http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/294The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272033

2005 43: 294Journal of Travel ResearchMark A. Bonn, Sacha M. Joseph and Mo Dai

International versus Domestic Visitors: An Examination of Destination Image Perceptions  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/294.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 5, 2005Version of Record >>

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

10.1177/0047287504272033FEBRUARY 2005JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH

International versus DomesticVisitors: An Examination of

Destination Image PerceptionsMARK A. BONN, SACHA M. JOSEPH, and MO DAI

Potential tourists use various destination attributes to aidin destination image formation. Destination environmentalattributes related to the actual product or site have beenshown to influence destination image. These environmentalattributes can be grouped into two subcategories—destinationatmospherics and destination service. This study identifiedsignificant differences in the ratings of these two categorieswhen comparing three groups of visitors to Florida: Florida(in-state) residents, U.S. domestic (non-Florida), and inter-national. Understanding destination images that past visi-tors hold about a particular destination may provide usefulinsights into understanding existing images about that desti-nation and can aid in the development of positioning strate-gies to alter or maintain these images. This study offers afirst step in examining the varying perceptions visitors canhold about a destination based on their country of origin.

Keywords: destination image perceptions; interna-tional travelers, destination atmosphericsand services

Tourism as a business has grown into one of the largestincome generators worldwide, representing more than10.2% of world GDP and more than 194 million industryjobs worldwide (World Travel and Tourism Council 2003).With this increased monetary success, the market hasexpanded and grown into a fiercely competitive arena withtourism destination marketing organizations spanning theglobe to attract customers to their respective destinations(Sirgy and Su 2000). In 1995, 576 million people visitedinternational tourism destinations and generated $373 billionin international tourist receipts. The U.S. Office of Traveland Tourism Industries has estimated that the number ofinternational visitors to the United States is approximately 47million annually with annual receipts totaling as high as$82.3 billion in 2000. Due, however, to terrorism, war,worldwide recession, and recent difficulties with the visaissuance process, international tourist expenditures declinedby nearly 15% to $70.3 billion in 2002 (U.S. Office of Traveland Tourism Industries 2002). Now, more than ever,research needs to be conducted on international travelers tobetter understand their related consumer behavior issues.

To take full advantage of this lucrative market, tourismmanagers are inclined to promote destination images that areintended to maximize site patronage. Extant literature hasshown that destination image has a direct causal impact on

travel behavior and is a valuable concept when investigatingthe destination selection process (e.g., Backman andCrompton 1991; Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Goodall 1990;Gartner 1993; Hu and Ritchie 1993; Riley 1995). Potentialtourists use various destination attributes to aid in destinationimage formation. These attributes can take the form of bothcontrollable attributes (destination product, price, place, andpromotion) and uncontrollable attributes (personal charac-teristics; Sirgy and Su 2000).

In particular, destination environmental attributes relatedto the actual product or site have been shown to influencedestination image. These environmental attributes can begrouped into two subcategories—destination atmosphericsand destination service (Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Gartner1989, 1993; Mazanec 1994). Destination atmospherics dealsspecifically with landscapes, historical attractions, and infra-structures such as accommodations and facilities. Researchhas shown that tourism managers can manipulate theseattributes to create an image that is desirable to the potentialvisitor (Calantone et al. 1989; Fakeye and Crompton 1991;Gray 1986; Mansfield 1992; Palmer and Bejou 1995;Telisman-Kosuta 1989). Likewise, service quality attributescan also create a favorable image in the minds of the potentialtourists. Thus, depending on their goal, tourism managershave the option of either maintaining specific service stan-dards to sustain existing images or varying service qualityofferings in an effort to alter existing images (Ostrowski,O’Brien, and Gordon 1993).

It should be noted, however, that tourism managersshould not only be concerned with manipulating their desti-nation images to potential visitors, but should also be inter-ested in understanding existing images that potential travel-ers already possess about their destination, as well as existingimages that potential travelers have about their key competi-tors (Ahmed 1991; Calantone et al. 1989). Understandingdestination images that past visitors hold about a particular

Mark A. Bonn, Ph.D., is Dedman Professor in Service Manage-ment, Dedman School of Hospitality, College of Business, FloridaState University, in Tallahassee. Sacha M. Joseph is a Ph.D. candi-date in the Department of Marketing, College of Business, FloridaState University, in Tallahassee. Mo Dai, MBA, MsM, is director ofresearch, Bonn Marketing Research Group, in Tallahassee,Florida.

