A structural analysis of destination brand equity in mountainous tourism destination in northern India

Abstract

The present study attempts to develop a destination brand equity model for mountainous tourism destination based in a north Indian state of Uttarakhand. Brand equity research in leisure studies has been gaining increased scholarly attention, yet similar researches in Indian context are almost non-existent. This contemporary brand assessment area of enquiry has been considered in the present research by exploiting six dimensions structure including destination brand awareness, destination image, social self-image, perceived quality, perceived value and destination loyalty. Findings in particular stress on the relevance of three vital antecedents, namely, destination image, perceived value and social self-image in improving tourist loyalty. It is suggested that price benefit trade-off is duly considered for improving tourist loyalty, and the hilly attractions exhibit potential to augment tourists’ self and social images. If exploited appositely, destination image, social self-image and perceived value may engender a stronger loyalty bond between visitors and destination. With the aid of structure equation modelling, pertinent relationships rooted in the brand equity theory have been tested and few newer linkages have been uncovered and validated. The paper concludes with vital implications, limitations and scope of future research.

Keywords

Destination brand equity dimensions Indian state tourist structure equation modelling

Introduction

Destinations are known to be the important brands of tourism, and their branding has gained wider attention lately, both in real time market scenarios and related scholarship (Kladou et al., 2015; Morgan et al., 2002). Here, an argument can be made that branding of destinations has come a long way from the initial understanding and consideration of it as the sole creator of destination image, as evident from three decades of destination marketing research, to a much-evolved conception of realising it as a complex web of elements resulting in the creation of destination brand. A short commentary authored by Ekinci (2003) attempted to describe the transition of destination image to destination branding. The author sets apart both the similar sounding concepts by arguing that branding manifests the emotional component of the destination image, and also that the branding of destinations creates linkage between tourists’ image of self and destination. Due to the inherent specificities branding of destinations is often regarded as complex and challenging than that of the branding of generic products (Ferns and Walls, 2012; Sartori et al., 2012).

Leisure branding literature continues to evolve, and efforts of scholars in comprehending and explicating its intricacies is evident (Boo et al., 2009; Ferns and Walls, 2012; Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011; Lim and Weaver, 2014; Pike, 2009; Ruzzier, 2010). In the similar vein, assessment of destination brand performance has been opined to be explained by a contemporary concept called destination brand equity (DBE; Kladou and Kehagias, 2014). Most cited and conventional definition of brand equity remains that of Aaker’s (1991), where the author defined it as a “… distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors” (p. 7).

Being a multidisciplinary concept, DBE makes significant theoretical and epistemic borrowings from conventional branding theory and is continuing to mature in destination branding scholarship (Kladou et al., 2015). According to Ferns and Walls (2012), DBE is “… the combination of key factors that can be described as the overall utility that tourists place in the destination brand when compared to its competitors” (p. 27). This reflects a newer perspective in the destination branding paradigm and has been recommended to be explored further in future researches (Kladou et al., 2015; Lim and Weaver, 2014).

Review of literature

Destination brand equity

Keller (1993) advocated the use of multiple measures for the purpose of assessing brand equity, which is clearly due to its multidimensional nature. Yoo and Donthu (2001) too contended and stressed on the need of increased and improved measures as the existing ones do not adequately estimate the constituent dimensions. Aaker (1991), however, maintained that brand equity assessment is contingent to the context for which it has been used. Differences between consumers’ response to the marketing mix element for a specific brand to their response to the marketing mix of an invented and unnamed version of the same product or service characterises the brand equity of that product or service (Keller, 1993). Lassar et al.’s (1995) contention remained similar to Keller’s in that they viewed the assessment of brand equity as possible if a brand is compared with other competing brands in the same category. While this may be true for tangible products in the market, it may not be extended to destinations, as Gartner (2014) argued that unlike products leisure destinations can’t be treated akin to generic products. Furthermore, destinations can’t be traded like usual products or services, nor is their ownership transferrable (Gartner, 2014). So the right way to analyse brand equity of tourism destination is to consider individual dimensions that cumulatively strengthen or weaken DBE (Gartner, 2014). Given the theoretical underpinnings, this study employs set of crucial dimensions to assess the structure of DBE (Kim and Kim, 2005).

Literature review pertaining to DBE also revealed several trends of interest, firstly, the researches have been carried out in various settings – Pike (2009) examined temporal change in brand equity components for near home destinations in Brisbane, Australia. Boo et al. (2009) examined and validated DBE models for two competitive gambling destinations in the United States. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) transferred customer-based brand equity to destination level basing on relatively new country Slovenia. Another study based in Slovenia determined differences in dimensions of DBE for renewal and repeat markets (see Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011). García et al. (2012) extended the focus of DBE to three key stakeholders in Spain while offering an index for measuring destination branding success. Likewise, for a Midwest US state Ferns and Walls (2012) explored the association between enduring travel involvement and visit intentions of tourists through the meeting role of DBE. The studies done in Asian context by Kim et al. (2016a, 2016b) compared DBE models for several East Asian cities, and assessed DBE of two international destinations as perceived by the Hong Kong tourists, respectively.

