig­
comfort with their surround environments than do first-time tourists, nificance in influencing or determining the impacts of destination brand
which leads to a constraint of purchase behavior. Hence, it is proposed equity and familiarity regarding travel intentions.
that destination decisions might rely on the degree of tourists’ destina­ In the second phase, a sampling plan was developed to ensure that
tion familiarity. This study acknowledges the following matters: certain types of respondents would be included. The study adopted
convenience sampling method. The main data were collected from a
H5. Destination familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the
survey conducted between February and May 2018. The questionnaire
relationship between brand awareness and travel intentions, indicating
was executed individually to respondents in three big cities in northern,
brand awareness will have a significantly greater influence on travel
central and southern Vietnam, being Hanoi, Danang, Ho Chi Minh City,
intentions for travelers with greater destination familiarity than that for
respectively. Survey respondents were interviewed in shopping malls,
travelers with less destination familiarity.
tourism sites and main streets in each city. Respondents were identified
H6. Destination familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the as foreign visitors and asked about their intentions in visiting Vietnam
relationship between destination brand image and travel intentions, and if they would agree to participate in the survey, they were informed
indicating that destination brand image will have a significantly greater that all responses would remain anonymous. Additionally, the survey
influence on travel intentions for travelers with greater destination fa­ was conducted face-to-face on site so that any potential confusion could
miliarity than that for travelers with less destination familiarity. be clarified right away. A total of 750 survey questionnaires were
delivered, but the total valid sample was 531. This sample can be
H7. Destination familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the
representative if comparing to the general profile of international
relationship between brand loyalty and travel intentions, indicating that
tourists to Vietnam, because foreign tourists come to Vietnam mainly
brand loyalty will have a significantly greater influence on travel in­
from Europe and Asia. As shown in Table 1, the characteristics of in­
tentions for travelers with greater destination familiarity than that for
ternational visitors involved age, education, gender, marital status,
travelers with less destination familiarity.
occupation, income, main travel purpose, nationality, travel days and
H8. Destination familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the travel times. In particular, the percentage of participants varied among
relationship between perceived quality and travel intentions, indicating female tourists (53.1%), male tourists (46.9%), business people (27.3%),
that perceived quality will have a significantly greater influence on students (13.6%) or government officers (12.2%) from countries in
travel intention for travelers with greater destination familiarity than Europe (34.3%), Asia (28.1%) or the Americas (19.6%) with a university

