See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/372409825

MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND

TRAVEL INTENTION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY FROM VIETNAM

Article in Tourism and hospitality management · July 2023

DOI: 10.20867/thm.29.3.3

CITATIONS READS

5 408

1 author:

Bao Bui
University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City
15 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bao Bui on 17 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND

TRAVEL INTENTION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY FROM VIETNAM

Abstract

Trong Tien Bao BUI, PhD, Student in Purpose – There is a lack of research on the causal relationship between a tourism destination’s
Economic Development at Vietnam National new brand equity and travel intention. This study aims to identify and explore the model
University of Agriculture (VNUA), (Corresponding of tourism destination new brand equity, validate and evaluate the relationships between
Author)
HUTECH University
tourism destination new brand equity elements and travel intention in the context of tourism
Faculty of Tourism & Hospitality Management destinations.
700000, Vietnam - 475A Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward Design – This study collected primary data from March to May 2021 based on a questionnaire
25, Binh Thanh Dist., HCM City, Vietnam.
Phone: +[Link]
survey of 589 domestic tourists traveling to Dong Thap province. The newly proposed
E-mail: [Link]@[Link] conceptual framework was evaluated and validated using the PLS-SEM method.
Findings – The main new findings of this study were the identification of the nine constructs
of destination brand equity and their association with travel likelihood. The study revealed
the effect of the new constructs of destination brand equity constructs on travel willingness,
which can promote domestic tourism in Dong Thap province.
Originality of the research – The current study can be considered as an important contribution
to the theoretical and managerial implications for local authorities to understand the new
model of destination brand equity from the perspective of domestic tourists. The findings of
this study may increase travel intention and promote tourism in Dong Thap province.
Keywords Destination Brand Equity, Domestic tourist, Travel Intention, Dong Thap province
Original scientific paper
Received 23 October 2022
Revised 21 February 2023
1 March 2023
Accepted 4 March 2023
[Link]

INTRODUCTION

Customer-based brand equity in the tourism destination context has recently gained special attention in the hospitality and
tourism industry (Cervova & Vavrova, 2021; Im et al., 2012; Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011; Lim et al., 2014; Saeed & Shafique,
2019). Notably, the concept of brand equity was studied not only to the service industry but also to the tourism service and
hospitality industry, as demonstrated by research conducted by Ekinci et al., (2022); Kim & Lee, (2018).

Chi et al., (2020); Lim et al., (2014); Zhang et al., (2020a) evaluated and validated the customer-based perspective on brand
equity elements for a tourism destination. This conceptual framework consisting of four main constructs namely, recognition,
image, tourists’ perceptions of service quality, as well loyalty to brand. Aaker (1991) pointed out that customer-based perspective
on brand equity components consisting of brand recognition, perception of quality, brand association, and loyalty to brand.
Similarly, Kladou et al., (2015) also indicated that brand awareness/recognition, perception of quality, brand associations, and
brand assets constructs provide a value to the business by increasing tourist brand loyalty. Keller (1993) divided the brand equity
elements into two categories consisting of brand awareness which is referred to as memory recognition and recall performance;
the image of brand is referred to as a system of associations. In general, Chen & Tseng (2010); Cambra-Fierro et al., (2021)
identified that the customer-based brand equity elements consisting of four constructs namely, brand recognition, perception
of service quality, image of band, as well brand loyalty. Meanwhile, Chen & Myagmarsuren (2010); Kusumaningrum (2021)
claimed that tourism destination brand equity is the perception of equity including destination brand recognition, brand image
of the destination, perception of quality, and loyalty to tourism destination brand as one the consequences of perception of
brand equity. A review of the past research indicated that brand equity of touirsm destination is multi-dimensional and complex
with various elements which work together and contributes toward the overall equity of tourism destination brand (Fang, 2021;
Kaushal et al., 2018). Furthermore, Chi et al., (2020) Ergün et al., (2022) indicated that few studies investigate the components
of tourism destination brand equity. Therefore, the brand equity of a tourism destination should be combined by a series of
significant elements (Shi et al., 2022).

In addition, Ghafari et al., (2017) developed a brand equity model for tourism destination consisting of brand awareness,
perception of uniqueness of brand, perception of quality, perceived value of destination brand, image of destination brand,
reputation, brand satisfaction, as well loyalty to destination brand, in which loyalty to brand is the core construct of brand equity
as well as the customer-based brand equity which could positive increase intention to travel to a specific destination (Zhang
et al., 2020a). Previous studies have shown that an increasingly large number of tourism behaviour studies have evaluated
and validated the intention to travel through the theory of planned behavior, and the various theoretical frameworks (Han et
al., 2020). Chi, et al., (2020) claimed that brand equity of tourism destination prominent impacts on travel intention from the

349
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

perspective of international tourists traveling to Viet Nam. However, very few tourism studies have evaluated the integration
between the constructs of tourism destination brand equity, travel intention, and other latent variables constructs in the same
study (Shi et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020a). Therefore, the current research incorporates all of the above-mentioned constructs
in a new brand equity of tourism destination model to evaluate and validate the causal relationships among new destination
brand equity elements and the intention to travel to Dong Thap province, as a case study.

Dong Thap is one of provinces in the Mekong Delta Region, with many beautiful, poetic, and lyrical natural sceneries that still
retain original features, long-standing historical traditions, many distinctive cultural, and hospitality spirit of the local people
appeal to tourists (Dong Thap Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism, 2021). Thus, the province has a lot of significant
potential for appealing tourist. The statistics show that number of domestic tourist arrivals in Dong Thap has been increasing
each year. Especially in 2019, the province welcomed and served 3.95 million tourist arrivals, including 3.86 million domestic
tourist arrivals, with a turnover of 1,051 billion VND (Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism Dong Thap, 2021). Due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of domestic visitors to this province has decreased rapidly in recent months. Although,
Dong Thap welcomed about 100,000 domestic visitor arrivals in the first six months of 2021 (Vietnam National Administration
of Tourism, 2021). Domestic tourism is crucial to developing local tourism and promoting economic recovery and growth after
the pandemic. Despite this, there have been few studies focusing on travel intentions of domestic tourists (Shekari & Azizi,
2021). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate and validate the interrelationship between the brand equity of tourism destination
based on the pointview of domestic tourist and the causal relationship between destination brand equity and the willingness
to travel, which is a vital tool for evaluating the likelihood to visit or return to a destination (Pike & Bianchi, 2013) and as
an advantage for local authorities in efficaciously building a brand equity of tourism destination become more attractive and
competitive (Ergün et al., 2022). The results of this study have a positive contribution to provide the basis for this province’s
focus on building tourism marketing strategies to boost domestic tourism in the future.

After reviewing the previous research and empirical studies, the current study attempted to expand the existing research gaps
of destination brand equity components from the domestic tourists’s perspective to gain an insight into understanding of overall
brand equity of destination. The current study has a number of contributions to the literature by providing major findings
related to the interrelationship between tourism destination of brand equity and the intention to travel of domestic tourists.
The outcomes of the current study conclued that the brand equity of a tourist destination played a prominent role in increasing
the likelihood to travel to Dong Thap province which are of prominent in developing effective marketing strategies to boost
domestic tourism. In other words, the major purpose of current study emphasized the need for multiple studies to validate
the causal relationships among the constructs of destination brand equity and validate the causal relationship between the
constructs of destination brand equity and the likelihood to travel from a domestic tourist’s perspective to increase travel
intention in Dong Thap province. Hence, the aim of the current study attempts to prominent understand a nine-dimensional
destination brand equity from domestic tourists’ perspective, especially to fulfil the existed gaps in the literature on dimensions
of destination brand equity.

In summary, the current study aims to generate a new in-sight conceptual framework of tourism destination brand equity
which is focused on three main aspects: (1) the causal relationships among new destination brand equity model, (2) brand
loyalty as a core component of destination brand equity, and (3) the interrelationship between new destination brand equity,
and the likelihood to travel. The study is organized as follows: the ‘literature review’ section describes the new conceptual
and theoretical framework of destination brand equity and the likelihood to travel, justifying these hypotheses and theoretical
model; the ‘empirical study’ section outlines the research method of the current study, the context of the empirical study; the
‘analysis result’ section highlights and discusses the key findings, finally suggesting practical implications, research limitations,
and recommendations for further research.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Travel Intention

The intention referred as a tourist’s beliefs, feelings, thoughts and emotional behavior in a specific situation (Hashim et al.,
2018). The term “Travel intention or the likelihood to travel” refers to a kind of tourist behavior intention (Jang et al., 2009),
the behaviour intention of tourist to a destination refers to the likelihood to visit the certain destination (Chen et al., 2014; Irfan
et al., 2022) or decision to visit a specific destination (Talwar et al., 2022). Travel intention emphasized the intention to travel
or the likelihood to travel to a specific destination (Jang et al., 2009; Khan et al., 2018; Makhdoomi & Baba, 2019; Rastegar et
al., 2021). Travel intention is also defined as tourist’s desire or the likelihood to travel (Luo & Lam, 2020). Chi et al., (2020)
claimed that the likelihood to travel will be prominent influenced by the brand equity of destination components. Previous
studies noted that high brand equity leads to a higher intention to travel (Zhang et al., 2020a). Horng et al., (2012); Ergün et al.,
(2022) evaluated and validated the impact of brand equity theory on travel intention, and claimed that the elements of tourism
destination brand equity have a positive contribution to the travel intention.