Destination brand awareness

Brand awareness is one of the key dimensions or the assets of brand equity (Aaker, 1991), as such brand equity augments with increased brand awareness in conjunction with other brand assets (Cai, 2002). Brand awareness indicates useful employment of heuristics for simplifying choice behaviour (Heding et al., 2008). Aaker defines it as ‘the strength of brand’s presence in consumer’s mind’ (Aaker, 1996: 10). For destination brands, Konecnik and Gartner (2007) referred awareness to as ‘what someone knows and or thinks they know about a destination’ (p. 403), and it is often linked with the destination selection process (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011). Cai (2002) termed both awareness and images of the brand as critical sources that engender brand equity. For destinations, Boo et al. (2009) evaluated top of mind awareness level as a relevant indicator of visitors’ experience with the destination brand. For the assessment purposes, Heding et al. (2008) advocated employment of aided and unaided memory measures. Nevertheless, it is advised that destination managers duly consider brand awareness as a vital element in the development of brand equity of distinct geographical regions (Liu and Chou, 2016).

Destination image

Brand image lineage can be traced back to works dating back to 1951 (Feldwick, 1996), since then both explicit and connotative conceptions of the term have gained wider scholarly interest (Pereira et al., 2012). An important development was noted later in 1970s when image studies were exploited in leisure scholarship (Gunn, 1972; Hunt, 1975). Since then image studies have intrigued both destination practitioners and researchers alike (Baloglu and Mangaloglu, 2001). According to Cai (2002), destination image relates to the ‘perceptions about a place as reflected by the associations held in tourist memory’ (p. 723). Similarly, Crompton (1979) defined destination image as ‘the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination’ (p. 18). Zhang et al. (2014) noted that destination image pertains to the collation of beliefs and impressions, which stem from different sources and lead to the mental construal of attributes and other benefits envisaged from the destination. Favourable destination image and strong differentiation from competitors influence tourists’ choice behaviour (Trembath et al., 2011). This makes the image a vital component of destinations’ marketing strategy (Cai, 2002). In the same vein, Reilly (1990) deduced that effective evaluation of destination image is key to its marketing and positioning. It needs to be realised by the destination managers that image of a place is an intangible asset of destination brands, which acts as strong pull factor (Biran et al., 2014). It is advantageous for the destinations if they possess favourable images, especially in times when places fall victim to the stereotypes (Khan, 2013) that may not reflect the destination characteristics in the entirety and usually stem from mere exceptions instead of the patterns (Morgan et al., 2002).

Tourists’ social self-image

The origin of the dual function term social self-image may be attributed to the studies of self-concept within the paradigm of brand personality. This concept finds mention in various disciplines ranging from phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and behavioural studies and several more. Sirgy (1982) opined that self-image represents aggregate thoughts and feelings individuals possess about themselves as objects. Whereas social image relates to the individuals’ veneration and perceptions of self-esteem in their social clusters (Boo et al., 2009). Sirgy et al. (2005) defined social self-image as ‘how consumers would like to be seen by significant others’ (p. 333). In marketing and branding literature, the concept has been employed to indicate symbolic representation of brands (Keller, 2003). Studies seem to be proliferating that assume the social self-aspect of brand images while analysing brands performance (Boo et al., 2009; Lassar et al., 1995; Liu et al., 2015). The work of Lassar et al. (1995) took a cue from product classes of designer clothes and perfumes to justify replacing the regular brand image with the social image while analysing the holistic brand equity. Similarly, Boo et al. (2009) approached customer brand equity analysis for tourism destinations and limited image conception to social and self-aspects. Liu et al. (2015) operationalised brand image as the degree of visitors social and self-image. Social self-image indicates consumers’ image of their own selves along with the impression of selves in their social milieu. From the extant theory, it can be inferred that social self-image construct has been regarded as an essential agent in the formation of stronger DBE.

Perceived quality

Perceived quality is another key element of brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Boo et al., 2009; Keller, 1993). Zeithaml (1988) defined perceived quality as the personal judgement of consumers about the products’ overall quality and superiority. Within the framework of brand equity, perceived quality is also found to be impacted by the other dimensions (Aaker, 1991). For instance, García et al. (2012) placed perceived quality of tourists among the set of three vital dimensions that should be considered by the destination marketers, namely perceived quality, loyalty and word of mouth. Word of mouth, however, is often viewed as an integral determinant of loyalty dimension. Ekinci and Riley (2001) shed light on the measurement of perceived quality in the frame of reference of physical quality in addition to quality perceptions related to output, service personnel, accessibility, reliability and timeliness. This research too, limits perceived quality assessment to the physical aspects of destination experience. It is also because of the fact that multiple entities come in contact with tourists in various capacities, which makes it difficult to assess service encounters on the basis of expected and received quality on a single platform.

Perceived value

Zeithaml (1988) described value as an emotional payoff, which is not easy to be quantified directly. Eggert and Ulaga (2002) considered value as an outcome of the psychological comparisons made by individuals against the competition. Perceived value has been defined as the ratio of perceived benefits to perceived sacrifices made by the consumers (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). It is argued to be more encompassing than mere price and quality trade-off, and a unanimous definition still eludes literature (Oh, 2000). In leisure studies, Chen and Tsai (2007) noted perceived value to be connected with the overall evaluation made by the tourists against the sacrifices they make to plan and execute their tour. Perceived value relates to the overall evaluation of benefits by the tourists against the costs and sacrifices made for sojourning on a trip (Chen and Tsai, 2007). This dimension of brand equity has initiated to garner a modest attention in tourism studies. Studies continue to emerge that view and study the relationship of this antecedent with other components of DBE (Boo et al., 2009; Gómez et al., 2015).