4
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

Table 1 Table 2
Demographic profiles (N = 531). Assessment of the measurement model: reliability, convergent and discriminant
Variables % Variables %
validity.
Items Standardized t-Statistic CR AVE R2
Gender Marital status
loadings
Male 46.9 Single 17.3
Female 53.1 Married/partner 75.1 Destination 0.902 0.648 N/A
Divorced/separated/widowed 7.5 awareness
Age Monthly income I can picture what the 0.828 34.700***
< 20 3.6 Below $1000 15.8 destination looks
20–30 31.8 $1000–$1999 24.7 like in my mind
31–40 33.3 $2000–$2999 18.6 I am aware of the 0.822 31.908***
41–50 16.2 $3000–$3999 11.3 place as a travel
51–60 10.5 $4000–$4999 9.2 destination
> 61 4.5 $5000 and Above 9.6 I can recognize the 0.789 26.472***
No income 10.7 destination among
Education No. of previous visits other similar travel
Junior high school 8.5 1 time 59.3 destinations
Senior high school 23 2 times 17.1 The characteristics of 0.773 27.026***
University 56.3 3–5 times 15.4 this destination
Graduate school 12.2 More than 5 times 8.1 come to my mind
No. of days of travel Nationality quickly
Less than 3 days 5.3 Asia 28.1 When I am thinking 0.811 28.054***
3–7 days 41.2 Americas 19.6 about travelling,
8–14 days 34.5 Europe 34.3 this destination
15–30 days 15.4 Australia/New Zealand 14.5 comes to my mind
More than one month 3.6 Africa 3.6 immediately
Main purpose Occupation Destination image 0.914 0.726 N/A
Food and cuisine 18.6 Business people 27.3 This destination fits 0.808 29.636***
Religion 1.7 Professionals 7.9 my personality
Visit friend/family 14.9 Education workers 8.7 My friends would 0.869 59.066***
Shopping 5.1 Governmental officers 12.2 think highly of me if
Sightseeing 27.1 Workers 7.7 I visited this
Conference 4.3 Housekeepers 9.6 destination
Night life 1.1 Retired servants 7.2 The image of this 0.888 69.383***
Visit historic relics 12.6 Students 13.6 destination is
Cultural experience 8.7 Others 5.8 consistent with my
Others 5.8 own self-image
Visiting this 0.842 38.861***
destination reflects
level of education (56.3%), younger than 50 years old (84.9%), and with who I am
the main sightseeing purpose (27.1%). Perceived quality 0.881 0.649 N/A
This destination 0.795 27.593***
provides tourism
3.3. Measures offerings of
consistent quality
This destination 0.822 35.388***
In Table 2, all of the items used in this study were measured using 7- provides quality
point Likert-type scales, ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly experiences
agree = 7. The measurement of Destination awareness compose of six From this 0.774 25.263***
destination’s
items, relied on the studies of Pappu and Quester (2006); Yoo and
offerings, I can
Donthu (2001); Arnett et al. (2003); and Konecnik and Gartner (2007); expect superior
image variables according to the suggestions of Grace and O’Cass (2005) performance
and Boo et al. (2009); perceived quality was calculated using a scale This destination 0.830 33.995***
derived from Boo et al. (2009) and Sweeney and Soutar (2001); and the performs better than
other similar
calibration of loyalty was adapted from Bianchi and Pike (2011), Boo
destinations
et al. (2009), and Konecnik and Gartner (2007). A five-item travel Destination loyalty 0.896 0.634 N/A
intention scale measuring the possibility of future tourists to visit a I consider myself a 0.780 30.611***
destination was based on the work of Pike and Ryan (2004) and Ryu and loyal traveler to this
destination
Jang (2006). Finally, this research used a five-item scale to estimate
If there is another 0.800 31.033***
destination familiarity based on Gursoy and McCleary (2004). travel destination as
good as this one, I
prefer to visit this
3.4. Data analysis destination
The destination would 0.778 23.937***
Principal component analysis was used to investigate the role of be my first choice of
destination familiarity and the elements of brand equity in travel a travel destination
I will visit this 0.841 42.163***
intention. Partial least squares analysis was employed to test the hy­ destination instead
pothesized model of destination branding. The data were processed with of other travel
the SmartPLS version 3.0 statistical software package (Ringle et al., destinations if they
2015) for several reasons: (1) Unlike CBSEM, PLS avoids issues related to are similar
I would advise other 0.781 25.913***
small sample size, non-standard data; (2) can estimate complex research
people to visit this
models with many intermediate, latent and observable variables, espe­ destination
cially structural models; (3) is suitable for studies that are predisposed (continued on next page)
toward prediction (Henseler et al., 2009).

5
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

Table 2 (continued ) Comparing all of the correlation coefficients with square roots of