350
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

1.2. Brand equity

Aaker (1991) defined the equity of brand as a system of key intangible business assets and company liabilities associated to
a brand name, and iconic brand symbol, in which the value level of brand is provided by a particular product, commodity, or
service. Keller (2013) indicated that brand equity as the strong of a brand lies in what customers have heard, felt, belief, seen,
thought and learned more about the business brand as customers past experiences in purchasing. Capon et al., (2001) introduced
two concepts of brand equity consisting of firm-based perspective on brand equity, and brand equity from customer point of
view. However, Saeed & Shafique, (2019) argued that brand equity falls into three important categories consisting of financial/
business, brand equity from sales perspective, and brand equity from customer perspective. The term “Firm-based perspective
on brand equity” referred to the cash flows, financial, monetary value created by the firm brand. Whereas brand equity from
customer perspective relates to the perceptive value of customers about a specific product, commodity, or service, which is
compared with the perception of value of unbranded product, commodity, or service of competitors (Capon et al., 2001). Sales-
based perception on brand equity (SBBE) concept is referred to the brand volume or market share aspects (Datta et al., 2017).
One of the best widespread accepted definitions of brand equity from customer perspective was considered to propose a specific
measurement scale for tourism destinations (Ghafari et al., 2017).

1.3. Destination Brand Equity

The consumer-based destination brand equity is the combination of the prominent elements that can be referred to as the
overall value of a goods or services that tourists/ customers experienced during the holiday trip to the specific destination
which distinguishes the destination feature from the other destinations (Ferns & Walls, 2012; Ibrahim & Elborsaly, 2022).
Fang (2021) claimed that overall brand equity is referred to as superior, the strength of a destination brand when compared
with other destination competitors. Additionally, Liu et al., (2015); Saeed & Shafique (2019) agreed that equity of brand from
customer perspective has been widely discussed and applied in the tourism and hospitality industry context. Huerta-Álvarez et
al., (2020) confirmed that consumer-based destination brand equity plays a prominent role in both terms of tourism destination
features, segmentations as well as in increasing tourist intention behaviour, thus the company’s revenue will increase from the
brand. Thus, the brand equity of destination is a concept of brand equity developed based on the concept of customer- based
perspective on brand equity and applied to tourism destination (Kusumaningrum, 2021).

Chekalina et al., (2018) indicated that the brand equity from customer perspective model should be adapted and applied in
a tourism destination context to an insight into understanding of the complexity of relationships within each construct in the
model. Therefore, Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019); Ergün et al., (2022) employed destination brand equity components by
using four factors consisting of brand recognition/ awareness, perception of quality, image of brand, as well the loyalty to
brand. Zhang et al., (2021) argued that the measurement of the brand equity of destination consisting of brand quality, brand
recognition/ awareness, image of brand, perceived value of brand, and loyalty to brand. While, Kheiri et al., (2016) found that
brand equity of tourism destination components consisting of destination recognition, brand image of destination, perceived
destination quality, perception of value, loyalty to destination, and brand satisfaction. Ghafari et al., (2017) revealed that brand
equity of tourism destination consisting of eight elements, namely brand recognition, brand uniqueness, perception of quality,
value of brand, destination image of brand, reputation of brand, brand satisfaction, and loyalty to brand. Whereas, the tourism
destination brand equity model has seven dimensions consistings of brand recognition, tourist’s destination quality perception,
brand interaction quality, brand self- congruence, brand identity, destination brand trust, and destination brand loyalty (Ekinci
et al., 2022). The destination brand equity components presented in the previous studies provide an insight into understanding
of destination brand equity within a tourism destination context (Ergün et al., 2022; Im et al., 2012).

Ekinci et al., (2022); Hsu & Cai (2009); Marliawati & Cahyaningdyah (2020) found that the loyalty to brand construct is the
consequence of the trust of brand, and brand awareness, in turn, the trust of brand could be stronger than for repeating tourists
because of the higher level of brand familiarity to a specific destination. Thus, brand trust appears to be a vital determinant of
brand loyalty because brand trust creates the causal relationships that are highly valued (Munuera-Aleman et al., 2003; Zhang et
al., 2020b). Additionally, Tan et al., (2022); Wong (2018) claimed that satisfaction of brand, and reputation of brand constructs
play a prominent role in building customer-based perspective on the equity of brand. By inserting the new brand reputation,
brand trust constructs in the brand equity destination model can also comprehensively understand the brand equity model,
thus, destination brand equity should include brand reputation (Fang, 2021) which is created by familiarity with brand and
uniqueness (it means that the unique, different, and no substitute) (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2021; Kapferer, 2008). Moreover, each
destination has unique characteristics and different environments (Xue et al., 2022). Thus, A brand unique can increase equity of
brand and create an advantage of competition for the tourism destination brand (Horng et al., 2012; Górska-Warsewicz, 2020).
A modified tourism destination brand equity model was formulated which covered the variables factors of brand recognition,
quality of brand, perceived value of brand, trust of brand, brand satisfaction, and loyalty to brand (Dedeoğlu et al., 2019).
Collectively, brand equity of tourism destination elements consisting of nine dimensions in the current study including loyalty
to brand, brand awareness, perception of quality, the image of tourism destination brand which is consistent with the study
of Aaker (1991); brand uniqueness, brand reputation, brand satisfaction, the brand value which is consistent with a study of
Ghafari et al., (2017); brand trust which is supported from the study of Hsu & Cai (2009); Cardoso et al., 2022 which have
been broadly supported and developed by many previous researchers (Chi et al., 2020; Fang, 2021; Horng et al., 2012). This

351
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

indicated that the existent research gaps in the previous studies of tourism destination brand equity and the tourism destination
brand equity constructs is revealed in the current study. Hence, the current study aims to fulfil the existing research gaps by
developing novel conceptual model, and by validating the causal relationship between brand equity of destination components
based on the domestic tourist perspective and the willingness to travel. Inconclusion, the important variables constructs are
inserting into the destination brand equity model are consistent with previous destination brand equity studies of Chi et al.,
(2020); Fang, (2021); Horng et al., (2012); Ghafari et al., (2017)

1.4. The proposed model and research hypotheses

Chi et al., (2020); Horng et al., (2012) investigated how brand equity elements positively increases the intention to travel. Zhang
et al., (2020a) acknowledged that the equity of tourism destination brand depends on the unique features of the destination,
and may positively and significantly influence the likelihood to travel. Saeed & Shafique (2019) confirmed that the brand
quality of destination components positively affects the destination visit behavior. Ergün et al., (2022); Thi et al., (2014)
revealed that image of brand, brand recognition, and loyalty to destination brand respectively predicted the likelihood to travel.
Ergün et al., (2022); Horng et al., (2012); Ferns & Walls, (2012) concluded that the equity of brand has a positively and
directly affected the likelihood to travel. Thus, enhancing the loyalty to brand, through increased the likelihood to travel, has
become the most important goal for local government (Bianchi & Pike, 2011; Vinh Trung Tran et al., 2019). Boo et al., (2009);
Ergün et al., (2022); Konecnik & Gartner (2007) developed and extended the brand equity from customer perspective in the
tourism destination and hospitality context to evaluate and validate the causal relationship among brand recognition, image of
destination brand, perception of quality, perceived value of destination brand, loyalty to brand; and to explore the total effects
of overall brand equity of destination on the likelihood to travel (Zhang et al., 2020a). Abruruman et al., (2020) employed four
constructs of destination brand equity as perceived quality, awareness of brand, loyalty to brand, and brand association, which
have a statistically and significantly impact on the likelihood to visit to a specific destination.

Based on the new equity of destination brand theory, the current study applied nine components of brand equity to validate the
causal relationships among them and evaluate the interrelationship between the new brand equity of destination elements with
the likelihoo to travel to Dong Thap province as a case study. Accordingly, the new brand equity of destination model is shown
in figure 1.