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, February 2005, 294-301DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272033© 2005 Sage Publications

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

destination may also provide useful insights into understand-ing existing images about that destination and can aid in thedevelopment of positioning strategies to alter or maintainthese images. Woodside (1982) suggested that one approachto a successful positioning strategy is to match benefits pro-vided by a destination with benefits sought by a targetmarket.

The distinction must be made, however, between destina-tion image from the perspective of people who have not yetvisited the destination, and yet have gathered image percep-tions based on word of mouth, advertising, reading, andinteraction with travel agents, versus image perceptions ofactual visitors. Both Gartner (1989) and Calantone et al.(1989) examined image strengths and weakness based onspecific destination attributes. Their findings suggested thatimage perceptions of past visitors could differ across attrib-utes and across country of origin. Numerous other studieshave investigated the differences between image perceptionsof repeat and or past visitors and visitors who are yet to visit aparticular destination (Ahmed 1991; Chon 1990; Fakeye andCrompton 1991; Hu and Ritchie 1993). All of these research-ers agreed that image modifications do in fact occur after apotential tourist has actually visited a destination. Thus,image perceptions of both past and potential visitors as wellas country of origin have to be considered when determininga specific positioning strategy for a destination.

Traditionally, however, destinations have used the samedestination images or enticements to attract tourists regard-less of their country of origin. Extant literature has demon-strated that this approach is limited because touristic repre-sentations via visual imagery are plural in both meaning andideology. This suggests that various cultural or nationalisticbackgrounds can result in multiple interpretations, aestheticpreferences, or judgments, thereby aiding in the formation ofmultiple destination images (Berlyne 1977; Britton 1979;Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983).

As a development of this strain of research, the purposeof this study is twofold. First, we seek to identify importantdestination attributes that contribute to image perceptionsfrom past visitors. Second, based on an underlying assump-tion that various cultures differ in terms of their experiencesof an environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989), we seek toexamine the differences in image perceptions based on coun-try of origin between international and U.S. domestictravelers visiting Florida.

METHOD

Data Collection

From 1994 to 2003, visitors to the Tampa Bay region inFlorida were personally interviewed as a part of a compre-hensive, destination marketing research project. A random-ized day/site/time methodology was used to obtain informa-tion on specific travel behaviors of visitors to the area.Professionally trained surveyors were used to administer a111-item survey to these visitors based on their on-site travelexperience. A total of 53,864 completed surveys wereobtained from visitors in and around the Tampa Bay regionof Florida throughout this time period. Respondents wereinterviewed at common visitor locations as determined by

destination marketing organization management and theiradvisory board.

Survey Instrument

From 1994 to 1997, 22,188 completed surveys wereobtained through personal interviews with visitors to theTampa Bay region of Florida. Open-ended items pertainingto destination image were used in an effort to create futurecategories of those most frequently mentioned destinationattributes. An expert panel was subsequently formulated toconduct interrater reliability on the open-ended responsesgenerated. In addition, panel and focus group discussionswere held with industry and community leaders to includethe practitioner’s perspective on key destination imageattributes. As a result of this process, these responses wererefined into a list consisting of 10 specific dimensions.

In 1997, the survey was pretested on 6,055 visitors to theTampa Bay, Florida, region for face validity, wordingsequence, and other potential errors, and modifications weremade prior to administration. Based on the responses ofthose visitors, the 10 dimensions were confirmed as highlyimportant image assessment dimensions for tourists visitingthe Tampa Bay region of Florida. A 10-item, 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 9 = strongly agree) wasthen developed to capture each of the 10 components of des-tination image perceptions. These dimensions were thenincluded in the 1998-2003 survey instrument. In addition todestination image perceptions and information regardingindividual opinions and interests, the survey instrument alsoasked questions related to socioeconomic, demographic, andpsychographic information as well as information regardingtrip purpose, behaviors, and activities. Between 1998 and2003, approximately 31,000 responses were obtained frompersonal interviews with visitors to the Tampa Bay regionusing professional surveyors whom, as a group, were fluentin multiple languages, including Spanish, Portuguese,French, German, and English. The use of multilingual sur-veyors greatly reduced the risk of encountering responseproblems due to language and cultural differences. Of thistotal, 14,205 individuals responded to and provided evalua-tions for the entire set of 10 destination attributes. SPSS 10.0was used to reduce the data set to 50% and again to 25% toallow for a more manageable data set and also to ensure thatstatistical significance was not obtained simply due to theextensive nature of the data set. Statistical tests conducted onthe total sample yielded the exact same results when appliedto the two smaller data sets. Because maximum likelihoodestimation (MLE) was not used in our analyses, any datareduction issues became moot.