Items Standardized t-Statistic CR AVE R2 AVEs in Table 3, the results show strong evidence of discriminant val­
loadings idity. Henseler et al. (2015) reported a new procedure called the
Travel Intention 0.927 0.808 0.555
heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) to test the discriminant validity.
In the following year, I 0.915 68.113*** Besides, the HTMT approach has shown overcomes bias and reliable
may visit this performance to compute the parameters of the structural model. Table 3
destination again for showed that the value of HTMT was less than 0.90, indicating that
tourism
discriminant validity has been established between two reflective vari­
In the following year, I 0.882 63.925***
plan to visit this ables (Henseler et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2017).
destination again for
tourism
I wish to visit this 0.899 70.007*** 4.2. Structural model and hypothesis testing
destination again for
tourism As a result, travel intention (R2 = 0.55) can be described as moder­
Destination 0.969 0.861 N/A
ate. For the whole model, the Goodness-of-Fit value was equal to 0.63,
Familiarity
Compared to an 0.941 75.373*** which is found to be greater than the cutoff value of 0.36 for large effect
average person, I am sizes (Wetzels et al., 2009). In total, the results proposed that the
very familiar with a structural model displayed sufficient explanatory power. This study
wide variety of used a bootstrap re-sampling procedure (5000 additional samples were
vacation
destinations
added as bootstraps to obtain meaningful statistics for hypothesis
Compared to my 0.918 52.981*** testing) (Hair Black et al., 2005).
friends, I am very To test attributes of destination brand equity and travel intention, as
familiar with a wide expected, the results demonstrate that brand equity positively relates to
variety of vacation
travel intention. The path coefficient (β = 0.15, t = 3.69, p < 0.01) is
destinations
Compared to people 0.918 56.755*** significant, therefore H1 is supported, which shows that perceived
who travel a lot, I quality positively related to travel intention. The findings verify the
am very familiar hypotheses connecting destination image (β = 0.33, t = 6.15, p < 0.01)
with a wide variety and destination loyalty (β = 0.12, t = 2.92, p < 0.01) to travel intentions.
of vacation
Lastly, as suggested in the hypotheses, the relationship between desti­
destinations
I often spend time 0.935 64.239*** nation awareness and the travel intention is significant and positive
gathering (β = 0.22, t = 4.24, p < 0.01). Unsurprisingly, the results indicate that
information about four components of destination brand equity are significant predictors of
the destination
travel intention, consistent with the arguments of prior researchers that
I am very familiar with 0.927 62.610***
information on the image, perceived quality, awareness, and loyalty are key variables for
destination organizations interested in the value of brand equity when examined
*** from the perspectives of consumers (Boo et al., 2009; Kandampully
Significant at the 0.01 level; CR=Composite reliability AVE=average
et al., 2011).
variance extracted; N/A=Not available.
To test the moderating effect, Hypothesis 5, which postulated that
destination familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the rela­
4. Results
tionship between awareness and travel intentions, was supported
(β = 0.12, t = 2.74, p < 0.01). Previous studies have supported this
4.1. Evaluation of the measurement model
finding. Enhancing brand familiarity through continuous exposure cre­
ates brand awareness, which is important to potential visitors to un­
Based on the results of CFA, two items were deleted due to low factor
derstand the brand name, symbol, logo, and character of the destination
loadings including DA6 (I can quickly recall the marketing about the
(Keller, 2003). Milman and Pizam (1995) also explained that, as po­
destination) and DQ5 (Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get
tential tourists change their awareness to the familiarity stage regarding
much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination). Table 2
specific destinations; it causes their interest in it and their intention to
showed that all of the item loadings were greater than the recommended
visit to increase as well.
value of 0.7 (Chin, 1998) and were acceptable for further analysis. From
Regarding Hypothesis 6, destination familiarity was significant, and
Table 2, composite reliability estimates (Hair et al., 2012) were greater
there is a negative interaction effect between destination image and
than the suggested threshold of 0.70 (ranging from 0.88 to 0.96), which
travel intentions (β = -0.19, t = 3.96, p < 0.01). That is, the high desti­
indicated that the measurements were reliable.
nation brand image and destination familiarity has a significant and