Figure 1: The proposed framework model

(Source: author, 2021)

Awareness of brand referred to the ability of potential tourists to be awared of a destination brand (Aaker, 1991). Awareness
of brand is referred to an essential construct of brand equity in hospitality industry, tourism destination and the travel decision
(Boo et al., 2009; Chi et al., 2020). Awareness is as a very prominent equity of brand elements because of the first step in
creating and enhancing the value of destination brand (Ergün, et al., 2022; Gartner & Ruzzier, 2011). Additionally, Ghafari et
al., (2017) indicated that the recognition of brand has positively and significantly influenced on the image of brand. A tourist’s
recognition of brand and favourable perceptions of the image of destination and perception of tourism service quality can lead

352
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

to visiting or suggesting a certain destination to friends and relatives (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Zhang et al., 2020a). Bernarto
et al., (2020); Dedeoğlu et al., (2019) claimed that the awareness of brand has positively and directly affected the quality of
brand. Besides, Bernarto et al., (2020); Lee & Jee (2016) found that brand awareness also positively and significantly affects
brand trust. Trust of brand is referred to as a tourist’s belief regarding to the perception of the ability of the tourism destination
brand to deliver its promises and adapt or overcome the tourist’s service expectations built from the fundamental knowledge of
the tourism destination brand (Althuwaini, 2022; Hsu & Cai, 2009). The following hypotheses were made in this study:

H1a+: brand awareness will have positive influence on perception of quality

H1b+: brand awareness will have positive influence on the value of brand
H1c+: brand awareness will have positive influence on the loyalty of brand
H1d+: brand awareness will have positive influence on brand trust
H1e+: brand awareness will have positive influence on brand image

Perception of tourism service quality can be defined as the tourist’s evaluation of the overall service quality or excellence of
a tourism service product or tourism service concerning its intention to purpose, relation to one or more alternatives (Aaker,
1991); brand tourism service quality is perceived by tourists (Yoo et al., 2000). Lee & Jee (2016); Vo et al., (2022) found that
perception of tourism service quality has affected brand trust significantly. Ghafari et al., (2017) also indicated that perception
of tourism service quality has positively and significantly impacted on the value of the brand, brand destination satisfaction, and
loyalty of destination brand. Brand value is defined as the tourist selection of a tourism destination depending on a perception
balance between the added monetary value of the utility of a product or service (Boo et al., 2009; Vo et al., 2022). Brand
satisfaction is regarded as the superior brand outcome of the subjective evaluation that the alternative brand could reach or
exceed tourists’ expectations (Chatzigeorgiou & Christou, 2016; Chen et al., 2020b). The loyalty to brand is a measure of the
attachment that a tourist has to a brand of destination (Aaker, 1991). Besides, perception of service quality has a significantly
and positively affected both image of destination and the loyalty to brand (Alhaddad, 2015; Dam & Dam, 2021). Destination
brand image is referred to as the perception of brand as reflection of the brand association held in the tourist memory (Keller,
1993; Majeed et al., 2022). Abruruman et al., (2020) claimed that perceived tourism service quality has a statistically and
positively relationship with the lieklihood to travel to a specific destination. The following hypotheses were made in this study:

H2a+: perceived quality will have positive influence on brand satisfaction

H2b+: perceived quality will have positive influence on travel intention
H2c+: perceived quality will have positive influence on brand loyalty
H2d+: perceived quality will have positive influence on value of brand
H2e+: perceived quality will have positive influence on trust of brand
H2f+: perceived quality will have positive influence on brand image

The image of brand is also a prominent component of tourism destination brand equity models (Majeed et al., 2022; Saeed
& Shafique, 2019). Ghafari et al., (2017) indicated brand image has positively and significantly influenced on the loyalty to
brand and the value of brand. Hassan et al., (2021); Tan et al., (2011) confirmed that image of brand has directly and positively
impacted brand trust. Althuwaini, (2022); Lee & Jee (2016) found that image of brand has a significantly impacted on the
destination brand trust and loyalty to brand. Chi et al., (2020) confirmed that image of brand has a directly and positively
affected travel intention. The following hypotheses were made in this study:

H3a+: The brand image will have positive influence on brand value
H3b+: The brand image will have positive influence on brand trust
H3c+: The brand image will have positive influence on loyalty to brand
H3d+: The brand image will have positive influence on the likelihood to travel

In tourism research, tourist behaviour intention has been measured as the likelihood to re/visit, suggestions to others, willingness
to pay (Kim et al., 2009). Tourist intention literally emphasizes a tourist’s willingness to travel or commitment to visit (Rastegar
et al., 2021), and the subjective probability of whether a tourist is likely to do or not perform certain actions; the tourist intention
is one of the antecedents of the actual tourist behaviour and is a prominent indicator in understading tourist (Büyükdağ, 2021).
Bae et al., (2020); Ghafari et al., (2017); Kim et al., (2021) San Martín et al., (2019) indicated that destination brand satisfaction
has a significant positive impact on brand loyalty. Brand satisfaction has a positively and significantly impacted on travel
intentions (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Ratnasari et al., 2021). The following hypotheses were made in this study:

H4a+: brand satisfaction will have positive influence on travel intention

H4b+: brand satisfaction will have positive influence on brand loyalty

Brand reputation referred to an individual evaluation of the overall value, and the features of a certain destination by the
stakeholders based on a complex marketing resource (Fang, 2021). Ghafari et al., (2017) indicated brand reputation has
significantly and positively affected the image of brand. Foroudi et al., (2021) explored the interrelationship among the image

353
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

of brand, reputation of brand, and travel intention. Travel intention represents the extent of the likelihood to do or will not to
perform a particular behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Behavior intention means the likelihood to visit the destination in the future (Joo
et al., 2020). The following hypotheses were made in this study:

H5a+: brand reputation will have positive influence on destination brand image
H5b+: brand reputation will have positive influence on travel intention

The uniqueness of destination brand is defined as the tourist’s degree to feel the brand of destination is different from the brand
of the competitive destinations, and how to distinct it is linked to competitive destinations (Netemeyer et al., 2004; Rahman et
al., 2021). Büyükdağ, (2021); Salniza et al., (2016) found a significantly and positively relationship between the uniqueness
characteristics of brand and tourism destination image of brand. Ghafari et al., (2017) also indicated brand uniqueness
significantly and positively affects the destination image of brand. Thus, the following hypotheses were made in this study:

H6+: brand uniqueness will have positive influence on brand image

Dedeoğlu et al., (2019) indicated that several significant factors such as perception of tourism service quality, value of tourism
destination brand, brand trust, and satisfaction have a positively and significantly affected the loyalty of destination brand.
Ghafari et al., (2017) claimed that there is a significantly and positively relationship between brand value and loyalty to brand.
In this study, the following hypotheses was made:

H7+: brand value will have positive influence on brand loyalty

The brand trust would be significantly and positively linked to the loyalty of brand (Alhaddad, 2015; Cardoso et al., 2022;
Munuera-Aleman et al., 2003) and brand trust will respectively enhance brand loyalty (Al-Hawary, 2013; Althuwaini, 2022).
Marliawati & Cahyaningdyah (2020); Tan et al., (2011) claimed that brand trust is positively related to brand loyalty. In this
study, the following hypotheses was made:

H8+: brand trust will have positive influence on brand loyalty

The loyalty to brand is one of the core dimensions of brand equity (Qiao et al., 2022), and it indicates to the attitude of visit
intention and willingness to pay more for a preferred tourism product or tourism service (Horng et al., 2012; Ergün et al.,
2022). Büyükdağ (2021); Hsu & Cai (2009) defined brand loyalty as the likelihood to visit a certain destination and to suggest
others visit the same destination. Abruruman et al., (2020); Büyükdağ (2021); Chi et al., (2020) claimed that brand loyalty has
a statistically and significantly relationship affected the intention to travel. Based on this following hypothesis is proposed in
this study:

H9+: brand loyalty will have positive influence on travel intention

Thus, nine research hypotheses are proposed in this study to evaluate and validate the causal relationships between the
components of tourism destination brand equity and the likelihood to travel.

2. RESEARCH METHODS

2.1. Sample Design and Data Collection

The current study applied nine latent variables constructs of brand equity of tourism destination to evaluate and validate the
causal relationships among them with travel intention to Dong Thap. For this purpose, the first section was qualitative research
in which the author focuses on interviewing with 8 experts who are a manager at tour operator to adjust and improve the
measurement scales, followed by focusing on group discussion with volunteer tourists to discuss a specific topic of interest, to
adjust and improve the measurement scales and to develop and to complete a research question. A total of 10 volunteer tourists
were willingness to particpate in the interview. The completed questionnaire officially is used to evaluate nine constructs of
brand equity and travel intention containing the items as shown in Table 1. In the second section, the new proposed framework
conceptual model is evaluated by the using of a statistical modeling technique based on the partial least squares (PLS-SEM) to
validate the proposed model to prove the hypothesis, positive relationship of construct.