Sample

The respondents to the surveys tended to be white andmarried, with an average age of 45. There were slightly morewomen (54.5%) than men (45.4%), and a large percentage(80%) of the sample had attended either a technical school orcollege. The majority of the respondents reported an annualincome of $40,000 or more. Table 1 gives the demographicprofile of the respondents. In-state visitors represented38.7% of all respondents, domestic visitors represented49.4%, and international visitors accounted for the remain-ing 11.9%. Table 2 gives a breakdown of the top 10 visitororigins for all three geographic segments.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 295

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

RESULTS

Dimensions of Image Assessment

A principal components factor analysis was then con-ducted on the destination image instrument to confirm the

various facets of the destination image construct. Individualitems were assessed for discriminant validity within the des-tination image construct using VARIMAX rotation. Basedon eigenvalues of more than 1, two destination importancefactors were generated. These factors support existing litera-ture that group image destination assessment into

296 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

U.S. U.S.Domestic DomesticVisitors Visitors InternationalFlorida/ Non-Florida/ Visitors Total

Demographics (N = 5,495) (N = 7,012) (N = 1,698) (N = 14,205)

Average age (years) 44.5 46.2 44.8 45.4Gender (%)

Male 45.4 48.0 57.4 48.1Female 54.6 52.0 42.6 51.9

Race (%)Caucasian 90.2 92.4 77.6 89.9African American 3.7 3.8 1.8 3.5Hispanic 4.3 1.7 7.2 3.3Asian 0.7 0.9 4.2 1.2Other 1.0 1.3 9.1 2.1

Household Income (%)Less than $20,000 5.2 4.7 5.5 5.0$20,000-29,999 14.6 7.5 8.6 10.5$30,000-39,999 16.2 10.4 14.7 13.2$40,000-49,999 15.6 12.5 14.4 14.0$50,000-74,999 24.8 26.2 21.5 25.1$75,000 and above 23.6 38.7 35.3 32.3

Marital Status (%)Married 70.0 72.3 73.0 71.5Single 19.7 17.8 20.2 18.8Widowed 3.1 3.3 2.6 3.2Divorced 7.1 6.6 4.2 6.5

Education Level (%)Less than high school 3.5 2.8 1.3 2.9High school graduate 17.7 15.1 17.1 16.3Technical school graduate 5.4 4.8 7.3 5.3Some college 24.7 21.9 15.7 22.3College graduate 31.9 35.7 40.6 34.8Postgraduate 16.9 19.8 17.9 18.4

Note: Some categories may not equal to 100% due to rounding errors.

TABLE 2

TOP TEN VISITOR ORIGINS TO TAMPA, FLORIDA (1998-2003)

U.S. Domestic Visitors/ InternationalU.S. Domestic Visitors/Florida (%) Non-Florida (%) Visitors (%)

St. Petersburg (23.0) New York (12.5) United Kingdom (35.5)Orlando (16.7) Pennsylvania (6.9) Canada (21.0)Surrounding counties (Pasco, Hernando, Citrus: 12.8) Michigan (6.5) Brazil (11.8)Sarasota (12.3) Illinois (5.8) Germany (6.5)Miami (9.5) Massachusetts (5.7) Puerto Rico (2.4)Lakeland (5.9) Ohio (4.5) Taiwan (2.3)Fort Meyers (5.9) New Jersey (4.1) Norway (1.7)West Palm Beach (4.5) Georgia (3.8) Argentina (1.6)Jacksonville (3.2) Texas (3.7) Venezuela (1.0)Gainesville (2.5) Wisconsin (3.2) Switzerland (1.0)

Total (96.5) Total (56.7) Total (84.7)