Table 3
Mean, standard deviation, inter-construct correlations, HTMT values.
Mean SD Destination Destination Perceived Destination Travel Destination
Awareness Image Quality Loyalty Intention Familiarity

Destination Awareness 5.59 1.35 1 0.700 0.592 0.494 0.653 0.142

Destination Image 4.90 1.66 0.611*** 1 0.662 0.581 0.724 0.218
Perceived Quality 5.26 1.29 0.503*** 0.563*** 1 0.449 0.581 0.137
Destination Loyalty 5.46 1.41 0.425*** 0.504*** 0.375*** 1 0.551 0.223
Travel Intention 5.40 1.45 0.570*** 0.637*** 0.496*** 0.479*** 1 0.327
Destination 5.10 1.44 0.130*** 0.200*** 0.122*** 0.203*** 0.301*** 1
Familiarity

Notes: Below the diagonal elements are the correlations between the construct values.
Above the diagonal elements are the HTMT values.
***
p < 0.001.

6
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

negative effect on travel intentions. Previous studies have found that the reason to repeatedly visit a destination that offers the new and myste­
more that familiarity increases, the more positive that a destination rious within the familiar.
image is (Kerstetter and Cho, 2004; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Sharifpour For further understanding of the moderating effects, this research
et al., 2014). The increased familiarity of people regarding actual visi­ followed the guidance of Aiken et al. (1991). Fig. 1 show that both
tation and information about the destination adds a more positive destination awareness and familiarity positively influence on travel in­
destination image. In contrast, some research has indicated that nega­ tentions, for instance, an increase in travel intentions is associated with
tive images of a destination can be created by certain information an increase in familiarity. In particular, as shown in Figure 2, compared
(Sönmez and Sirakaya, 2002; McCartney et al., 2008). Additionally, to tourists with low perceived quality, those with high perceived quality
travelers have personally shaped destination images based upon their enjoy more growth in travel intentions with an increase in familiarity,
travel experiences. However, the tourist destination’s reality might not indicating that high familiarity has a stronger influence on travel in­
match the perceived image (Andreu et al., 2000). tentions than low familiarity.
In addition, the results show that destination familiarity has a
negative moderating effect on the relationship between brand loyalty 5. Conclusion
and travel intentions (β = -0.08, t = 2.23, p < 0.01). Therefore, destina­
tion familiarity will be the moderating variable which affects the rela­ The acknowledgment of this paper is to examine the assessment of
tionship between destination loyalty and travel intention. Destination travel intentions through various elements of brand equity. Specifically,
familiarity enables visitors to have positive or negative loyalty to a these dimensions include the following: (1) use of conception of desti­
destination, as well as helping to evaluate a destination’s attractiveness. nation brand equity (loyalty, quality, image, and awareness) to measure
The more that destination familiarity increases, the more attractive that travel intentions; and (2) the positive moderation by destination famil­
the destination is; nonetheless, after a certain point, the destination fa­ iarity of the relationship between destination brand equity and travel
miliarity becomes less attractive, causing a decrease in brand loyalty intentions. As a result, these hypotheses differentiate the extraordinary
(Um and Crompton, 1990). Thus an important finding of this research is attributes of the destination brand equity evaluation from the travel
that it identifies another area in which both further empirical investi­ intention assessment. As these hypotheses, this empirical research used
gation is needed to attempt to identify the tipping point at which fa­ a PLS approach from the perspective of international tourists regarding
miliarity shifts towards decreasing loyalty, and to evaluate measures Vietnamese tourism to examine the model of brand equity in a desti­
that could be taken to counteract this decrease. For example, based upon nation setting and test four dimensions of brand equity in the suggested
these results, marketers should undertake greater efforts to provide
opportunities for tourists to experience themselves in Vietnam in
Table 4
different ways that supplement familiarity so as to maintain tourists as
Results for the hypothesized model using PLS.
repeaters.
The last hypothesis was H8, which hypothesized that destination Hypotheses Path t-value Result VIF
coefficient
familiarity has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
perceived quality and travel intentions (β = 0.13, t = 3.02, p < 0.01). H1. Perceived Quality — 0.15 3.69*** Supported 1.716
Travel Intentions
Research suggests that, increased familiarity helps tourists in deciding
H2. Destination Image — 0.33 6.15*** Supported 2.108
on their vacation spots. Gursoy (2001) stated that a tourist whose Travel Intentions
perceived quality based on their existing knowledge will make travel H3. Destination Loyalty — 0.12 2.92*** Supported 1.491
decision using their internal information. An elaboration of this point in Travel Intentions
future research might explore where existing knowledge itself becomes H4. Destination Awareness — 0.22 4.24*** Supported 1.906
Travel Intentions
familiar to the point of tipping decisions towards other locations. Or
perhaps testing the further hypothesis that existing knowledge, as is true *p < 0.10.
of all knowledge, including survey results, is always partial and so an **p < 0.05.
***
awareness of this, and desire to increase familiarity further, can be a p < 0.01.

Fig. 1. Moderating effect of destination familiarity.