First, to achieve the purpose of this study, 60 domestic tourists who had visited Dong Thap province during the summer season
were selected for the pilot survey to evaluate the validity and reliability of all variables constructs through focus on the face-to-
face interview technique at Xeo Quyt Village restaurant, in Dong Thap province is primarily the ease of access. After the pilot
test, a few minor changes in the completed survey questionnaire were made (shown in table 1). Additionally, the survey data
were collected via an indirect survey in collaboration with 5 famous travel agents specializing in organizing tours to Dong Thap
province. The sample selection of visitors who has selected Dong Thap province for their holiday vacations. The second, survey
took place from March 1st, 2021 to the end of May 3rd, 2021. This is because the total number of tourists visiting and traveling
in Dong Thap was 100,000 arrivals in the first six months of 2021 (Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, 2021). After

354
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

fully explaining to them the purpose of the study, the tour guides will send directly the questionnaire survey to domestic tourists
to survey and then collect the responses after the trip.

The purpose of this survey was to gain domestics perspectives on the tourism destination brand equity construct, and to explore
domestic tourist intention as defined in the initial measurement list adapted and developed from the previous literature. Thus,
the qualitative methods are conducted for this purpose. Tao et al., (2022) claimed that quantitative approaches are using for data
examination, hypothesis in the overall model test.

According to Hair et al., (1995), the minimum sample size should be at least p x 5, where p is the number of independent
variables in the final model to have an accurately representation of the whole population. As there are total of 40 observed
variables constructs are used in the current study, the minimum sample size should be required at least 200. Based on the
formula of Burns & Bush (2006), a reasonable sample size of 385 participants was determined at a 95% confidence level with
95% desired accuracy. Thus, the suggested minimum sample size in this study was 385 respondents. However, to ensure high
acceptable level of reliability and confidence levels, the sample was made up of 700 domestic tourists. A total of 632 responses
were collected out of 700 questionnaires distributed. However, 34 of them were invalids because of too many unfilled items.
The final sample consists of 598 usable questionnaires for factor analysis, representing 94.62%, which is sufficient for analysing
structural models by using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling analysis as followed by Hair et al., (2017).

2.2. Measurement scales

The scale consisted of two parts: The construct of brand equity of destination consisting of ten components: loyalty to brand,
brand awareness, perception of quality, image of brand, brand uniqueness, brand reputation, brand satisfaction, brand value,
brand trust, travel intention, and visitor demographic information. Personalities and demographic characteristics are used to
show in the current study consisting of age group, gender, and level of education qualifications. In total, there were 40 items,
measured on a 5-point Likert scale to measure attitudes and opinions ranging from 1 being strongly disagree to 5 being strongly
agree. The current study adopted the scales based on the results of the primary research and a review of the previous literature
is shown in table 1. All of the survey questions or items were tested to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement
scales.

Table 1: Measurement scales

Code Measurement scales Authors Decision
Brand Uniqueness (Bunique)
BU1 Dong Thap province is very different from other destinations. Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BU2 The uniqueness of Dong Thap province tourism attractions is Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
fascinating.
BU3 Dong Thap province has unique local customs and traditions. Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BU4 Dong Thap province stands out from other competitor prov- Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
inces.
Brand Reputation (Breputa)
BR1 Dong Thap is a reputable tourism destination Ghafari et al., (2017); Support
Verissimo et al., (2017)
BR2 Dong Thap is well known as a tourism destination Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BR3 Dong Thap is highly regarded Chatzipanagiotou et al., (2019); Support
Fang (2021)
BR4 Dong Thap has status as a tourism destination Fang (2021) Support
Brand Image (Image)
BI1 Dong Thap fits my personality Pike et al., (2010); Support
Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019)
BI2 The brand image of Dong Thap is accordant with my self-image Pike at al., (2010); Support
Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019)
BI3 I thought my friends would think I visited Dong Thap Chi et al., (2020); Support
Pike et al., (2010)
BI4 Visiting Dong Thap reflects who I am Boo et al., (2009); Support
Chi et al., (2020)
Brand Awareness (Baware)
BA1 I can distinguish what Dong Thap looks like in my mind Chi et al., (2020) Support
BA2 I think i can distinguish Dong Thap among other similar travel Chi et al., (2020); Support
destinations Nwobodo (2020)

355
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Code Measurement scales Authors Decision

BA3 The features of Dong Thap spring quickly to my mind Chi et al., (2020); Support
Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019)
BA4 When I think to travel, Dong Thap comes immediately to my Chi et al., (2020); Support
mind Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019)
Perceived quality (Quality)
PQ1 Dong Thap provides tourism product offerings of consistent Chi et al., (2020); Support
quality Zhang et al., (2021)
PQ2 Dong Thap provides a good perception of quality experiences Chi et al., (2020); Support
Zhang et al., (2021)
PQ3 From Dong Thap ‘s offerings, I can expect superior service Chi et al., (2020) Support
quality performance
PQ4 Dong Thap performs better service quality than other similar Chi et al., (2020); Support
tourism destinations Zhang et al., (2021)
Brand value (Value)
BV1 Dong Thap has affordable prices Boo et al., (2009); Support
Pike & Bianchi (2013)
BV2 I would like to consider what I would pay for a holiday trip; I Boo et al., (2009); Support
will get much more than my value by visiting Dong Thap Pike & Bianchi (2013)
BV3 The costs of holiday trip to Dong Thap are a bargain associated Boo et al., (2009); Support
with the benefits I receive Pike & Bianchi (2013)
BV4 Visiting Dong Thap is economical Boo et al., (2009) Support
Brand Trust (Btrust)
BT1 The businesses in Dong Thap care about visitors’ interests. Dedeoğlu et al., (2019) Support
BT2 Dong Thap is a trustworthy tourism destination. Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BT3 I feel that Dong Thap has a name I can believe Chatzipanagiotou et al., (2019); Support
Fang (2021)
BT4 I have confidence in Dong Thap Dedeoğlu et al., (2019) Support
Brand Satisfaction (Bsatis)
BS1 Dong Thap is much better than what I expected Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BS2 I am very happy with my decision for travelling to Dong Thap Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
BS3 I think that Dong Thap provice service has met my expectations. Ghafari et al., (2017); Büyükdağ Support
(2021)
BS4 I am satisfied with Dong Thap as a tourist destination. Ghafari et al., (2017) Support
Brand Loyalty (Bloyalty)
BL1 I intend to recommend Dong Thap to my friends and relatives Nwobodo (2020); Support
Verissimo et al., (2017);
BL2 I will continue to visit Dong Thap in the future Pike et al., (2010) Support
BL3 Dong Thap provides more benefits than other similar destina- Pike at al., (2010); Support
tions Verissimo et al., (2017)
BL4 Dong Thap would be my first choice for a vacation Nwobodo (2020); Support
Vinh Trung Tran et al., (2019); Chi
et al., (2020);
Travel Intention (C-intent)
TI1 In the near future, I may visit Dong Thap again for holiday va- Chi et al., (2020); Support
cation Horng et al., (2012)
TI2 I have a strong intention to visit Dong Thap Harun et al., (2018); Support
Zhang et al., (2020a)
TI3 I wish to visit Dong Thap again for tourism Chi et al., (2020); Support
Horng et al., (2012)
TI4 I always consider Dong Thap my first choice Chen et al., (2020a) Support
(Source: author, 2021)

356
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

3. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF MODEL

3.1. Descriptive analysis

There are three questions asked about the personalities and demographic characteristics consisting of age group, gender, and
level of education qualifications. Demographic and personal information collected from the survey are shown in table 2

Table 2: Respondent Characteristics

Characteristics Frequency Percent Kurtosis Skewness
Gender Male 325 54.3 -1.976 0.175
Female 273 45.7
Age 18 < 22-year-old 107 17.9 0.106 0.857
22 - 31-year-old 273 45.7
32 - 41-year-old 122 20.4
41 - 50-year-old 44 7.4
> 50-year-old 52 8.7
Educational Background High School 45 7.5 -0.541 -0.425
Intermediate Professional 97 16.2

College 162 27.1

Bachelor 226 37.8
Other 68 11.4
(Source: author, 2021)

As regards the composition of the sample, the majority of the domestic tourist agreed to participate in the survey were male
(54.3%), and 45.7% were female, between 22-31 years old (45,7%) with a certificate of bachelor (37.8%) - the highest among
other educational background in the sample. From this result, the study concluded that domestic tourists who intent to visit
Dong Thap province are grouped above 22 years old with a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, Hair et al. (2010); Byrne (2010)
argued the normality of the data was supported based on the value of skewness index will range between plus and minus 2
and the value of kurtosis index is ranging between -7 to +7. Table 2 showed that the normality of data was represented, as the
standard error of skewness index was between −0.425 and 0.857, and the value of kurtosis index was between −1.976 and +
0.106.

