Cross-nationality importance performance analysis of Middle East all-inclusive mass tourism destination image

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to analyze cognitive attributes affecting the overall destination image perception of British, German and Russian tourists toward Antalya, a well-positioned mass tourism destination in the East Mediterranean region dominated by an all-inclusive (AI) system.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is an empirical study using a structured questionnaire conducted in the summer of 2018 with 274 British, 179 German and 231 Russian tourists departing to their respective source markets from Antalya International Airport. The mean values are used as performance and correlation coefficients of the relationship between each cognitive image dimension and overall image evaluation is used to express importance.FindingsThe paper provides empirical insights that these three nationalities prefer Antalya as an AI holiday destination for different reasons and that each nationality demands attention to different factors of the destination for improvement or preservation.Research limitations/implicationsThis study provides specific recommendations for AI destinations such as Antalya for the German, British and Russian source markets. When other source markets or types of destinations are considered, the findings of this study should be re-considered. Utilization of the original and modernized importance performance analysis (IPA) plot interpretations in this research reveals a deeper understanding of current findings and provides a new perspective for further research and guidance for destination managers and marketers.Practical implicationsUtilization of both original and modernized IPA plot interpretation in this research not only reveals a deeper understanding of current findings but also provides a new perspective for future studies and guidance for destination managers and marketers.Originality/valueUnlike the majority of destination image research, this study of destination image based on individual nationalities enables tailor-made destination image development according to diversified importance and performance of destination attributes affecting the overall destination image for each nationality.

Examining the influential components of tourists' intention to use travel apps: the importance–performance map analysis

“…Although the resulting analysis of path coefficients and their significance levels can explain the relationships among the examined variables, such approach technically precludes prioritizing constructs and indicators to improve a certain target variable. Methodologically, this study contributes to the travel and tourism technology area (Ceylan et al , 2021), where IPMA with GSCA approach was utilized to prioritize app content attributes. Pragmatically, the prioritization of travel app components provides a foundation for travel service providers and app designers to improve necessary dimensions in ensuring favorable tourists' app usage intention.…”

Does a highly standardized international advertising campaign contribute to the enhancement of destination image? Evidence from Turkey

“…The findings of a study carried out in Israel indicated that affective image had a higher positive impact on overall destination image and future behavior than did cognitive image (Stylidis et al , 2017). Ceylan et al 's (2021) research showed that each nationality had a different perception of Antalya, one of the most popular destinations in Turkey, though British, German and Russian tourists perceived the city as an all-inclusive mass tourism destination.…”

The Impact of Tourism Destination Image on Tourist Behavioral Intention through Tourist Satisfaction: Evidence from the Ramelau Mountain, Timor-Leste

“…Tourist destination image has attracted researchers since 1970 (Chen et al, 2014). Gunn in 1992 started conducting a research (Viet et al, 2020) on how a destination can attract potential tourists (Saini & Arasanmi, 2020) because destination image affects or influences tourist behaviors (Jenkins, 1999;Erawan, 2019;Ceylan et al, 2020;Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020). The term tourist destination image has unclear definition (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993;Jenkins, 1999;Loi et al, 2017;Al-Gasawneh & Al-Adamat, 2020;Viet et al, 2020), which represents individual mentality on their understanding, belief, feeling, and total perception of a tourist destination (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999;Crompton, 1979).…”

“…Image is an accumulation of beliefs, ideas, impressions that a person has on a tourist destination from time to time (Crompton, 1979;Baloglu & Gartner, 1994;McCleary, 1999;Leisen, 2001). Since the nature of a tourist image formation is always dynamic (Ghazali & Cai, 2013) which comes from cognitive, affective, and conative elements (Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020;Ceylan et al, 2020;Herle, 2018). When a factor that forms an image changes, but the change does not affect an image, whether it is positive and negative changes (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991).…”

“…For this reason, the government of many countries seeks to improve their service and develop tourism potential as tourist destination to attract tourist to visit (Chen & Tsai, 2007;Meng & Cui, 2020;Singh, 2020). Tourists visit a tourist destination based on their vision (cognitive), feeling (affective), and action (conative) (Ceylan et al, 2020;Herle, 2018) or perception, representation, mentality, and various impressions between reality and image (Al-Gasawneh & Al-Adamat, 2020). Therefore behavioral intention will continues to drive tourist behavior in the future (Ajzen 2012) because behavior intention influenced by antecedent behavior (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001;Tucker et al, 2019), which in turn lead to triggers person's behavior (Oliver & Swan, 1989) to take any future actions (Banki et al, 2014).…”