7
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

model. Some important conclusions were drawn (Tables 4 and 5). Table 5
First, the travel intentions of foreign tourists are created by the Moderation tests using PLS.
perceived brand equity of tourists’ vis-à-vis destination brand equity. Hypotheses Path t-Value Result VIF
Hence, the travel intentions of tourists will be influenced by brand eq­ coefficient
uity. The moderator, destination familiarity, has an impact on this bias; H5. Destination Familiarity 0.12 2.74*** Supported 2.319
thus, when visitors have greater familiarity with a destination, the vis­ moderates — Destination
itors’ travel intentions change their evaluations of brand equity vis-à-vis Awareness on Travel
awareness, and the perceived quality increases, up to a point. Second, Intention
H6. Destination Familiarity − 0.19 3.96*** Significant but 2.043
the findings demonstrated that brand equity can be seen as an important moderates — Destination not supported
indicator and a key determinant of travel intentions. Therefore, to gain a Image on Travel
better understanding of what encourages visitors to visit particular Intention
destinations and why brand equity significantly affects travelers’ deci­ H7. Destination Familiarity − 0.08 2.23** Significant but 1.528
moderates — Destination not supported
sion is critical. The research was conducted within the framework of
Loyalty on Travel
consumer behavior to better understand the significance of brand eq­ Intention
uity, especially for international destinations. The implications of fa­ H8. Destination Familiarity 0.13 3.02*** Supported 1.798
miliarity, and the tendency for this to reach a tipping point, after which moderates — Perceived
new strategies for marketing may be required, is identified as an area for Quality on Travel
Intention
subsequent research.
This paper has contributed to both theoretical and practical impli­ *p < 0.10.
**
cation. Theoretically, tourism scholars will have greater awareness of p < 0.05.
***
the magnitude of destination branding, which is a rising variety of p < 0.01.
tourism to which researchers have applied the theory of brand equity
(Williams et al., 2004; Woodside et al., 2007; Konecnik and Gartner, predictive of destination brand performance. Third, to create destination
2007). Nevertheless, until now, by concentrating on different influence familiarity might be considered over a shorter time to attract visitors,
of brand equity on travel intention, very limited studies have investi­ but over a longer time a different dynamic will need to be considered. It
gated the brand equity mechanism. This research attempted to bridge is important that the memory of past experiences forecasts future
the academic gap due to the lack of research about the interrelationships commitment with brand equity. Therefore, a question becomes: how to
among dimensions of travel intentions and brand equity from travelers’ create good remembrances about a visiting destination and a promise of
perspectives. Therefore, this insufficiency is serious, as brand equity is more unanticipated positive experiences. A concentration on increasing
one of the most powerful factors increasing differentiation. Additionally, good remembrances associated with elements of destination brand eq­
that differentiation is one of the important marketing strategies (Hotho uity can be a vital issue for future research. Finally, further research can
and Champion, 2011). Prior researches have highlighted the influences compare prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors from the viewpoint
of brand equity regarding the tourist perspectives of culinary tourism of destination branding.
(Horng et al., 2012), artistic and cultural activities (Camarero et al.,
2010). Under the conditions of foreign tourists’ perceptions, this Appendix A. Supplementary material
research clearly emphasized the differential effect of brand equity di­
mensions. This study suggests a direction for future researchers with Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
which they can apply brand equity perceptions in circumstances where online version at [Link]
marketing strategists take into account familiarity as a moderator, and
measures to maintain and enhance the attachment aspects of this References
moderation.
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Maxweel Macmillan-Canada. Inc, New York.
Regarding practical implications, the results are particularly valu­
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. Calif. Manag.
able to targeted marketers and planners who focus more on enhancing, Rev. 38 (3), 102.
improving and developing their brand equity. By checking the percep­ Aaker, D.A., Joachimsthaler, E., 2000. The brand relationship spectrum: the key to the
brand architecture challenge. Calif. Manag. Rev. 42 (4), 8.
tions and familiarity of foreign visitors about destinations, managers can
Agrusa, J., Prideaux, B., 2002. Tourism and the threat of HIV/AIDS in Vietnam. Asia Pac.
build destination brand equity, and they will need to focus not only on J. Tour. Res. 7 (1), 1–10.
visual components but also on ensuring that potential visitors perceive Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., Reno, R.R., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
destination as a feasible tourism destination, with further interests and Interactions. Sage.
Allameh, S.M., Khazaei Pool, J., Jaberi, A., Salehzadeh, R., Asadi, H., 2015. Factors
experiences to offer beyond the familiar, and that this might lead to an influencing sport tourists’ revisit intentions: the role and effect of destination image,
increase in travel intention. Understanding the elements and metrics of perceived quality, perceived value and satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 27 (2),
destination brands in travel intentions can clarify the solutions, there­ 191–207.
Andreu, L., Bigné, J.E., Cooper, C., 2000. Projected and perceived image of Spain as a
fore, providers must adopt to raise and extend the awareness of visitors. tourist destination for British travellers. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 9 (4), 47–67.
It is suggested that this research may have at least three limits. First, Arendt, S., Brettel, M., 2010. Understanding the influence of corporate social
the limitations highlight the evidence not considering the roles of responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance. Manag. Decis. 48
(10), 1469–1492.
different sociodemographic variables, such as income, education level or Arnett, D.B., German, S.D., Hunt, S.D., 2003. The identity salience model of relationship
behavioral traits of tourists, and the influences of previous destination marketing success: the case of nonprofit marketing. J. Mark. 67 (2), 89–105.
experiences (repeat travel) when performing the research. Further Baalbaki, S., Guzmán, F., 2016. A consumer-perceived consumer-based brand equity
scale. J. Brand Manag. 23 (3), 229–251.
experimental studies are necessary to attempt to combine the factors not
Baloglu, S., 2001. An investigation of a loyalty typology and the multidestination loyalty
tested in this study to attain a more accurate perception of travelers’ of international travelers. Tour. Anal. 6 (1), 41–52.
intentions regarding destinations and familiarity over longer time Baloglu, S., Henthorne, T.L., Sahin, S., 2014. Destination image and brand personality of
Jamaica: a model of tourist behavior. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 31 (8), 1057–1070.
frames. Second, this present study only gathered questionnaire data
Beerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 31
from tourists to reflect accurately the evaluations, perceptions, and at­ (3), 657–681.
titudes of tourists. Consequently, that the study incorporates the cus­ Bennett, D.R., Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G., 2000. Two purchase analysis of brand
tomers’ viewpoints might not be sufficient to manage destination loyalty among petrol buyers. ANZMAC, Gold. Coast Aust. 29.
Bian, Q., Forsythe, S., 2012. Purchase intention for luxury brands: a cross cultural
brands. Therefore, further work must be performed to incorporate the comparison. J. Bus. Res. 65 (10), 1443–1451.
employees’ viewpoints, which could create a greater holistic perspective