3.2. Analysis of results

The results of the assessment of the PLS measurement model include the composite reliability (CR) scores, the values of
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient should be higher than 0.70, and the statistical value of Average variance extracted (AVE) should
be respectively greater than 0.50 to establish indicator convergent validity and reliability (Hair et al., 2019). The value of
Cronbach’s alpha indicators in this study was above 0.833; all the good values of the composite reliability are higher than 0.889
(Henseler et al., 2016). Thus, the good internal consistency among the variables was accepted, respectively. Additionaly, the
statistical value of AVE were required above the minimum cut-off value of 0.666. The result of the study is provided in table 3
stands for the values of the composite reliability indicate the higher than the cut-off criterion that complies with the necessary
condition analysis to get supported. Therefore, the reliability of the measurement instrument was accepted respectively.

Table 3: The value of Composite Reliability (CR)

Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE
Quality 0.901 0.931 0.772
Barware 0.878 0.916 0.732
Image 0.875 0.914 0.727
Bloyalty 0.878 0.916 0.733
Breputa 0.899 0.930 0.768
Bsatis 0.920 0.944 0.807
Btrust 0.896 0.928 0.762
Bunique 0.833 0.889 0.666

357
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE

Value 0.912 0.938 0.791
C-Intent 0.918 0.942 0.804
(Source: author, 2021)

The discriminant validity using the PLS approach was shown in table 4. Henseler et al., (2015) presented a decision rule that
two criteria are informative about discriminant validity in structural equation modeling: the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the
Heterotrait-Monotriat ratio of correlations. The first, the criterion of discriminant validity is exhibited only if all the correlations
are statistically and significantly and each of these correlations is higher than all each of correlations. The results of the study
shows that as per Fornell-Lacker’s criterion both basic and stringent assumptions are accepted and the criterion of discriminant
validity has been established. It is worthwhile to note that the diagonal values (in bold) of the Fornell-Lacker’s table (Table 4)
signify the AVE of each construct and each measured construct must have the square root of AVE should be greater than 0.500
(Henseler et al., 2015). Thus, all the variables construct for measurement model meet the criterion of convergent validity.

Table 4: Discriminant Validity

AVE Quality Barware Image Bloyalty Breputa Bsatis Btrust Bunique Value C-Intent
Quality 0.772 0.878
Barware 0.732 0.607 0.856
Image 0.727 0.653 0.537 0.852
Bloyalty 0.733 0.749 0.659 0.679 0.856
Breputa 0.768 0.186 0.220 0.247 0.196 0.876
Bsatis 0.807 0.660 0.523 0.583 0.687 0.193 0.899
Btrust 0.762 0.651 0.611 0.692 0.712 0.186 0.713 0.873
Bunique 0.666 0.360 0.346 0.376 0.350 0.223 0.322 0.342 0.816
Value 0.791 0.694 0.590 0.584 0.701 0.245 0.680 0.660 0.458 0.890
C-Intent 0.804 0.817 0.621 0.725 0.823 0.266 0.711 0.742 0.369 0.702 0.897
(Source: author, 2021)

The second, table 4 shows the result of the Heterotrait-Monotriat ratio of correlation for evaluating the criteria of the discriminant
validity of the measurement model. The analysis confirmed that each latent variable construct in structural equation modeling
was discriminated against each other’s that are range between 0.852 and 0.897, which is less than 0.900 since the Heterotrait-
Monotriat ratio values claim that lower than 0.900 will be acceptable (Henseler et al., 2015). Therefore, the indicators that were
used to measure the variable constructs were used for the respective constructs. In the current study, both the model’s predictive
power and the significance of the relationships between the constructs of the structural model were accepted (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Results of the proposed framework

358
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Figure 2 represents that the coefficient of determination (R-square) for the estimation of the equation was obtained 0.803,
which is statiscally at a 1 percent level of significance. The R2 adjusted shows that 0.801 (80.1) percent of the variation in
travel intention is explained by the overall of compoments of tourism destination brand equity. The value of R-squared (R2) is
considered from strong to moderate in this study (Hair, et al., 2017). In other words, the investigations results provide strong
support for the new proposed model

3.3. Discussion

Table 5 revealed the detailed results of bootstrapping statistics for the model. The current study used the bootstrapping method
with 5000-re-samples to evaluate and validate the level of significance of the path coefficients between the observed variables
constructs (Hair et al., 2017). The significance of the path coefficients (β) in the structural model are provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Hypothesis Testing

β Standard Deviation T Statistics P Values Decision

H1a+ Barware -> Quality 0.607 0.037 16.395 0.000 Support
H1b+ Barware-> Value 0.229 0.044 5.163 0.000 Support
H1c+ Barware-> Bloyalty 0.180 0.061 2.939 0.003 Support
H1d+ Barware-> Btrust 0.251 0.048 5.195 0.000 Support
H1e+ Barware-> Image 0.184 0.048 3.835 0.000 Support
H2a+ Quality-> Bsatis 0.660 0.035 18.989 0.000 Support
H2b+ Quality-> C-Intent 0.350 0.047 7.523 0.000 Support
H2c+ Quality-> Bloyalty 0.263 0.062 4.272 0.000 Support
H2d+ Quality-> Value 0.442 0.049 9.040 0.000 Support
H2e+ Quality-> Btrust 0.235 0.054 4.358 0.000 Support
H2f+ Quality-> Image 0.482 0.050 9.687 0.000 Support
H3a+ Image-> Value 0.172 0.052 3.322 0.001 Support
H3b+ Image-> Btrust 0.404 0.053 7.604 0.000 Support
H3c+ Image-> Bloyalty 0.157 0.051 3.046 0.002 Support
H3d+ Image-> C-Intent 0.171 0.043 3.992 0.000 Support
H4a+ Bsatis-> C-Intent 0.134 0.033 4.056 0.000 Support
H4b+ Bsatis-> Bloyalty 0.140 0.059 2.388 0.017 Support
H5a+ Breputa-> Image 0.090 0.033 2.719 0.007 Support
H5b+ Breputa-> C-Intent 0.065 0.019 3.378 0.001 Support
H6+ Bunique -> Image 0.119 0.039 3.016 0.003 Support
H7+ Value -> Bloyalty 0.140 0.053 2.648 0.008 Support
H8+ Btrust-> Bloyalty 0.130 0.053 2.440 0.015 Support
H9+ Bloyalty-> C-Intent 0.340 0.045 7.549 0.000 Support
(Source: author, 2021)

Table 5 showed that the significance of relationship between perception of service quality, and destination brand satisfaction
is supported by H2a+ (β= 0.660, t= 18.989, p< 0.000). H1a+ proposed that brand awareness and brand tourism service quality
have a positively impact on the likelihood to visit was supported (β= 0.607, t= 16.395, p< 0.000). H1b+ proposed that
awareness of brand has a positively contribution to brand value was supported (β= 0.229, t= 5.163, p< 0.000). The H1c+
postulated that awareness of brand positively and significantly influences on loyalty to brand was accepted (β= 0.180, t=
2.939, p< 0.003). The H1d+ hypothesized that brand recognition has a positively contribution to brand trust was accepted
(β= 0.251, t= 5.195, p< 0.000).

The H2b+ posited that quality of brand has a positively and significantly affected the likelihood to visit was supported (β= 0.350,
t= 7.523, p< 0.000). Quality of brand has a positively contribution to brand loyalty, proposed in H2c+ was also supported (β=
0.263, t= 4.272, p< 0.000). The H2d+ postulated that brand quality has a positively affected brand value was accepted (β= 0.442,
t= 9.040, p< 0.000). The H2e+ hypothesized that brand quality has a significantly affected brand trust was supported (β= 0.235,
t= 4.358, p< 0.000). The H2f+ postulated that tourism destination brand quality has a positively contribution to brand image was
accepted (β= 0.482, t= 9.687, p< 0.000).

359
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Brand image has a positively and significantly impact on the value of brand, proposed in H3a+ was also accepted (β= 0.172, t=
3.322, p< 0.001). Brand image has a positively contribution to brand trust, proposed in H3b+ was also supported (β= 0.404, t=
7.604, p< 0.000). Brand image has a positively and significantly impact on brand loyalty, proposed in H3c+ was also supported
(β= 0.157, t= 3.046, p< 0.002). Brand image has a positively contribution to the likelihood to travel proposed in H3d+ was also
supported (β= 0.171, t= 3.992, p< 0.000). The H4a+ postulated that brand satisfaction has a positively contribution to visit
intention was supported (β= 0.134, t= 4.056, p< 0.000). The H4b+ postulated that brand satisfaction has a positively affected
loyalty to brand was supported (β= 0.140, t= 2.388, p< 0.017). The H5a+ postulated that brand reputation has a positive affected
the brand image was supported (β= 0.090, t= 2.719, p< 0.007). The H5b+ postulated that brand reputation has a positively affected
visit intention was supported (β= 0.065, t= 3.378, p< 0.001). Brand uniqueness has a positively and significantly affected brand
image, proposed in H6+ was also supported (β= 0.119, t= 3.016, p< 0.003). Brand value has a positively and significantly affected
the loyalty to brand, proposed in H7+ was accepted (β= 0.140, t= 2.648, p< 0.008). The results demonstrated a significantly
and positively correlation between brand trust and loyalty to brand, proposed in H8+ was also accepted (β= 0.130; t= 2.440;
p< 0.015). Based on the results of Table 5, It can be said that these proposed hypotheses are accepted and valid respectively.