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

environmental atmospherics attributes and service attributes(Echtner and Ritchie 1993; Gartner 1989, 1993; Mazanec1994). A Cronbach’s alpha of .85 was achieved for the entirescale with alphas ranging from .77 to .78 for the individualfactors. The first factor was labeled service image percep-tions (service), and the second was named environmentalimage perceptions (environment). It should be noted that alarge percentage of the variance was explained by the servicefactor (44%) with only 11% explained by the environmentalfactor. This may, however, be due to the fact that pretestingindicated that items within the destination image scaleneeded to be refined (reduced) in an attempt to capture asmany dimensions as possible while limiting respondentfatigue. Thus, a limited number of items were used to evalu-ate the environmental factor, resulting in reduced variance.Each item was considered to fall within a factor based on fac-tor loadings of .40 or higher. Items with factor loadings ofless than .40 and items that loaded on two factors were elimi-nated from the analysis (Ford, MacCallum, and Tait 1986).Table 3 outlines the factor analysis results for the service andenvironment image dimensions.

The dependent measures were highly correlated,1 andtherefore a MANOVA was used to test the effects of visitororigin on image perceptions of the destination’s service andenvironment attributes. Visitor origin was divided into threegeographical groups: Florida (in-state), U.S. domestic visi-tors (non-Florida), and international visitors. Tukey’s hon-estly significant difference (HSD) and Duncan’s multiplerange tests were used to determine if there were significantdifferences in the factor mean scores of the various visitorgroups. Descriptive statistics for the dependent measures areoutlined in Table 4.

The MANOVA found a significant main effect for visitororigin (international versus domestic non-Florida and in-state) on both dependent measures of destination service per-ceptions and destination environment perceptions, Wilk’slambda = .99, F (4,28406) = 13.13, p < .001. This lies in tan-dem with previous work done on multicultural destinationimage assessment (Berlyne 1977; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989;MacKay and Fesenmaier 2000). This preliminary analysisdemonstrated that international visitors perceived serviceimage perceptions lower when compared with those in-stateand domestic segments (M = 6.25, SD = 1.88). In-state visi-tors rated service image perceptions the highest (M = 6.51,SD = 1.85), followed by domestic visitors (M = 6.50, SD =1.86).

International visitors rated environmental image percep-tions lower than all groups (M = 6.84, SD = 2.00). In-statevisitors rated environmental image perceptions highest (M =7.24, SD = 1.93) and were followed by domestic visitors(M = 7.21, SD = 1.88, Table 4). Tukey’s HSD and Duncan’smultiple range tests revealed statistical significant differ-ences at the .001 alpha level between image perceptions ofboth service and environment for international visitors ver-sus those for domestic and in-state visitors. No significantdifferences were found between the image perceptions ofdomestic and in-state visitors, p ≥.05 (Tables 5 and 6).

The second phase of analysis explored in detail the ser-vice and environmental image perception dimensions to addunderstanding to what makes international visitors perceiveservice and environmental factors in a significantly differentway from in-state and domestic visitors. A MANOVA wasconducted to test the effects of visitor origin on the 10

individual service and environmental image perceptiondimensions. Once again, Tukey’s HSD and Duncan’s multi-ple range tests revealed statistical significant differencesbetween image perceptions of both service and environmentfor international visitors versus those for in-state and domes-tic visitors. Three out of six dimensions within the servicefactor were found to be statistically significant (p < .001).Specifically, signage, value for the dollar, and ground trans-portation all were perceived significantly lower by interna-tional visitors when compared with the other two groups.Results also confirmed that three out of the four environmentdimensions were statistically different. Again, internationalvisitors perceived variety of things to do, clean environment,and climate significantly lower when compared with in-stateand domestic visitors (see Tables 7 and 8).

DISCUSSION

Destination image has been a heavily researched and dis-cussed topic for both practitioners and researchers alike forthe past decade. The highly competitive nature of the tourismmarketplace dictates that tourism marketers have a thoroughunderstanding of not only how they would like their destina-tion to be perceived but also how it is presently perceived toadequately implement measures to alter or maintain suchimages. To ensure that potential tourists do in fact encounterfavorable destination images, tourism managers and market-ers have embarked on extensive campaigns that span enor-mous geographical regions. In many instances, however,these campaigns offer the exact images despite the varyingnatures of the markets they are meant to target.