Destination loyalty

Oliver (1999) defined loyalty as ‘a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service in the future, by a consistent purchase of a particular brand, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour’(p. 34). Furthermore, loyalty is an expression of customers’ perpetual engagement with a brand, which manifests over an extended time span of exchange rather than in a short duration (Heding et al., 2008). Loyalty concept holds a longer engagement in marketing literature going back as long as five decades ago, however, its usage in tourism studies has been popularised and exploited in the last two decades (Oppermann, 2000; Pritchard and Howard, 1997). In leisure marketing, loyalty depicts the behavioural intentions of the tourists to recommend and re-patronise a given destination. Kotler and Keller (2012) advised destination marketers to identify more profitable customers and work towards increasing their loyalty for higher gains of destination brands. A greater consensus is apparent over the acceptance of loyalty construct as a key dimension of brand equity (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 2003), and it has been studied in the backdrop of several other variables, such as destination image (Liu et al., 2015), brand awareness (Chi et al., 2009), perceived quality (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), perceived value (Chen and Chen, 2010; Pike and Bianchi, 2013), and social self-image (Zhang et al., 2014).

Research gaps and objectives

DBE is a multidimensional concept, and in order to gain a better understanding, it is argued that its individual constituting elements are considered for the analysis. It is also due to the fact that brand equity is formed from the gestalt of the individual dimensions that work together and contribute towards the overall health of the brand and eventually assist in determining appropriate courses of action in the event of brand equity isn’t favourable (de Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). Konecnik and Gartner (2007) added to the ongoing argument by stating that prevailing inter-relationships among the dimensions engender brand equity. The need of DBE studies in various cultural and geographical settings has frequently been highlighted (e.g. Ferns and Walls, 2012; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). Besides the emphasis on the need of multiple studies, researchers have also pointed at the void in DBE theory and have suggested to fill them with more involving and explanatory models (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011; Pereira et al., 2012; Ruzzier, 2010). It is also worthwhile to point out that although Aaker proposed a set of dimensions necessary for the creation of brand equity in 1991 (see Aaker, 1991), scope of which was chiefly limited to general marketing literature, however, it took more than two decades to transcend that knowledge to leisure studies when Kladou and Kehagias (2014) integrated five dimensions (earlier proposed by Aaker) in destinations’ context.

The north Indian state of Uttarakhand is well known for its tourism attractions and is highly revered by leisure, adventure and religious tourists (Sharma and Kaushal, 2017). A significant portion of the state is part of the Greater Himalayan ranges and is home to splendid glaciers, peaks and forests (Gokhale and Pala, 2011). In addition, the state is home to various evocative colonial structures (Pathak, 1997). All these factors create an ideal platter for the visitors with diverse tourism motivations. Despite the touristic importance of the state, substantial destination branding studies still elude literature. Let alone this individual state, studies published on destination branding in the Indian context are acutely scarce and often marred by inadequate empirical insights.

Given the extant gaps in theory, the main purpose of this study is to explore the interrelationships among the dimensions of DBE and develop a model and test its validity on the data collected from hill station destinations of Uttarakhand state in India. The set of dimensions thus considered entail destination image, destination brand awareness, social self-image, perceived quality, perceived value and destination loyalty. In doing so, a conceptual model, shown in Figure 1, has been proposed with the help of existing theory on DBE.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Review of studies presented in the DBE section earlier also made two aspects quite evident, one that the researchers have progressively shown interest in examining varied dimensions to comprehend DBE structures and two that the intellectual inquisitiveness over DBE has expanded from more European nations and USA to Asia and other parts of the globe.

Method

Survey design

The present work employs a survey research design, and the data were collected using self-administered questionnaires. Reliability of the instrument was established with the help of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values determined on a pre-test sample of 54 respondents comprised of tourists who visited one of the two chosen destinations. All the six factors met the cut-off value of the alpha coefficient that is 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) however, two items were removed because of the lower scores. The statement ‘Night life entertainment is good’ from the destination image factor and ‘Visiting this destination reflects who I am’ from the social self-image factor, were removed due to lower reliability scores. The content screening was done with the help of two experts for ensuring items were describing the respective constructs, thereby evidencing the content validity of the instrument.

The scale items were developed on the basis of earlier published works, and the responses were measured on the five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Responses on destination image were captured on a set of three items adopted from Chen (2001) and Echtner and Ritchie (1993). Items for awareness construct were adopted from the works of García et al. (2012), Aaker (1991) and Berry (2000). Similarly, works by authors (Boo et al., 2009; Lassar et al., 1995) were used to develop statements for social self-image. Scales for perceived quality were adopted from the studies of García et al. (2012), Baloglu and McCleary (1999), and Beerli and Martin (2004), and measurement scale for perceived value were derived from several past studies (Boo et al., 2009; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Oh, 2000). Lastly, loyalty was measured with the help of three items derived from the broader literature on loyalty concept (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Oliver, 1997).

Sites of data collection and sampling

Uttarakhand, a mountainous state in the northern region of India was considered for the present study. From within the state, two major hill stations, namely, Mussoorie and Nainital, were chosen for the purpose of data collection. Although the state is home to several hilly destinations, yet the two preferred sites receive most tourist footfall. It is important to note that the state is prominently known for its picturesque landscapes and is among the most popular tourism destinations in the country.