Additionally, the direct influence of five dimensions consisting of (H2b) perception of service quality, (H3d) image of destination
brand, (H4a) brand satisfaction, (H5b) brand reputation, and (H9) brand loyalty on the itention to travel is confirmed respectively.
The major finding demonstrates that the brand equity of tourism destination variable has a strong positive influence on likelihood
to travel (p<0.05). In summary, the final result of the hypothesis testing with the p-value of each path coefficient from the data
analysis signifies that all the proposed hypotheses of this study from H1 to H8 are significantly and respectively supported.
Thus, the new tourism destination brand equity model is established and it has a positively contribution to travel intention is
confirmed, respectively.

Table 6: The Collinearity Statistics

Quality Image Bloyalty Bsatis Btrust Value C-Intent

Quality 1.653 2.661 1.000 2.078 2.078 2.672
Barware 1.000 1.651 1.888 1.675 1.675
Image 2.250 1.845 1.845 2.117
Bloyalty 2.962
Breputa 1.080 1.069
Bsatis 2.548 2.132
Btrust 2.968
Bunique 1.211
Value 2.532
(Source: author, 2021)

The amount of multicollinearity is calculated based on either the value of variance inflation factors (VIF) or the cut-off value
of tolerance. If the VIF value is now higher than 4.0 or the value of tolerance is smaller than 0.2 reflects the existence of
multicollinearity problem (Hair et al., 2014). The result shown in table 6 indicated that all of the indicators’ inner VIF in the
current study are less than 3.0 indicating, ranging from 1.000 to 2.962, indicate no problem of multicollinearity in the proposed
model (Hair et al., 2017).

3.4. Theoretical Implications

The major findings of this study are as follows. Firstly, the theoretical contributes to the new theoretical of brand equity of
tourism destination consisting of nine dimensions such as loyalty to brand, brand awareness, perception of service quality,
image of destination, uniqueness of destination brand, brand reputation, brand satisfaction, brand value, and brand trust, which
has a statistically and significantly relationship with the likelihood to travel. The major findings of this study were identified
nine dimensions of brand equity of destination, which are different from previous brand equity research by Aaker (1991);
Büyükdağ (2021); Ergün et al., (2022); Im et al., (2012); Ghafari et al., (2017); Konecnik & Gartner (2007); Qiao et al., (2022).
This has also a new contribution to the literature on the brand equity of tourism destination model. Second, this study used a
PLS SEM approach from the domestic tourist’s point of view traveling to Dong Thap province to evaluate and vaildate the
causal relationships among the proposed model and the likelihood to travel. Thus, this finding improves not only the knowledge
of brand equity of destination but also the insight into predicting of domestic visit intention behavior.

360
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

3.5. Practical Implications

The results of the current study can provide local authorities with better ways to create the brand equity of tourism destination.
Firstly, brand awareness is found to be effective in brand image, perception of service quality, value of destination brand, loyalty
to destination brand, and destination brand trust. Therefore, the local government should try to improve tourists’ awareness
of tourism destination. Second, the findings revealed that both uniqueness of destination brand and reputation of destination
brand are prominent antecedents of the destination brand image. This implies that the local tourism government should try to
identify the unique features and enhance the reputation of the destination to appeal to the tourists as well as to promote domestic
tourism industry. For example, the famous, unique, reputation of Dong Thap province is reputed as “the land of the lotus”. As a
result, perception of tourism service quality is one of the most significant compoments contributing to the equity of destination
brand. The local government should improve the quality of products/services to satisfy tourist; and brand loyalty, as well as
increase the value of brand to tourists. The results also show that the image of destination brand, destination brand trust, brand
recognition, the value of destination brand, and brand satisfaction are as the important factors that are contributed to tourism
destination brand loyalty. This result implies that tourists who perceive high perception of quality, high value, high satisfaction,
good perception of image, and awareness about the destination will make tourists more loyalty to the certain destination and
lead to affecting the likelihood to travel there again.

4. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the study aims to test the effectiveness of new tourism destination brand equity model and to evaluate and
validate the complex relationships among the dimensions of brand equity of tourism destination, and the significant influence
of these constructs on the likelihood to travel in a tourism destination context. The above findings clarified that the new
tourism destination brand equity model has a positively and significantly relationship with travel intentions. The current study
provided both theoretical and practical contributions. The study has contributed to the theoretical framework development of
a new framework model for the tourism destination brand equity and explained the interrelationships among nine components
of brand equity of destination and the likelihood to travel. The practical implications of this study suggest that the local
government not only focuses more on branding, improving, and developing tourism destination brand equity but also focuses
on providing better facilities that reflect high service quality, value, trust, image, and awareness of the tourism destination brand
equity that tourist wish to visit.

5. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

The finding of this study provides both theoretical and practical insights, but this study has certain research limitations that may
affect the results of the current study. First, the empirical research is considered as only the domestic tourists’ point of view
who travelled to Dong Thap province. Thus, the analysis was limited to domestic tourists’ perspective on destination brand
equity. Further research would include international travellers. Second, this study is survey in a random selected of the tourists
who travelling to Dong Thap province which has its limitations. Although, this way of data collection is convenient. Further
research may try use other different survey technique to an insight understaning of travel intetion. Third, there still have other
elements that create brand equity models of destinations. Further research should insert the additional constructs to destination
brand equity model that might have helped a comprehensive understanding of tourist behaviour towards destinations. Finally,
further research can evaluate va validate differences between pre-trip, during the trip, post-trip as well as repeated tourists to
gain an insight into evaluating the influence of tourism destination brand equity on the likelihood to travel from the viewpoints
of the domestic tourists.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.

Abruruman, A., Kumail, T., Sadiq, F., & Abbas, S. M. (2020). Influence of Brand Equity on Intentions to Visit Tourist Destinations: The Case of United Arab
Emirates Outbound Travellers. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity, and Change, 14(9), 624-644.
Alhaddad, A. (2015). Perceived Quality, Brand Image, and Brand Trust as Determinants of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Research in Business and Management,
3(4), 1-8.
Al-Hawary, S. I. S. (2013). The roles of perceived quality, trust, and satisfaction in predicting brand loyalty: the empirical research on automobile brands in
Jordan market. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(6), 656–686. [Link]
Althuwaini, S. (2022). The Effect of Social Media Activities on Brand Loyalty for Banks: The Role of Brand Trust. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 148. http://
[Link]/10.3390/admsci12040148
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179-211. [Link]
5978(91)90020-T
Bae, S., Jung, T. H., Moorhouse, N., Suh, M., & Kwon, O. (2020). The Influence of Mixed Reality on Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty in Cultural Heritage
Attractions: A Brand Equity Perspective. Sustainability, 12(7), 2956. [Link]
Baker, D.A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804. [Link]
s0160-7383(99)00108-5
Bernarto, I., Berlianto, M., Meilani, Y. F. C. P., Masman, R. R., & Suryawan, I. N. (2020). The Influence of Brand Awareness, Brand Image, and Brand Trust
on Brand Loyalty. Jurnal Manajemen, 24(3), 412-426. [Link]