Previous research has suggested that nationals of variousgeographic regions interpret visual imagery and experiencesdifferently dependent on their country of origin (Berlyne1977; Britton 1979; Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983).This phenomenon has not, however, been examined in thepast 10 years, and these study findings suggest that despitethe onset of globalization and the introduction of the Internet(which serve to increase cultural awareness and decreaseworldwide cultural distances), visitors still have differentdestination perceptions based on their geographic origin.Table 2 illustrates the breakdown of the respondent’s visitororigin, indicating that more than 56% of those internationalvisitors we interviewed came from either the United King-dom or Canada, two countries with similar cultural back-grounds to that of the United States. Nonetheless the percep-tions differ. This suggests that there is a need for furtherresearch and deeper investigation as to how and why thesedifferences exist, with a thorough analysis of the variousimage perceptions as they vary throughout the differentinternational markets.

This study offers findings that illustrate the differences indestination image perceptions among in-state, domestic, andinternational visitors to the Tampa Bay region of Florida.Although considerable work has been done on destinationimage as a whole, far less has investigated the differences indestination image assessments for domestic versus interna-tional visitors. This study was a first step in the examinationprocess, because we focused here on illustrating that thereare clear differences between international and domestic per-ceptions of important image destination characteristics, withthe understanding that to address perception differences and

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 297

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

tailor products accordingly, marketers and tourism profes-sionals must first be aware that these differences still exist.The next step in the process will then seek to ascertain thedepth of these differences. Based on the tremendous eco-nomic impact that international travel has on the U.S. econ-omy, there is an ongoing need for market intelligence thatrelates to a greater understanding of international destinationperceptions. More recently, the impact of terrorism, war,world economic recession, and recent difficulties with thevisa issuance process have caused considerable economicconstraints for those U.S. destinations dependent on interna-tional visitors and their associated spending. As a result,there is an ongoing need for research that examines the per-ceptions of visitors from these international destinations tocontinuously improve the product offerings available in theUnited States.

These findings concur with the notion that image assess-ments vary across geographic regions, indicating that actualvisitors interpret service and environmental factors depend-ent on their geographic origin. The results suggest that inter-national visitors coming to the Tampa Bay region havehigher service and environmental standards when judgingthis destination compared to in-state and domestic visitors.This results in international visitors having lower service andenvironmental perceptions of the destination when com-pared to in-state and domestic visitors. Closer examinationof the service and environmental factors indicate (as outlinedin Tables 7 and 8) that differences were only found in three ofthe six service dimensions. Significant differences were foundbetween domestic (in-state and out-of-state) and interna-tional visitors on the issues of signage, value for the dollar,and ground transportation. Indeed, on investigation into theTampa area, these differences are somewhat understandable,as we will attempt to outline below.

Signage in most Florida destinations, including the Tampaarea, is generally written in one language—English. Whentraveling internationally, however, signage is typicallyexpressed in multiple languages. As a result, this may be anarea of contention by international tourists based on the per-ceived inadequacy as it relates to international standards.Value for the dollar is yet another area that was perceivedlower by international visitors; however, during the study’s

timeframe, the U.S. dollar was considerably higher than boththe Canadian dollar and the euro. This may explain whysome international visitors do not rate the value for dollardimension very highly, because their buying power wassomewhat reduced in the United States compared to theirhome country during this study’s time frame. Ground trans-portation was documented in this study’s findings as anotherproblematic area for international visitors. In fact, this is onevisitor issue that the Tampa Bay area has been aware of, andit has since taken strategic actions to improve the city ofTampa’s ground transportation system. Based on the find-ings generated from the ongoing visitor research program,Tampa recently implemented a trolley system that runs fromthe downtown convention center to popular visitor sitesincluding historical districts, entertainment facilities, foodservice establishments, and lodging properties.

On closer examination of the environmental dimensions,we offer some explanations as to the differences indicatedbetween domestic (in-state and out-of-state) visitors as com-pared with their international counterparts. International vis-itors rated the variety of things to do dimension significantlylower than domestic visitors. This may be due to the fact that

298 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 3

FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR IMAGE ASSESSMENT SCALE

Factor Variance ReliabilityFactor Loadings Eigenvalue Explained Coefficient

Service factor 4.44 44.4 .77Ease of getting around .71Friendliness of residents .73Level of service .76Signage .60Value for the dollar .60Ground transportation .48

Environmental factor 1.07 10.7 .78Variety of things to do .73Clean environment .77Climate .78