8
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

Bianchi, C., Pike, S., 2011. Antecedents of destination brand loyalty for a long-haul Kerstetter, D., Cho, M.-H., 2004. Prior knowledge, credibility and information search.
market: Australia’s destination loyalty among Chilean travelers. J. Travel Tour. Ann. Tour. Res. 31 (4), 961–985.
Mark. 28 (7), 736–750. Kim, D., Perdue, R.R., 2011. The influence of image on destination attractiveness.
Blain, C., Levy, S.E., Ritchie, J.R.B., 2005. Destination branding: insights and practices J. Travel Tour. Mark. 28 (3), 225–239.
from destination management organizations. J. Travel Res. 43 (4), 328–338. Kim, H., Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms’
Boo, S., Busser, J., Baloglu, S., 2009. A model of customer-based brand equity and its performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tour. Manag. 26 (4), 549–560.
application to multiple destinations. Tour. Manag. 30 (2), 219–231. Kim, S.-H., Han, H.-S., Holland, S., Byon, K.K., 2009. Structural relationships among
Cai, L.A., 2002. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Ann. Tour. Res. 29 (3), involvement, destination brand equity, satisfaction and destination visit intentions:
720–742. the case of Japanese outbound travelers. J. Vacat. Mark. 15 (4), 349–365.
Camarero, C., Garrido, M.J., Vicente, E., 2010. Components of art exhibition brand Konecnik, M., 2004. Evaluating Slovenia’s image as a tourism destination: a self-analysis
equity for internal and external visitors. Tour. Manag. 31 (4), 495–504. process towards building a destination brand. J. Brand Manag. 11 (4), 307–316.
Chan, C., Marafa, L.M., 2013. A review of place branding methodologies in the new Konecnik, M., 2006. Croatian-based brand equity for Slovenia as a tourism destination.
millennium. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 9 (4), 236–253. Econ. Bus. Rev. Cent. South-East. Eur. 8 (1), 83.
Chanrithy, S.O.K., 2007. Measuring International tourists satisfaction and destination Konecnik, M., Gartner, W.C., 2007. Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Ann.
loyalty: a case of Angkor tourism sites. 成功大學國際經營管理研究所碩士班學位論文 Tour. Res. 34 (2), 400–421.
1–85. Laroche, M., Teng, L., 2001. A test of the Laroche competitive vulnerability model of
Chen, C., Lin, Y., 2012. Segmenting mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan by destination cognitions, attitudes, intentions, and behavior: an application to Fast food Outlets. 関
familiarity: a factor-cluster approach. Int. J. Tour. Res. 14 (4), 339–352. 西大学社会学部紀要 32 (3), 1–19.
Chen, J.S., Gursoy, D., 2001. An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and Lassar, W., Mittal, B., Sharma, A., 1995. Measuring customer-based brand equity.
preferences. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 13 (2), 79–85. J. Consum. Mark. 12 (4), 11–19.
Cooper, M., 1997. Tourism planning and education in Vietnam: a profile 1995–2010. Lee, J.-S., Back, K.-J., 2008. Attendee-based brand equity. Tour. Manag. 29 (2), 331–344.
Pac. Tour. Rev. 1 (1), 57–63. Lee, R., Lockshin, L., 2011. Halo effects of tourists’ destination image on domestic
Dooley, G., Bowie, D., 2005. Place brand architecture: strategic management of the product perceptions. Australas. Mark. J. (AMJ) 19 (1), 7–13.
brand portfolio. Place Brand. 1 (4), 402–419. Lee, S., Scott, D., Kim, H., 2008. Celebrity fan involvement and destination perceptions.
Ferns, B.H., Walls, A., 2012. Enduring travel involvement, destination brand equity, and Ann. Tour. Res. 35 (3), 809–832.
travelers’ visit intentions: a structural model analysis. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 1 Lepp, A., Gibson, H., 2003. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann.
(1–2), 27–35. Tour. Res. 30 (3), 606–624.
Flavian, C., Martı ́nez, E., Polo, Y., 2001. Loyalty to grocery stores in the Spanish market Li, X.R., Cheng, C.-K., Kim, H., Petrick, J.F., 2008. A systematic comparison of first-time
of the 1990s. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 8 (2), 85–93. and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tour. Manag. 29 (2), 278–293.
García, J.A., Gómez, M., Molina, A., 2012. A destination-branding model: an empirical Lin, Y.H., Lin, F.J., Ryan, C., 2014. Tourists’ purchase intentions: impact of franchise
analysis based on stakeholders. Tour. Manag. 33 (3), 646–661. brand awareness. Serv. Ind. J. 34 (9–10), 811–827.
Gartner, W.C., 1994. Image formation process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2 (2–3), 191–216. Lu, A.C.C., Gursoy, D., Lu, C.Y., 2015. Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand
Gartner, W.C., Ruzzier, M.K., 2011. Tourism destination brand equity dimensions: choice intention: the case of ethnic restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 50, 36–45.
renewal versus repeat market. J. Travel Res. 50 (5), 471–481. Maestro, R.M.H., Gallego, P.A.M., Requejo, L.S., 2007. The moderating role of familiarity
Gnoth, J., 2002. Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. J. Brand in rural tourism in Spain. Tour. Manag. 28 (4), 951–964.
Manag. 9 (4), 262–280. Mawby, R.I., 2000. Tourists’ perceptions of security: the risk—fear paradox. Tour. Econ.
Gómez, M., Lopez, C., Molina, A., 2015. A model of tourism destination brand equity: the 6 (2), 109–121.
case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tour. Manag. 51, 210–222. McCartney, G., Butler, R., Bennett, M., 2008. A strategic use of the communication mix in
Grace, D., O’Cass, A., 2005. Service branding: consumer verdicts on service brands. the destination image-formation process. J. Travel Res. 47 (2), 183–196.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 12 (2), 125–139. Milman, A., Pizam, A., 1995. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination:
Gursoy, D., 2001. Development of a travelers’information search behavior model. the central Florida case. J. Travel Res. 33 (3), 21–27.
Virginia Tech. Mishra, P., Datta, B., 2011. Perpetual asset management of customer-based brand equity-