361
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Bianchi, C., & Pike, S. (2011). Antecedents of Destination Brand Loyalty for a Long-Haul Market: Australia’s Destination Loyalty Among Chilean Travelers.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(7), 736–750. [Link]
Boo, S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2009). A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, 30(2),
219–231. [Link]
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2006). Marketing Research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Büyükdağ, N. (2021). The effect of brand awareness, brand image, satisfaction, brand loyalty and WOM on purchase intention: An empirical research on social
media. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(4),1380-1398. [Link]
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Cambra-Fierro, J. J., Fuentes-Blasco, M., Huerta-Álvarez, R., & Olavarría, A.(2021). Customer-based brand equity and customer engagement in experiential
services: insights from an emerging economy. Service Business, 15, 467–491. [Link]
Capon, N., Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M., & Pitt, L. F. (2001). Brand custodianship: A New Primer for Senior Managers. European Management Journal, 19(3),
215–227. [Link]
Cardoso, A., Gabriel, M., Figueiredo, J., Oliveira, I., Rêgo, R., Silva, R., Oliveira, M., & Meirinhos, G. (2022). Trust and Loyalty in Building the Brand
Relationship with the Customer: Empirical Analysis in a Retail Chain in Northern Brazil. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity, 8(3), 109. [Link]
Cervova, L., & Vavrova, J. (2021). Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination: The Case of Croatia. Economies, 9(4), 178. [Link]
economies9040178
Chatzipanagiotou, K., Christodoulides, G., & Veloutsou, C. (2019). Managing the consumer-based brand equity process: A cross-cultural perspective.
International Business Review, 28(2), 328-343. [Link]
Chatzigeorgiou, C., & Christou, E. (2016). Destination branding and visitor brand loyalty: Evidence from mature tourism destinations in Greece. Tourism: an
international multidisciplinary journal of tourism, 11(5), 102-123. [Link]
Chekalina, T., Fuchs, M., & Lexhagen, M. (2018). Customer-Based Destination Brand Equity Modeling: The Role of Destination Resources, Value for Money,
and Value in Use. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 31–51. [Link]
Chen, C.-F., & Myagmarsuren, O. (2010). Exploring Relationships between Mongolian Destination Brand Equity, Satisfaction, and Destination Loyalty.
Tourism Economics, 16(4), 981–994. [Link]
Chen C.-F., & Tseng W. S. (2010). Exploring customer-based airline brand equity: evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Journal, 49(1), 24–34. [Link]
org/10.5325/transportationj.49.1.0024
Chen, Y.-C., Shang, R.-A., & Li, M.-J. (2014). The effects of perceived relevance of travel blogs’ content on the behavioral intention to visit a tourist destination.
Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 787–799. [Link]
Chen, R., Zhou, Z., Zhan, G., & Zhou, N. (2020 a). The impact of destination brand authenticity and destination brand self-congruence on tourist loyalty:
The mediating role of destination brand engagement. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 15, 1-11. [Link]
jdmm.2019.100402
Chen, N., Wang, Y., Li, J., Wei, Y., & Yuan, Q. (2020 b). Examining Structural Relationships among Night Tourism Experience, Lovemarks, Brand Satisfaction,
and Brand Loyalty on “Cultural Heritage Night” in South Korea. Sustainability, 12(17). [Link]
Chi, H.-K., Huang, K.-C., & Nguyen, H. (2020). Elements of destination brand equity and destination familiarity regarding travel intention. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 1-10. [Link]
Dam, S. M., & Dam, T. C. (2021). Relationships between Service Quality, Brand Image, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty. The Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, 8(3), 585–593. [Link]
Datta, H., Ailawadi, K. L., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). How Well Does Consumer-Based Brand Equity Align with Sales-Based Brand Equity and Marketing-
Mix Response? Journal of Marketing, 81(3), 1–20. [Link]
Dedeoğlu, B. B., Van Niekerk, M., Weinland, J., & Celuch, K. (2019). Re-conceptualizing customer-based destination brand equity. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 11, 211-230. [Link]
Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism Dong Thap (2021). Statistics report of a tourist resort, tourist destination management in Dong Thap Province
(Vietnamese version). [Link]
den%20cong%20tac%20quan%20ly%20khu%20diem%20du%[Link]/a8a7d356-a4ba-42ab-3608-2412410bb228.
Dong Thap Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism. (2021). Dong Thap – Land of Lotus. Retrieved February 4, 2022, from [Link]
vn/en/introduction
Ekinci, Y., Japutra, A., Molinillo, S., & Uysal, M. (2022). Extension and Validation of a Novel Destination Brand Equity Model. Journal of Travel Research,
62(6). [Link]
Ergün, G. S., Keleş, H., Taşpınar, B., Gözen, E. & Derman, E. (2022). The Moderator Role of Culture in the Relationship between Destination Brand Equity
and Travel Intention. Journal of Tourism and Services, 13(24), 256-271. [Link]
Fang, X. (2021). Conceptualizing and measuring destination brand equity: the tourists’ perspective [Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow]. https://
[Link]/82142/7/[Link]
Ferns, B. H., & Walls, A. (2012). Enduring travel involvement, destination brand equity, and travelers’ visit intentions: A structural model analysis. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 27–35. [Link]
Foroudi, P., Palazzo, M., & Sultana, A. (2021). Linking brand attitude to word-of-mouth and revisiting intentions in the restaurant sector. British Food Journal,
123 (13), 221-240. [Link]
Ghafari, M., Ranjbarian, B., & Fathi, S. (2017). Developing a brand equity model for tourism destinations. International Journal of Business Innovation and
Research, 12(4), 484-507. [Link]
Gartner, W. C., & Ruzzier, M. K. (2011). Tourism Destination Brand Equity Dimensions: Renewal versus Repeat Market. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5),
471–481. [Link]
Górska-Warsewicz, H. (2020). Factors Determining City Brand Equity—A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(19), 7858. [Link]
org/10.3390/su12197858
Han, H., Al-Ansi, A., Chua, B.-L., Tariq, B., Radic, A., & Park, S. (2020). The Post-Coronavirus World in the International Tourism Industry: Application of the
Theory of Planned Behavior to Safer Destination Choices in the Case of US Outbound Tourism. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(18), 6485. [Link]
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (4 edition), Prentice Hall, NJ: Upper Saddle River.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Edition), New York: Pearson.
Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in
business research”, European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. [Link]
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
[Link]
Harun, A., Obong, A., Bin, A., & Lily, J. (2018). The Effects of Destination Image and Perceived Risk on Revisit Intention: A Study in the South Eastern Coast
of Sabah, Malaysia. e-Review of Tourism Research, 15 (6), 540-559.
Hashim, N. H., Normalini, & Sajali, N. (2018). The Influence Factors Towards Mobile Advertising Message Content on Consumer Purchase Intention. Global
Business Review, 19(5). [Link]