Perception of safety .67

Total 55.1 .85

TABLE 4

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSFOR DEPENDENT MEASURES

Image Assessment Factor Mean SD N

Overall Service FactorIn-state (Florida) 6.51 1.85 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 6.50 1.86 7,012International 6.25 1.88 1,698

Total 6.47 1.86 14,205

Overall Environment FactorIn-state (Florida) 7.24 1.93 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 7.21 1.88 7,012International 6.84 2.00 1,698

Total 7.18 1.91 14,205

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

value for the dollar is an issue, and as a result the cost ofentertainment and various activities may be either out ofreach or simply considered too expensive for some of theseinternational visitors. Second, there is the additional issue oflanguage barriers that may be causing some interference. Weconducted a content analysis of regional electronic tourismpromotional literature looking for activities designed specifi-cally for an international audience in which entertainmentwas offered in a language other than English and identifiedonly a few examples. This suggests that only a very limitednumber of attractions cater to international visitors whospeak another language. On the issue of clean environment,international visitors were less satisfied than both in-stateand domestic visitors. These results may be affected by priorexpectations based on visitor origins and higher existing

environmental standards in their home countries. Climatewas also rated lower by international visitors when comparedwith in-state and domestic visitors. There is a clear need forfurther investigation into climate and all other dimensions toclarify which of the many explanations offered above turnout to be the most pertinent as they relate to the lower percep-tions of international visitors on environmental and servicedestination attributes. Perhaps analyses according to seasonvisited by visitor origin would provide deeper understandingabout perceptual differences among the three groups ofvisitors.

Despite an attempt to be scientific in our data collectionand in the interviewing process, we must outline what weconsider to be some of the limitations of the present study.First, although six service dimensions were explored, onlyfour environmental dimensions were investigated. This mayhave contributed to the 55.1% variance explained obtained inour analysis. Although respondent fatigue is always a con-sideration, further research needs to investigate both envi-ronmental and service factors in greater detail to betterunderstand the reasons behind the differences betweendomestic and international evaluations of environmentalattributes. Recent trends in the industry suggest that there hasbeen an increase in the number of environmentally awaretourists (Ayala 1996; Travel Industry Association of Amer-ica 2003). As a result, environmental attributes are taking ongreater significance in destination assessment. Thus, furtherresearch in this area can only lead to the generation ofimproved products and services better suited to the new mil-lennium traveler. Second, although the 10 dimensionsselected were done so based on extensive pretesting and sur-vey refining, further research needs to be conducted thatfocuses specifically on the service image and environmentalimage factors separately in an effort to ascertain whichdimensions are most important and perhaps include any newconsiderations that may have been omitted in this generalimage destination assessment. Third, seasonality may influ-ence visitor responses. Tremendous demands on the serviceproviders during peak seasons could cause a possible declinein quality and services provided by the various industrystakeholders. Thus, more research is necessary to examine ifand how these perceptions vary by season.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 299

TABLE 6

TUKEY’S HONESTLY SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE(HSD) AND DUNCAN’S MULTIPLE RANGE TESTS

Variables Mean* Significance N

Service Perceptions(Tukey’s HSD)

In-state (Florida) 6.496 .957 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 6.509 .957 7,012International 6.247 .000 1,698

Service Perceptions(Duncan’s)

In-state (Florida) 6.496 .778 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 6.509 .778 7,012International 6.247 .000 1,698

Environment perceptions(Tukey’s HSD)

In-state (Florida) 7.209 .818 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 7.238 .818 7,012International 6.871 .000 1,698

Environment perceptions(Duncan’s)

In-state (Florida) 7.209 .546 5,495Domestic (non-Florida) 7.238 .546 7,012International 6.871 .000 1,698

*p ≤ .001.

TABLE 5

MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ONPERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE FACTORS

Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance (p)

Servicea 97.689 2 .719 14.123 .000Environmentb 186.537 2 36.683 25.560 .000Error

Service 49,117.088 14,203 3.458Environment 51,822.130 14,203 3.649

TotalService 64,4026 14,205Environment 78,4308 14,205

Multivariate F = 13.13Wilk’s lambda = .99p = .000

a. R 2 = .39. b. R 2 = .28.