Self-administered surveys were used to capture responses on the items measuring six constructs because self-administered surveys tend to have better response rates and reduce bias (Bowling, 2005). Initially, 580 questionnaires were collected, but 553 were used for the final analysis after initial screening of the data. Two important reasons that led to the removal of certain responses were, first due to a high number of items were left unanswered (12 responses) and second due to higher multivariate outliers (15 responses), which was analysed using Mahalanobis distances (Field, 2009). Nevertheless, the sample size was consistent with the earlier researches on DBE (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011; Gómez et al., 2015; Kladou et al., 2015; Sartori et al., 2012) and methodological suggestions made by Hair et al. (2013). Further, during data screening stage, missing data analysis was carried out with help Little’s MCAR test. The missing data were remedied with the help of model-based imputation method (expectation–maximisation technique), which was consistent with the suggestions in the methodology related literature (Batista and Monard, 2003). The respondents’ demographic details are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Profile of survey respondents.

Demographics	Percent
Gender
Male	72
Female	28
Age group
15–24	45
25–34	33
35–44	15
45–60	4
60 or above	2
Education
Post-graduation	42
Bachelor’s degree	42
Intermediate	10
High school	5
Nationality
Indian tourist	86
Foreign tourist	14
Noticed advertisement of Uttarakhand
Yes	66
No	34

Research hypotheses

Macdonald and Sharp (2000) considered awareness as an essential heuristic that aids in simplifying decision making, thereby influencing buying behaviour. Hoyer and Brown (1990) too appeared convinced, yet conditionally, on the heuristic ability of brand awareness in first and subsequent purchase behaviour. While analysing the visitors’ perceptions of a public festival, Manthiou et al. (2014) observed positive influence of brand awareness on perceived quality. Awareness of brand influences quality assessment in terms of price paid to obtain the product (Grewal et al., 1998) or service, also that the higher quality evaluations are predicated on the brand awareness of customers (Chi et al., 2009). Brand awareness is also viewed in conjunction with brand image, where both the elements of brand equity are together viewed as the overall brand knowledge (Keller, 1993). Brand awareness is also found to have a positive impact on the brand image (Liu et al., 2015). Besides relationship of awareness component discussed here, its association with perceived value is also worth noting. Liu et al. (2015) also noted the positive effect of brand awareness on brand value. Authors (Horng et al., 2012; Kim and Kim, 2005) have even termed awareness as a crucial antecedent of perceived value. With implications for the lodging industry, Oh (2000) found a positive association between perceived value and price fairness perceived by the customers. Based on the empirical viewpoints predicated on the existing theory on brand awareness, following hypotheses have been proposed in the study.

H₁. Destination brand awareness has a positive impact on tourists’ perceived quality.

H₂. Destination brand awareness has a positive impact on tourists’ destination image.

H₃. Destination brand awareness has a positive impact on tourists’ perceived value.

The positive significant relationship has been reported between perceived quality of trip and destination image held by the tourists (Chen and Tsai, 2007). In Severi and Ling (2013) conception, customers’ assessment of quality is influenced by the brand image held by the individuals. Wu et al. (2011) analysed the perceptions of customers about service quality on the brand image in the non-leisure study and determined the positive effect of the former on the latter. However, for the present study perceived quality has been assessed as an endogenous construct for destination image. Furthermore, the relationship between destination image and tourist loyalty has remained relatively inconsistent, where advocates of such association have claimed both direct and indirect relationships among both the components (Zhang et al., 2014). Such inconsistencies have been attributed to a host of reasons including the multidimensional character of both the concepts, caveats pertaining to the sample sizes, which is typical in social and behavioural studies (Zhang et al., 2014). Concurrent to these viewpoints, authors (Boo et al., 2009; Pike and Bianchi, 2013) have also argued about the positive association among both destination image and tourist loyalty. Zhang et al. (2014) considered correspondence among tourists’ self and destination image as an imperative antecedent of destination brand loyalty. Given these arguments, following hypotheses pertaining to destination image have been proposed. In regards to the relationship between image and value elements of DBE, Liu et al. (2015) pointed towards the extant theory that confirms antecedent nature of value with destination image. Correspondingly, several other authors (Cretu and Brodie, 2007; Maklan and Knox, 1997) too have endorsed such association. In accordance with the existing theoretical underpinnings on image and other brand equity constructs, following hypotheses have been proposed.

H₄. Destination image has a positive impact on tourists’ perceived quality.

H₅. Destination image has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

H₆. Destination image has a positive impact on tourists’ perceived value.

Over two decades ago, Lassar et al. (1995) incorporated the social dimension for the measurement of brand equity. While continuing the tradition, Kang et al. (2015) observed a significant influence of customers’ self-image and their loyalty behaviours. The concept of “self” unravels scope of deliberation on theories pertaining to personality and social behaviour (Brewer, 1991). This also inspires the present work through the consolidation of constructs of self and social with respect to visitors’ reflections of their own self and in context of their social circle. Although Sweeney and Soutar (2001) reflected upon the social-self value concept, yet there seems to a prevailing ambiguity in its application in the destinations context. Furthermore, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) limited their focus on self and actual self-impressions of tourists, leaving void open for future research on social self-concept. Pike and Bianchi (2013) regarded destination image with social and self-image to analyse relationship with loyalty dimension. Given the current progress in theory related to much lesser considered, yet essential social self-concepts of the destination image, the following hypothesis has been formulated:

H₇. Tourists’ social self-image has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

Perceived quality is considered to precede brand loyalty (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). There is growing consensus over the positive impacts of perceived quality on the intention of customers, or visitors, in this case, to keep patronising the same destination brand (Chaudhuri, 1995). Chen and Chen (2010) further noted that for heritage tourists’ perceived value may be a vital consideration. While investigating service quality and its linkage with perceived value, Kuo et al. (2009) noted the significant positive effect of former on the latter. Chen and Chen (2010) also argued that perceptions of value or cost-benefit trade-off are an important determinant of loyalty behaviour of tourists.