362
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Hassan, M., Zahid, S., Nemati, A. R., Yongfeng, C., & Javed, W. (2021). Impact of WOM, Advertising Effectiveness, and Brand Image on Brand Trust:
Evidence from Telecommunication Sector in Pakistan. Journal of Marketing Strategies, 3(3), 111 - 131. [Link]
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. [Link]
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 116(1), 2-20. [Link]
Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H., Chou, H.-Y., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2012). Understanding the impact of culinary brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions.
Tourism Management, 33(4), 815–824. [Link]
Huerta-Álvarez, R., Cambra-Fierro, J. J., & Fuentes-Blasco, M. (2020). The interplay between social media communication, brand equity and brand engagement
in tourist destinations: An analysis in an emerging economy. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 16, 1-12, 100413. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2020.100413
Hsu, C., & Cai, L. (2009). Brand Knowledge, Trust, and Loyalty – A Conceptual Model of Destination Branding. In International CHRIE Conference-Refereed
Track (pp. 1-8), Council on hotel, restaurant and institutional education.
Ibrahim, M., & Elborsaly, A. (2022). Measuring Tourism Destination Brand Equity by Using Associative Networks. European Journal of Business and
Management Research. 7(3), 224-235. [Link]
Im, H. H., Kim, S. S., Elliot, S., & Han, H. (2012). Conceptualizing Destination Brand Equity Dimensions from a Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(4), 385–403. [Link]
Irfan, M., Malik, M. S., & Zubair, S. K. (2022). Impact of Vlog Marketing on Consumer Travel Intent and Consumer Purchase Intent with the Moderating Role
of Destination Image and Ease of Travel. [Link]
Jang, S., Bai, B., Hu, C., & Wu, C.-M. E. (2009). Affect, Travel Motivation, and Travel Intention: a Senior Market. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
33(1), 51–73. [Link]
Joo, Y., Seok, H., & Nam, Y. (2020). The Moderating Effect of Social Media Use on Sustainable Rural Tourism: A Theory of Planned Behavior Model.
Sustainability, 12(10), 4095. [Link]
Kapferer, J. N. (2008). New strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Kaushal, V., Sharma, S., & Reddy, G. M. (2018). Structural analysis of destination brand equity in mountainous tourism destination in northern India. Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 19(4). [Link]
Khan, M. J., Chelliah, S., & Ahmed, S. (2018). Intention to visit India among potential travelers: Role of travel motivation, perceived travel risks, and travel
constraints. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(3), 1-17. [Link]
Kheiri, B., Lajevardi, M., Golmaghani, M. M., Fakharmanesh, S., & Mousavi, S. S. (2016). Destination brand equity in tourism context: evidence on Iran.
European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality, and Recreation, 7(3), 176–187. [Link]
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. [Link]
org/10.2307/1252054
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity, Global Pearson Education Limited.
Kim, S.-H., Han, H.-S., Holland, S. & Byon, K. K. (2009). Structural relationships among involvement, destination brand equity, satisfaction, and destination visit
intentions: The case of Japanese outbound travelers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(4), 349–365. [Link]
Kim H.-K., & Lee, T. J. (2018). Brand Equity of a Tourist Destination. Sustainability; 10(2), 431. [Link]
Kim, Y. J., Park, J. S., & Jeon, H. M. (2021). Experiential Value, Satisfaction, Brand Love, and Brand Loyalty toward Robot Barista Coffee Shop: The
Moderating Effect of Generation. Sustainability, 13(21), 12029. [Link]
Kladou, S., Giannopoulos, A. A., & Mavragani, E. (2015). Destination Brand Equity Research from 2001 to 2012. Tourism Analysis, 20(2), 189–200. https://
[Link]/10.3727/108354215x14265319207399
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 400–421. [Link]
annals.2006.10.005
Kusumaningrum, S. D. (2021). Destination Brand Equity: A Perspective of Generation Z on A World Heritage Site in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics and Business, 8(2), 1071–1078. [Link]
Lee, Ho-Jin; & Jee, Y. (2016). The impacts of brand assets of domestic screen golf playing systems upon brand trust and brand loyalty. International Journal
of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 17(4), 320–332. [Link]
Lim, Y., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Customer-based Brand Equity for a Destination: The Effect of Destination Image on Preference for Products Associated with
a Destination Brand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(3), 223–231. [Link]
Liu, C.-R., Liu, H.-K., & Lin, W.-R. (2015). Constructing Customer-based Museums Brand Equity Model: The Mediating Role of Brand Value. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 229–238. [Link]
Luo, J. M., & Lam, C. F. (2020). Travel Anxiety, Risk Attitude and Travel Intentions towards “Travel Bubble” Destinations in Hong Kong: Effect of the Fear of
COVID-19. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(21), 7859. [Link]
Makhdoomi, U., & Baba, M. (2019). Destination image and travel intention of travelers to Jammu and Kashmir-The mediating effect of risk perception. JOHAR
– Journal of Hospitality Application & Research, 14(1), 35-56.
Majeed, S., Zhou, Z., & Kim, W. G. (2022). Destination brand image and destination brand choice in the context of health crisis: Scale development. Tourism
and Hospitality Research. [Link]
Marliawati, A., & Cahyaningdyah, D. (2020). Impacts the Brand of Experience and Brand Image on Brand Loyalty: Mediators Brand of Trust. Management
Analysis Journal, 9(2), 140-151. [Link]
Munuera-Aleman, J. L., Delgado-Ballester, E., & Yague-Guillen, M. J. (2003). Development and Validation of a Brand Trust Scale. International Journal of
Market Research, 45(1), 1–18. [Link]
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan; B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of
customer-based brand equity, Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224. [Link]
Nwobodo, S. (2020). Medical tourism in Malaysia: an investigation of the destination branding factors and its influence on the behavior of medical
tourists [Doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology. [Link]
be0814760f1a/1/Stanley_Nwobodo_Thesis.pdf
Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G., & Patti, C. (2010). Consumer‐based brand equity for Australia as a long‐haul tourism destination in an emerging market.
International Marketing Review, 27(4), 434–449. [Link]
Pike, S., & Bianchi, C. (2013). Destination Brand Equity for Australia. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(1), 114–134. [Link]
org/10.1177/1096348013491604
Qiao, Y., Yin, X., & Xing, G. (2022) Impact of Perceived Product Value on Customer-Based Brand Equity: Marx’s Theory – Value-Based Perspective. Front.
Psychology, 13. [Link]
Rahman, R., Langner, T., & Temme, D. (2021). Brand love: conceptual and empirical investigation of a holistic causal model, Journal of Brand Management,
28, 609–642. [Link]
Rastegar, R., Seyfi, S., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2021). How COVID-19 case fatality rates have shaped perceptions and travel intention?, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 47, 353-364. [Link]
Ratnasari, R., Gunawan, S., Mawardi, I., & Kirana, K. (2021). Emotional experience on behavioral intention for halal tourism. Journal of Islamic Marketing,
12(4), 864-881. [Link]
Saeed, M., & Shafique, I., (2019). Customer-based brand equity and destination visit behavior in the tourism industry: the contingent role of social media.
Quality & Quantity, 54. [Link]

363
 Tourism and Hospitality Management, 29(3), 349-364, 2023
Bui, T.T.B. (2023). MODELLING THE NEW BRAND EQUITY OF DESTINATION THEORY AND TRAVEL ...

Salniza, B., Md Salleh, S., Mohammad, H., & Kasassbh, A.L. (2016). The role of brand credibility and brand uniqueness in influencing brand image.
International Business Management, 10(21), 5193-5200.
San Martín, H., Herrero, A., & García de los Salmones, María del Mar (2019). An integrative model of destination brand equity and tourist satisfaction. Current
Issues in Tourism, 22(16, 1992-2013. [Link]
Shekari, F., & Azizi, F. (2021). Exploring the Factors Affecting Travel Intention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural Analysis. Iranian Journal of
Management Studies. 15(3), 613-632. [Link]
Shi, H., Liu, Y., Kumail, T., & Pan, L. (2022). Tourism destination brand equity, brand authenticity and revisit intention: the mediating role of tourist satisfaction
and the moderating role of destination familiarity. Tourism review, 77(3). 751-779. [Link]
Talwar, S., Srivastava, S., Sakashita, M., Islam, N., & Dhir, A. (2022). Personality and travel intentions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: An artificial
neural network (ANN) approach. Journal of business research, 142, 400–411. [Link]
Tan, P. L., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Manickam, G. (2022). How corporate social responsibility affects brand equity and loyalty? A comparison between private
and public universities. Heliyon, 8(4), e09266. [Link]
Tan, T. M., Ismail, H. B., & Rasiah, D. (2011). Hierarchical Chain of Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Review From The Fast Food Industry. International
Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 10(9), 67–80. [Link]
Tao, K.., Ye J, Xiao, H., & Chen, P. (2022) A Model of Perceived Co-creation Value in Tourism Service Setting: An Application of Structure Equation
Modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. [Link]
Thi, Y. C., Ch’ng, S., & See, S. F. (2014). Examining relationships between culinary brand equity and travel intention: A case study in Penang. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Tourism and Hospitality International Conference (pp. 117-124), Langkawi, Malaysia.
Verissimo, J. M., Borges Tiago, M., Tiago, F., & Sérgio, J. (2017). Tourism destination brand dimensions: an exploratory approach. Tourism & Management
Studies, 13(4), 1-8. [Link]
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism (2021). Dong Thap tourism income within the first half of 2021. Retrieved September, 2021, from https://
[Link]/[Link]/items/37137
Vinh Trung Tran, Nguyen Phuc Nguyen, Phuong Thi Kim Tran, Tuan Nien Tran, Thuan Thi Phuong Huynh, (2019). Brand equity in a tourism destination: a
case study of domestic tourists in Hoi An city, Vietnam. Tourism Review, 74(3). [Link]
Vo, M. S., Nguyen, T. H., Thach, T. V., Tran, D. V., Hoang, N. H. G., & Pham, N. P. T. (2022). The Effect of the Country of Origin on Brand Trust: A Case Study
for COVID-19 Vaccines in Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 9(4), 357–366. [Link]
VOL9.NO4.0357
Xue, J., Zhou, Z., Majeed, S., Chen, R., & Zhou, N. (2022). Stimulating Tourist Inspiration by Tourist Experience: The Moderating Role of Destination
Familiarity. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 895136. [Link]
Wong, P. P. W. (2018). Role of components of destination competitiveness in the relationship between customer-based brand equity and destination loyalty.
Current Issues in Tourism, 21(5), 504–528. [Link]
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
195–211. [Link]
Zhang, Y., Li, J., Liu, C.-H., Shen, Y., & Li, G. (2020a). The effect of novelty on travel intention: the mediating effect of brand equity and travel motivation.
Management Decision, 59(6), 1271-1290. [Link]
Zhang, S., Peng, M.Y.-P., Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, G., & Chen, C.-C. (2020b). Expressive Brand Relationship, Brand Love, and Brand Loyalty for Tablet PCs:
Building a Sustainable Brand. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. [Link] .
Zhang, S.-N., Li, Y.-Q., Liu, C.-H., & Ruan, W.-Q. (2021). Does live performance play a critical role in building destination brand equity — A mixed-method
study of “Impression Dahongpao”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 1-16. [Link]

Please cite this article as:

Bui, T.T.B. (2023). Modelling the New Brand Equity of Destination Theory and Travel Intention: An Empirical Study from Vietnam. Tourism and Hospitality
Management 29(3), 349-364, [Link]

Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – Share Alike 4.0 International

364

View publication stats