Gursoy, D., 2011. Modeling Tourist Information Search Behavior: A Structural Modeling the PAM evaluator. Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci. 3 (1), 34–43.
Approach. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken. Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., 2007. Destination brand personality: visitor
Gursoy, D., McCleary, K.W., 2004. An integrative model of tourists’ information search perceptions of a regional tourism destination. Tour. Anal. 12 (5–6), 419–432.
behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 31 (2), 353–373. Oppermann, M., 2000. Tourism destination loyalty. J. Travel Res. 39 (1), 78–84.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the use of Pappu, R., Quester, P., 2006. A consumer-based method for retailer equity measurement:
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. results of an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 13 (5), 317–329.
Mark. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433. Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D., Norman, W.C., 2001. An examination of the determinants of
Hair Jr, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P., 2017. Advanced Issues in Partial entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. J. Travel Res. 40 (1), 41–48.
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications. Pike, S., 2007. Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: Practical DMO
Hair Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., F, J., 2005. Multivariate Data performance measures. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 22 (1), 51–61.
Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p. 7. Pike, S., 2010. Destination branding case study: Tracking brand equity for an emerging
Han, H., Back, K.-J., 2008. Relationships among image congruence, consumption destination between 2003 and 2007. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 34 (1), 124–139.
emotions, and customer loyalty in the lodging industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 32 (4), Pike, S., Bianchi, C., 2016. Destination brand equity for Australia: testing a model of
467–490. CBBE in short-haul and long-haul markets. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 40 (1), 114–134.
Harish, R., 2010. Brand architecture in tourism branding: the way forward for India. Pike, S., Ryan, C., 2004. Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
J. Indian Bus. Res. 2 (3), 153–165. cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. J. Travel Res. 42 (4), 333–342.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G., Patti, C., 2010. Consumer-based brand equity for Australia
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1), as a long-haul tourism destination in an emerging market. Int. Mark. Rev. 27 (4),
115–135. 434–449.
Henthorne, T.L., George, B.P., Smith, W.C., 2013. Risk perception and buying behavior: Pike, S.D., Bianchi, C., 2013. Destination branding performance measurement: a non-
an examination of some relationships in the context of cruise tourism in Jamaica. Int. technical discussion for practitioners. Luyou Xuekan (Tour. Trib.) 28 (1), 13–15.
J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 14 (1), 66–86. Prentice, R., 2006. Evocation and experiential seduction: updating choice-sets modelling.
Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H., Chiu, H.-Y., Tsai, C.-Y., 2012. The role of international tourist Tour. Manag. 27 (6), 1153–1170.
perceptions of brand equity and travel intention in culinary tourism. Serv. Ind. J. 32 Prentice, R., Andersen, V., 2000. Evoking Ireland: modeling tourism propensity. Ann.
(16), 2607–2621. Tour. Res. 27 (2), 490–516.
Hotho, S., Champion, K., 2011. Small businesses in the new creative industries: Prentice, R., Andersen, V., 2003. Festival as creative destination. Ann. Tour. Res. 30 (1),
innovation as a people management challenge. Manag. Decis. 49 (1), 29–54. 7–30.
Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., Ali, S., 2003. Building events into destination Qu, H., Kim, L.H., Im, H.H., 2011. A model of destination branding: integrating the
branding: insights from experts. Event Manag. 8 (1), 3–14. concepts of the branding and destination image. Tour. Manag. 32 (3), 465–476.
Jang, S.S., Namkung, Y., 2009. Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-.M., 2015. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants. J. Bus. Res. 62 GmbH, [Link]
(4), 451–460. Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Coote, L.V., 2007. Involvement, satisfaction,
Kandampully, J., Juwaheer, T.D., Hu, H.-H., 2011. The influence of a hotel firm’s quality and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. J. Bus. Res. 60 (12),
of service and image and its effect on tourism customer loyalty. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. 1253–1260.
Adm. 12 (1), 21–42. Ryan, C., 2003. Recreational Tourism: Demand and Impacts, 11. Channel View
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2003). Destination branding: Concept and measurement. Publications.
Travel Michigan and Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2006. Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destination: the
Tourism Resources, 1–7. modified theory of reasoned action. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 30 (4), 507–516.
Kastenholz, E., 2010. ‘Cultural proximity’as a determinant of destination image. J. Vacat. Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B.W., Winter, C., 2014. Investigating the role of prior
Mark. 16 (4), 313–322. knowledge in tourist decision making: a structural equation model of risk
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand perceptions and information search. J. Travel Res. 53 (3), 307–322.
equity. J. Mark. 1–22. Sheth, J.N., Parvatiyar, A., 1995. Relationship marketing in consumer markets:
Keller, K.L., 2003. Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. Interact. Mark. 5 antecedents and consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 23 (4), 255–271.
(1), 7–20.