With these theoretical underpinnings, three hypotheses have been proposed.

H₈. Perceived quality has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

H₉. Perceived quality has a positive impact on perceived value.

H₁₀. Perceived value has a positive impact on destination loyalty.

Results

In the present study, multiple dimensions were used to develop and test a model for DBE. The initial measurement model was found suitable accommodating six constructs in the DBE structure. The model fit indices were assessed on the basis of a set of goodness and badness of fit suggested by Hair et al. (2013). Value of χ² indices was significant, which shouldn’t be the case with a well-fitting model, yet this is common due to its sensitivity to larger sample sizes. An alternative to χ², χ²/df was analysed, which was 3.33 (i.e. 457/137) and was between the suggested threshold of 2 and 5 (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). Other fit indices too met the criteria indicated by Hair et al. (2013) and were above 0.9 cut-off marks, including incremental fit index (IFI)= 0.933, Tucker Lewis index(TLI)= 0.91, comparative fit index (CFI)= 0.93, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)= 0.91, similarly badness of fit indices were also within the limits, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 (was below the cut-off of 0.08) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)= 0.05 (below the cut-off of 0.10). The six-factor structure proved to be valid, which led to the further testing of the structural model. The construct validity was established with the assessment of factor loadings threshold of 0.7 or above, and average variance extracted (AVE) range of 0.5 or better. The results are reported in Table 2, where AVEs are above the values of squared inter-construct correlations, which established the discriminant validity of the model (Hair et al., 2013).

Table 2.

Squared multiple correlations and AVE.

	Destination brand awareness	Destination image	Social self-image	Perceived quality	Perceived value	Destination loyalty
Destination brand awareness	0.56
Destination image	0.11	0.56
Social self-image	0.34	0.33	0.56
Perceived quality	0.21	0.10	0.31	0.55
Perceived value	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.27	0.58
Destination loyalty	0.11	0.36	0.35	0.17	0.20	0.68

Note: AVE: average variance extract. Diagonal values boldfaced.

In addition, as reflected in Table 3, the correlations among constructs were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and were between the range of 0.31 and 0.60 confirming that the relationships weren’t excessively high and were well below the threshold (0.85) suggested by Kline (2005).

Table 3.

Construct correlations.

	Destination brand awareness	Destination image	Social self-image	Perceived quality	Perceived value	Destination loyalty
Destination brand awareness	1.00
Destination image	0.33	1.00
Social self-image	0.58	0.57	1.00
Perceived quality	0.46	0.31	0.56	1.00
Perceived value	0.32	0.32	0.45	0.52	1.00
Destination loyalty	0.34	0.60	0.59	0.42	0.45	1.00

All correlations significant at p < 0.001

Table 4 reports the standardised factor loadings, along with the mean, standard deviations, construct (Cronbach’s alpha) and composite reliability scores of the constructs and constituent items. Construct reliabilities and composite reliabilities were above the recommended cut-off of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2013). Hair et al. (2013) also recommend standardised factor loadings to be at least 0.5 and ideally 0.7 or higher. Given such boundaries, the loading values were considerably within the acceptable ranges.

Table 4.

Measurement model results.

Constructs and statements	Standardised loading	Mean	SD	Alpha	CR
Destination brand awareness				0.79	0.80
The brand Uttarakhand is easy to recognize among the other destination brands	0.60	3.79	0.97
When I think of a good tourist place, this is the first destination that comes to my mind	0.83	3.56	1.12
When I think of a good tourist place, this is the only destination that comes to my mind	0.84	3.27	1.17
Destination image				0.78	0.79
There are interesting places to visit	0.70	4.04	0.79
Destination has attractive natural attractions and scenery	0.83	4.23	0.80
The climate is pleasant	0.70	4.23	0.77
Social self-image				0.79	0.79
This destination fits my personality	0.70	3.86	0.79
My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination	0.78	3.77	0.96
The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image	0.77	3.7	0.99
Perceived quality				0.77	0.78
This destination has high quality of accommodation	0.72	3.63	0.98
This destination has high quality of infrastructure	0.81	3.51	0.97
This destination has high level of cleanliness	0.70	3.41	1.09
Perceived value				0.84	0.84
This destination has reasonable prices	0.76	3.41	1.15
Good value for money	0.80	3.56	1.05
The cost of visiting the destination are relative to the benefits I receive	0.82	3.66	0.99
Visiting this destination is a good deal	0.64	3.86	0.79
Destination loyalty				0.86	0.87
I would recommend this destination to my family and friends	0.84	4.07	0.81
I am likely to spread positive word-of-mouth about this destination	0.81	4.05	0.88
I would like to revisit the destination in future	0.83	4.13	0.76

CR: composite reliabilities; SD: standard deviation.

Using maximum likelihood estimation procedure structural model was examined, and the hypothesised relationships were tested. The estimated structural model has been reported in Figure 2. The model fit indices showed acceptable results, χ²/df = 2.99, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.60, SRMR = 0.05. The interesting aspect of the model was the discovery of three newer paths that were sequentially tested as the paths were added into the baseline model. The model fit showed slight improvement with the addition of three newer paths, however, importantly the Δχ² were significant at 0.05 level. For destination brand awareness and social self-image path link, Δχ_a² (150.93, df = 122, p < 0.05) was significant, so was in the case of causal link from social self-image to perceived quality (Δχ_b² = 35.2, df = 121, p < 0.05) and social self-image to perceived value (Δχ_c² = 8.96, df = 120, p < 0.05).