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

CONCLUSION

The economic significance of international visitors sug-gests the importance of understanding destination percep-tions of international visitors to our region. As a result, moreresearch needs to focus on what is important to these interna-tional visitors and why they are important. As researchers, it

is imperative that we first establish that differences do existbefore we delve into the issues of what and how. The popularpress has highlighted the pervasive nature of the Internet andthe recent trend in globalization, all pointing to the creationof the global village in which people today are more alikethan they are different. Past research in the area of image per-ceptions suggests just the opposite: that people from

300 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 7

MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ONPERCEPTIONS OF DESTINATION SERVICE DIMENSIONS

Variables Mean Sum of Squares df Mean Square F

Service Factor DimensionsEase of getting around 6.93 2 3.46 0.51

In-state (Florida) 6.66Domestic (non-Florida) 6.60International 6.69

Friendliness of residents 28.64 2 14.32 1.93In-state (Florida) 6.81Domestic (non-Florida) 6.95International 6.93

Level of service 30.79 2 15.39 2.24In-state (Florida) 6.81Domestic (non-Florida) 6.75International 6.77

Signage* 982.48 2 491.24 51.52In-state (Florida) 6.47Domestic (non-Florida) 5.96International 5.26

Value for the dollar* 353.20 2 176.60 22.89In-state (Florida) 6.10Domestic (non-Florida) 6.00International 5.34

Ground transportation* 156.32 2 78.16 7.25In-state (Florida) 4.77Domestic (non-Florida) 5.05International 4.69

*p ≤ .001.

TABLE 8

MANOVA RESULTS FOR THE EFFECT OF VISITOR ORIGIN ONPERCEPTIONS OF DESTINATION ENVIRONMENT DIMENSIONS

Variables Mean Sum of Squares df Mean Square F

Environmental Factor DimensionsVariety of things to do* 63.65 2 315.33 40.50

In-state (Florida) 7.55Domestic (non-Florida) 7.62International 6.64

Clean environment* 73.96 2 36.98 5.20In-state (Florida) 6.91Domestic (non-Florida) 7.12International 6.90

Climate* 537.03 2 268.52 36.14In-state (Florida) 7.61Domestic (non-Florida) 8.03International 7.22

Perception of safety 24.60 2 12.30 1.65In-state (Florida) 6.77

Domestic (non-Florida) 6.77International 6.96

*p ≤ .001.

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

different backgrounds and cultural orientations have differ-ent image perceptions of destinations (Berlyne 1977; Britton1979; Buck 1977; Thurot and Thurot 1983). This study vali-dates past research, suggesting that although 10 years havepassed since these first articles were written and much haschanged through advancements in information technology,much has remained the same. The findings from this studyindicate that despite the technological revolution and theinfluence of globalization, differing cultural backgroundsstill lead to different image perceptions. Much of the pastresearch was built on image perceptions of potential touristsfrom various geographic regions (e.g., Ostrowski, O’Brien,and Gordon 1993). This study involves viewpoints fromactual visitors, thereby offering empirical validation ofprevious research on the subject of image perception.

This study is a preliminary step in attempting to uncovernot only what draws international visitors to U.S. destina-tions but also what ensures their return. The impact of worldeconomic recession, terrorism, war, and the difficulty associ-ated with visa issuance processes have collectively caused areduction in the number of annual international visitors to theUnited States, including Florida. If we are to increase thesenumbers again, destination marketing organizations need tobetter understand what is important to international visitorsduring their on-site experiences. Researchers need to furtherexamine existing destination perception differences amongkey international markets for the United States as well aslook into how these differences vary across markets. Basedon the results generated in this study, the message is clear:international visitors have higher service image expectationsand standards, and they place more importance on environ-mental factors, than do domestic visitors. This implies thatU.S. destination managers not only have to improve currentstandards but also need to stress their improvement of thesedimensions in their marketing campaigns. Various govern-mental agencies and tourism bureaus have invested consider-able resources into training tourism stakeholders to ensurebetter products and higher service quality. If we are to suc-cessfully achieve this objective, tourism destination market-ing and management professionals need to fully understandhow these dimensions are perceived across their differenttarget markets. This improved understanding will allowthem to assess their strengths and weakness in an effort tobetter cater to the international visitors and ultimately allow acompetitive advantage to occur.

NOTE

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

REFERENCES

Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). “The Influence of the Components of a State’s TouristImage on Product Positioning Strategy.” Tourism Management, 12(December): 331-40.

Ayala, H. (1996). “Resort Ecotourism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century.”Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, 37 (October):46-53.