9
H.-K. Chi et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101728

Shoemaker, S., Lewis, R.C., 1999. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. Williams, P.W., Gill, A.M., Chura, N., 2004. Branding mountain destinations: the battle
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 18 (4), 345–370. for “placefulness”. Tour. Rev. 59 (1), 6–15.
Sönmez, S., Sirakaya, E., 2002. A distorted destination image? The case of Turkey. Woodside, A.G., Cruickshank, B.F., Dehuang, N., 2007. Stories visitors tell about Italian
J. Travel Res. 41 (2), 185–196. cities as destination icons. Tour. Manag. 28 (1), 162–174.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., 2011. The relevance of visitors’ nation brand embeddedness and Wu, C.-W., 2016. Destination loyalty modeling of the global tourism. J. Bus. Res. 69 (6),
personality congruence for nation brand identification, visit intentions and 2213–2219.
advocacy. Tour. Manag. 32 (6), 1282–1289. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
Sun, X., Chi, C.G.-Q., Xu, H., 2013. Developing destination loyalty: the case of Hainan based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Island. Ann. Tour. Res. 43, 547–577. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2002. Testing cross-cultural invariance of the brand equity creation
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a process. J. Product. Brand Manag. 11 (6), 380–398.
multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 (2), 203–220. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements
Szymanski, D.M., Hise, R.T., 2000. E-satisfaction: an initial examination. J. Retail. 76 (3), and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (2), 195–211.
309–322. Yoon, Y., Uysal, M., 2005. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
Tasci, A.D.A., 2018. Testing the cross-brand and cross-market validity of a consumer- destination loyalty: a structural model. Tour. Manag. 26 (1), 45–56.
based brand equity (CBBE) model for destination brands. Tour. Manag. 65, 143–159. Yousaf, A., Amin, I., Gupta, A., 2017. Conceptualising tourist based brand-equity
Tasci, A.D.A., Gartner, W.C., Cavusgil, S.T., 2007. Measurement of destination brand bias pyramid: an application of Keller brand pyramid model to destinations. Tour. Hosp.
using a quasi-experimental design. Tour. Manag. 28 (6), 1529–1540. Manag. 23 (1), 119–137.
Um, S., Crompton, J.L., 1990. Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Ann. Yuan, J., Jang, S., 2008. The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and
Tour. Res. 17 (3), 432–448. behavioral intentions: exploring the role of a wine festival. J. Travel Res. 46 (3),
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Van Oppen, C., 2009. Using PLS path modeling for 279–288.
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., Bilim, Y., 2010. Destination attachment: effects on customer
177–195. satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour. Manag. 31 (2),
274–284.

10