Figure 2.

Results of the estimated model.

For tourism destinations that offer mostly nature-based tourism product, the DBE model proposed here offers some newer insights. The awareness of the destination brand was found to influence perceived quality (γ = 0.20, t = 3.18, p < 0.01), thereby supporting H₁, similarly awareness variable also influenced destination image (γ = 0.33, t = 6.48, p < 0.001), evidencing support for H₂. However, no statistically significant effect of destination brand awareness was observed on perceived value (γ = 0.01, t = 0.15, p > 0.05), thus rejected hypothesis H₃. Destination image influence on perceived quality wasn’t significant as well (β = −0.101, t = −0.16, p > 0.05), and the hypothesis H₄ wasn’t supported. Nonetheless, destination image’s effect on destination loyalty was significant (β = 0.37, t = 6.27, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H₅, but the effect wasn’t statistically significant on perceived value (β = 0.10, t = 1.62, p > 0.05), thus did not lend support for H₆. Social self-image posed significant influence on destination loyalty (β = 0.28, t = 3.56, p < 0.001), and as a result hypothesis H₇ found support. Also that due to the non-significance H₈ wasn’t supported either and influence of perceived quality on destination loyalty (β = 0.08, t = 1.28, p > 0.05) too couldn’t be statistically established. Hypothesis H₉ was accepted that confirmed effect of perceived quality on perceived value (β = 0.32, t = 4.92, p < 0.001). Similarly, with the acceptance of hypothesis H₁₀, the significant influence of perceived value on destination loyalty (β = 0.18, t = 3.29, p < 0.01) was established.

Discussion and conclusion

The study explored the structural relationships among the DBE dimensions with the data collected through asurvey of tourists visiting mountainous destinations in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. The conceptual model was theoretically built and was tested on the sampled population. While several relationships conformed to the extant theory, few of them are debatable.

Breaking down the awareness component, it can be said that visitors conveniently recognise the destinations of state, besides that the hilly attractions enjoy top of mind and dominant positions in tourists’ cognition, which concomitantly translates into favourable destination image and social self-image. Model results suggest that tourists are likely to re-patronise and recommend destinations of state if they carry favourable perceptions about the varied attractions, landscape and climate. Although seemingly debatable, destination quality indicators didn’t find to have impacted tourist loyalty behaviour. For this Indian destination, apparently, value for money is more critical than the quality of facilities. Therefore, price related assessments made by the visitors seemed vital in determining their future association with the destination brand. For instance factors like ticket prices for parks, museums, vehicle parking, facilities, food, lodging and travel expenses may lie at the heart of price benefit trade-off. Higher the financial sacrifices perceived by the tourist lower would be the perceived value and that would negatively impact tourist loyalty (Oh, 2000).

Social self-image is another area within DBE paradigm that this research considered, as such earlier researches have chiefly considered either the usual destination images sans social self-images or vice versa. Here an attempt, although constrained, was made by analysing the destination image and also the self and social images of the visitors. The model started with the investigation of positive social self-image impact on destination loyalty, yet in the process confirmed crucial relationships between the social self-dimension with perceived quality and perceived value. The presence of favourable social and self-image may imply that visitors hold the state attractions in higher esteem, which may be attributed to the prestigious historical sites reminiscent of British heritage in the hill stations or educational institutions and picturesque mountain landscapes depicted in various media formats.

Theoretical implications

This work primarily contributes in the way that aside from the determined theoretical antecedents of DBE (like destination image, destination awareness, perceived quality, perceived value, loyalty), tourists’ social self-image is also assessed as an essential determinant in brand equity structure. With the aid of causal relationships highlighted through the structural model, this study also signals at the novel linkages among the DBE dimensions. Another important observation from the empirically tested model has been that the effects of social self-image dimension are not only limited to the destination loyalty, but the paths from social self-image to perceived value and perceived quality were also observed to be significant. It is also worthwhile to consider that little or no research exists on brand equity in tourism’s context in several latent tourism markets such as in India. This indicates that the models of brand equity that are proposed in various settings globally have not been effectively tested for Indian destinations. This work may be treated among the initial contributions adding to the theory of DBE with special reference to this Asian country. Another implication that is reflected from the model findings is that tourists’ based DBE is the amalgamated function of dimensions that unitedly enrich visitors’ experience and thereby make tourism businesses more profitable and destination brands sturdier.

Managerial implications

It is suggested through this research that destination managers need to carefully and in true spirit acknowledge the aspects related to the visitor's experience at the destinations. The managers and other supply-side stakeholders need to grasp the idea that tourists’ encounters with the destination brand is not an abstract thing (Otto and Ritchie, 1996), but is very well influenced by a combination of antecedents that determine their perceptions and govern behaviour towards a destination brand. On a managerial level, the model essentially highlights consideration of three important dimensions of DBE at strategic and tactical levels, in order to encourage tourist loyalty for the studied destinations. First, the image component that determines the perceptions the way destinations’ attractions are being contemplated in terms of leisure offerings, second is the social self-image antecedent that determines the influence of the visitors’ consideration of personal self and their social esteem when they visit a particular destination, such as one being studied. The marketers need to design and direct their marketing efforts in a manner that they convey a promise of destination image consistent with their own self-interpretations and reflections. Besides, a case has been made here for the destination marketers to portray this mountainous state as an enhancer of visitors’ social esteem. It may also indicate the need to develop customised promotional and marketing material for the target segments. In doing so, marketers shouldn’t hesitate in obtaining experts’ opinions or encourage consultancy projects to assess viable marketing campaigns. The relevance of value component also provides vital cues to the destination managers in realising that the visitors are more observant and considerate of the cost-benefit trade-off.