Backman, S., and J. Crompton (1991). “Differentiating between High, Spu-rious, Latent and Low Loyalty Participants in Two Leisure Activities.”Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (2): 1-17.

Baloglu, S., and K. McCleary (1999). “U.S. International Pleasure Travel-ers’ Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison ofVisitors and Nonvisitors.” Journal of Travel Research, 38(November): 144-52.

Berlyne, D. (1977). “Psychological Aesthetics.” In Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 3, edited by H. Triandis and W. Lamberts.Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 323-61.

Britton, R. (1979). “The Image of the Third World in Tourism Marketing.”Annals of Tourism Research, 6: 318-29.

Buck, R. (1977). “The Ubiquitous Tourist Brochure: Explorations in Its In-tended and Unintended Use.” Annals of Tourism Research, 4: 195-207.

Calantone, R., A. di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D. Bojanic (1989). “MultipleMultinational Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence Analysis.”Journal of Travel Research, 28: 25-32.

Chon, K. (1990). “The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review andDiscussion.” Tourist Review, 45 (2): 2-9.

Echtner, C., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1993). “The Measurement of DestinationImage: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Travel Research, 31(Spring): 3-13.

Fakeye, P. C., and J. L. Crompton (1991). “Image Differences between Pro-spective, First Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Val-ley.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Fall): 10-16.

Ford, K. J., R. C. MacCallum, and M. Tait (1986). “The Application of Ex-ploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology: A Critical Reviewand Analysis.” Personnel Psychology, 39 (Summer): 291-315.

Gartner, W. C. (1989). “Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of StateTourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Technique.” Jour-nal of Travel Research, 28: 16-20.

——— (1993). “Image Formation Process.” In Communication and Chan-nels Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Muzaffer Uysal andDaniel R. Fesenmaier. New York: Haworth, pp. 191-215.

Goodall, B. (1990). “How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An AnalyticalFramework.” In Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion ofDestination Regions, edited by B. Goodall and G. Ashworth. London:Routledge, pp. 1-17.

Gray, J. (1986). “Marketing to Tourism.” Speech to Northeast MissouriTravel and [Tourism] Conference, Hannibal.

Hu, Y., and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1993). “Measuring Destination Attractive-ness: A Contextual Approach.” Journal of Travel Research, 32 (Fall):25-34.

Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychologi-cal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacKay, K. J., and D. R. Fesenmaier (2000). “An Exploration of Cross-Cultural Destination Image Assessment.” Journal of Travel Research,38 (May): 417-23.

Mansfield, Y. (1992). Tourism: Toward a Behavioral Approach. Oxford:Pergamon.

Mazanec, J. (1994). “Consumer Behavior.” In Travel Tourism HospitalityResearch, edited by J. R. B. Ritchie and C. R. Goeldner. New York:John Wiley, pp. 294-99.

Ostrowski, P., T. O’Brien, and G. Gordon (1993). “Service Quality and Con-sumer Loyalty in the Commercial Airline Industry.” Journal of TravelResearch, 32: 16-24.

Palmer, A., and D. Bejou (1995). “Tourism Destination Marketing Alli-ances.” Annals of Tourism Research, 3: 616-29.

Riley, R. W. (1995). “Prestige Worthy Tourist Behavior.” Annals of TourismResearch, 22: 630-49.

Sirgy, M., and C. Su (2000). “Destination Image, Self Congruity, and TravelBehavior: Toward an Integrative Model.” Journal of Travel Research,38 (May): 340-52.

Telisman-Kosuta, R. (1989). “Tourist Destination Image.” In The TourismMarketing and Management Handbook, edited by S. Witt and L.Moutinho. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 555-61.

Thurot, J., and G. Thurot (1983). “The Ideology of Class and Tourism Con-fronting the Discourse of Advertising.” Annals of Tourism Research,10: 173-89.

Travel Industry Association of America. (2003). Domestic Travel Report2003. Washington, DC: Travel Industry Association of America.

Travel Industry Association of America (TIA), U.S. Office of Travel andTourism Industries (OTTI), International Trade Association (ITA),Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Commerce. 1996-2002. In-ternational Travel to the U.S.: 1992-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Of-fice of Travel and Tourism Industries.

Woodside, A. G. (1982). “Positioning a Province Using Traveler Research.”Journal of Travel Research, 20 (Winter): 2-6.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 301

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