Limitations and future research

It is conspicuous in wider researches of brand equity that certain combinations of antecedents and consequences are exploited in various cultural and geographical settings. This may be linked to the reasons of causal relationships that oftentimes may not manifest directly and alternatively are moderated or mediated by other variables. This reference has been drawn to underline the limitation of the present work, as this study did not consider the variables’ moderating and mediating effects among the set of other constructs of DBE, which may have left certain effects and relationships unregistered. Thus, future researchers are hereby urged to consider such imperative statistical examinations. The current work also highlights the need for involving constructs of tourists’ ideal and actual image congruence with the destinations they sojourn. This is in line with the recommendation made by Ekinci and Hosany (2006) to assume tourists’ personality characteristics in tourism studies. Further, for the purpose of improved stance on generalisation, it is also advised that the proposed model of DBE is examined in various domestic settings in India, because the abundance of attractions in the country and the extant diversity may uncover newer relationships or factors within the DBE paradigm.

It goes without saying that translating the implications of individual dimensions in real time tourism scenarios isn’t straightforward, for instance relationship marketing may encapsulate the essence of apposite implementation of loyalty dimension (Fyall et al., 2003), utilitarian or better approaches may improve appraisal of tourist value (Gallarza and Saura, 2006), tourism psychological experiences from self-concept vantage point (Todd, 2001) etc., may add value to the current understanding of DBE and indicate at the knowledge voids for the future researches.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Vikrant Kaushal Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel Management and Tourism at Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India. His research interests entail destination branding, tourism and hospitality education, higher education marketing, and tourism and societal aspects.

Suman Sharma Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Tourism and Travel Management, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, India. His research interests lie in destination image studies, tourist behaviour, tour operations studies and adventure tourism. In addition he is also a keen travel enthusiast and a proficient travel and tour operations trainer.

G Mahender Reddy is an assistant professor in the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Hyderabad, India. He is an avid reader, a travel enthusiast and exhibits keen research interest in the areas of sustainable tourism, rural tourism, cultural tourism and tourism planning and development.

References

Aaker

(1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker

(1996) Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Baloglu

Mangaloglu

(2001) Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management 22(1): 1–9.

Baloglu

McCleary

(1999) A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 868–897.

Batista

Monard

(2003) An analysis of four missing data treatment methods for supervised learning. Applied Artificial Intelligence 17(5–6): 519–533.

Beerli

Martin

(2004) Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 657–681.

Berry

(2000) Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1): 128–137.

Biran

Liu

, et al. (2014) Consuming post-disaster destinations: The case of Sichuan, China. Annals of Tourism Research 47: 1–17.

Boo

Busser

Baloglu

(2009) A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management 30(2): 219–231.

10.

Bowling

(2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England) 27(3): 281–291.

11.

Brewer

(1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(5): 475–482.

12.

Cai

(2002) Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 720–742.

13.

Chaudhuri

(1995) Brand equity or double jeopardy? Journal of Product & Brand Management 4(1): 26–32.

14.

Chen

(2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management 31(1): 29–35.

15.

Chen

Tsai

(2007) How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management 28(4): 1115–1122.

16.

Chen

(2001) A case study of Korean outbound travelers’ destination images by using correspondence analysis. Tourism Management 22(4): 345–350.

17.

Chi

Yeh

Yang

(2009) The impact of brand awareness on consumer purchase intention: The mediating effect of perceived quality and brand loyalty. The Journal of International Management Studies 4(1): 135–144.

18.

Cretu

Brodie

(2007) The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 36(2): 230–240.

19.

Crompton

(1979) An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research 17(4): 18–23.

20.

de Chernatony

McDonald

(2003) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer Service and Industrial Markets. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

21.

Echtner

Ritchie

(1993) The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4): 3–13.

22.

Eggert

Ulaga

(2002) Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 17(2/3): 107–118.

23.

Ekinci

(2003) From destination image to destination branding: An emerging area of research. E-Review of Tourism Research 1(2): 1–4.

24.

Ekinci

Hosany

(2006) Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 45(2): 127–139.

25.

Ekinci

Riley

(2001) Validating quality dimensions. Annals of Tourism Research 28(1): 202–223.

26.

Feldwick

(1996) Do we really need ‘brand equity’? Journal of Brand Management 4(1): 9–28.

27.

Ferns

Walls

(2012) Enduring travel involvement, destination brand equity, and travelers’ visit intentions: A structural model analysis. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1(1): 27–35.

28.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.

29.

Fyall

Callod

Edwards

(2003) Relationship marketing: The challenge for destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3): 644–659.

30.

Gallarza

Saura

(2006) Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management 27(3): 437–452.

31.

García

Gómez

Molina

(2012) A destination-branding model: An empirical analysis based on stakeholders. Tourism Management 33(3): 646–661.

32.

Gartner

(2014) Brand equity in a tourism destination. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 10(2): 108–116.

33.

Gartner

Ruzzier

(2011) Tourism destination brand equity dimensions: Renewal versus repeat market. Journal of Travel Research 50(5): 471–481.

34.

Gokhale

Pala

(2011) Ecosystem services in sacred natural sites (SNSs) of Uttarakhand: A preliminary survey. Journal of Biodiversity 2(2): 107–115.

35.

Gómez

Lopez

Molina (2015) A model of tourism destination brand equity: The case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tourism Management 51: 210–222.

36.

Grewal

Krishnan

Baker

, et al. (1998) The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74(3): 331–352.

37.

Gunn

(1972) Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas.

38.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2013) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

39.

Heding

Knudtzen

Bjerre

(2008) Brand Management: Research, Theory and Practice, New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Horng

Liu

Chou

, et al. (2012) Understanding the impact of culinary brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism Management 33(4): 815–824.

41.

Hoyer

Brown

(1990) Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research 17(2): 141–148.

42.

Hunt

(1975) Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 13(3): 1–7.

43.

Kang

Tang

Lee

(2015) Self-congruity and functional congruity in brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 39(1): 105–131.

44.

Keller

(1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.

45.

Keller

(2003) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

46.

Khan

(2013) An insight into stereotypical images and encountered reality of south Asia as tourism destination. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism 2(1): 17–36.

47.

Kim

(2005) The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tourism Management 26(4): 549–560.

48.

Kim

Moon

Choe

(2016a) Comparison of destination brand equity models of competitive convention cities in East Asia. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 17(4): 318–342.

49.

Kim

Schuckert

, et al. (2016b) An interregional extension of destination brand equity: From Hong Kong to Europe. Journal of Vacation Marketing 23(4): 277–294.

50.

Kladou

Kehagias

(2014) Assessing destination brand equity: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3(1): 2–10.

51.

Kladou

Giannopoulos

Mavragani

(2015) Destination brand equity research from 2001 to 2012. Tourism Analysis 20(2): 189–200.

52.

Kline

(2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.

53.

Konecnik

Gartner

(2007) Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research 34(2): 400–421.

54.

Kotler

Keller

(2012) Marketing Management. 14th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

55.

Kuo

Deng

(2009) The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior 25(4): 887–896.

56.

Lassar

Mittal

Sharma

(1995) Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12(4): 11–19.

57.

Lim

Weaver

(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.

58.

Liu

CHS

Chou

(2016) Tourism strategy development and facilitation of integrative processes among brand equity, marketing and motivation. Tourism Management 54: 298–308.

59.

Liu

Lin

(2015) Constructing customer‐based museums brand equity model: The mediating role of brand value. International Journal of Tourism Research 17(3): 229–238.

60.

Macdonald

Sharp

(2000) Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research 48(1): 5–15.

61.

Maklan

Knox

(1997) Reinventing the brand: Bridging the gap between customer and brand value. Journal of Product & Brand Management 6(2): 119–129.

62.

Manthiou

Kang

Schrier

(2014) A visitor-based brand equity perspective: The case of a public festival. Tourism Review 69(4): 264–283.

63.

Marsh

Hocevar

(1985) Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin 97(3): 562–582.

64.

Morgan

Pritchard

Pride

(2002) Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

65.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw Hill.

66.

(2000) The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24(2): 136–162.

67.

Oliver

(1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

68.

Oliver

(1999) Whence consumer loyalty? The. Journal of Marketing 63: 33–44.

69.

Oppermann

(2000) Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 39(1): 78–84.

70.

Otto

Ritchie

(1996) The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management 17(3): 165–174.

71.

Pathak

(1997) State, society and natural resources in Himalaya: Dynamics of change in colonial and post-colonial Uttarakhand. Economic and Political Weekly 32(17): 908–912.

72.

Pereira

Correia

Schutz

(2012) Destination branding: A critical overview. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 13(2): 81–102.

73.

Pike

(2009) Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations. Tourism Management 30(6): 857–866.

74.

Pike

Bianchi

(2013) Destination brand equity for Australia: Testing a model of CBBE in short-haul and long-haul markets. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 40(1): 114–134.

75.

Pritchard

Howard

(1997) The loyal traveler: Examining a typology of service patronage. Journal of Travel Research 35(4): 2–10.

76.

Ravald

Grönroos

(1996) The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing 30(2): 19–30.

77.

Reilly

(1990) Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image assessment. Journal of Travel Research 28(4): 21–26.

78.

Ruzzier

(2010) Extending the tourism destination image concept into customer-based brand equity for a tourism destination. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 23(3): 24–42.

79.

Sartori

Mottironi

Corigliano

(2012) Tourist destination brand equity and internal stakeholders: An empirical research. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(4): 327–340.

80.

Severi

Ling

(2013) The mediating effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand image and perceived quality on brand equity. Asian Social Science 9(3): 125–137.

81.

Sharma

Kaushal

(2017) Understanding destination images of tourism stakeholders: A destination branding perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism 6(1): 65–75.

82.

Sirgy

(1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research 9(3): 287–300.

83.

Sirgy

Grzeskowiak

(2005) Explaining housing preference and choice: The role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 20(4): 329–347.

84.

Sweeney

Soutar

(2001) Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77(2): 203–220.

85.

Todd

(2001) Self‐concept: A tourism application. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1(2): 184–196.

86.

Trembath

Romaniuk

Lockshin

(2011) Building the destination brand: An empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 28(8): 804–816.

87.

Yeh

GYY

Hsiao

(2011) The effect of store image and service quality on brand image and purchase intention for private label brands. Australasian Marketing Journal 19(1): 30–39.

88.

Yoo

Donthu

(2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52(1): 1–14.

89.

Zeithaml

(1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing 52(3): 2–22.

90.

Zhang

Cai

, et al. (2014) Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management 40: 213–223.