AC TA U N I V E R S I TAT I S AG R I C U LT U R A E E T S I LV I C U LT U R A E M E N D E L I A N A E B RU N E N S I S

Volume 68 20 Number 1, 2020

IMPACT OF DESTINATION IMAGE

ON SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY

Andrea Králiková1, Astrid Peruthová2, Kateřina Ryglová1

1
Department of Marketing and Trade, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno,
Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Regional Development, The College of Regional Development and Banking Institute – Ambis, a.s.,
Mezírka 775/1, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Link to this article: https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun202068010199

Received: 1. 6. 2019, Accepted: 20. 11. 2019

To cite this article: KRÁLIKOVÁ ANDREA, PERUTHOVÁ ASTRID, RYGLOVÁ KATEŘINA. 2020. Impact of Destination
Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 68(1):
199–209.

Abstract

Tourist destinations are currently subjects of strong competition and their visitors are influenced by
various factors, including the image of a destination. This paper deals with the topic of destination
image and its influence on the tourist overall satisfaction and loyalty towards a destination. The study
is aiming at domestic tourists in the Czech Republic. The data were obtained through a questionnaire
survey with quota sampling. Sixteen destination image factors were researched. Nine of the factors
have an influence on overall satisfaction (the most influential one being the attractiveness of
a destination, the uniqueness of a destination and the friendly acceptance by the locals). Eight factors
were statistically proved to have an influence on loyalty by means of oral or online recommendation,
with the most influential factor being the sense of security. Finally, four factors have an influence
on loyalty by means of the intention to revisit a destination (the uniqueness of a destination, food,
the suitability of a destination for summer and all-year-round holiday). The research results enable
deeper understanding of the loyalty towards a destination which is very important for destination
managers and services providers in destination.

Keywords: tourism, destination image, factors of a destination image, satisfaction, loyalty to

a destination

INTRODUCTION (Chi and Qu, 2008). Several studies have also focused
In today’s highly competitive tourism marketplace on specific factors that have an impact on loyalty,
it is crucial to adopt destination strategies and like satisfaction (Kozak, 2001), perceived value
marketing plans to convey a positive message that (Petrick et al., 2001) or novelty seeking (Jang and
will be motivating for tourists to visit a certain Feng, 2007). In the Czech environment comparable
destination and quite possibly become a loyal studies do not exist yet although domestic tourism
visitor. To differentiate individual destinations is a very promising branch, especially with regards
brands and in order to catch the attention of to the current safety situation in the world and the
potential visitors, the combination of destination increasing significance of the safety factor in the
image and destination personality has been used by destination choice process (Kovari and Zimanyi,
destinations marketers (Usakli and Baloglu, 2011). 2011). The number of domestic tourists in the Czech
Furthermore, destination image is among the factors Republic was growing every year until 2017. The
that play a significant role in creating loyal tourists number of domestic tourists slightly decreased in
2018. About 60% of domestic tourists who travel for

199
200 Andrea Králiková, Astrid Peruthová, Kateřina Ryglová

4 or more overnight stays are in the Czech Republic. When tourists are deciding which destination to
The percentage is even lower (6%) within domestic visit, they first eliminate a number of destinations
tourists who travel for maximum 3 overnight stays on the ground of cost, safety and many other
(ČSÚ, 2019). factors. Then, after they have reduced the choice
Bigné et al. (2001) suggest that destination set, they are likely to choose the destination based
image and relationship with tourists needs to be on a favourable image (Gartner, 1989).
handled proactively in order to become a lasting Image is the key determinant of destination
one. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) suggest that simply positioning. Therefore, the process of destination
satisfying customers is no longer sufficient because image formation is complex. According to Hunt
it does not always lead to loyalty. As a result of (1975) the main goal of destination positioning
that, according to Hsu et al. (2009) researchers strategy is to induce positive images already held
should always be considering visitors´ loyalty and by the visitors of a destination, then correct the
not only their satisfaction. Several studies, such as negative images and establish a new image. Kotler,
Chi and Qu (2008), consider revisit intentions and Haider and Rein (1993: 141) simplify the process
positive WOM recommendations as indicators of into following: ‘Images represent a simplification
loyalty. Therefore, it is inevitable to know which of a large number of associations and pieces of
factors have an impact on loyalty. The main information connected with the place. They are the
aim of this article is then the examination of the product of the mind trying to process Destination
relative influence of destination image on tourist Marketing and Technology 24/7 and essentialize the
satisfaction and loyalty. Furthermore, the partial huge amounts of data about a place.’
goal is to evaluate the importance of destination Not only destination positioning, but also
image factors regarding specific types of visitors. a decision-making process is influenced by the
One of the first definitions of destination image images of a destination. Those destination images
came from Crompton in 1979 – he stated that the depend on a number of factors such as prior
image of a destination is a set of beliefs, ideas and knowledge of the destination, travel experience,
impressions that people or a group of people attach cultural influences (like nationality or religion) and
to a given place (in Hung et al., 2012). More complex many more (Money and Crotts, 2003).
definition was stated by Sirgy and Su (2000). Throughout the years there has been a number of
According to them destination image is any oral, studies dealing with factors influencing destination
visual or written portrayal of a place that is given image. According to Kim and Richardson (2003) the
by someone and can be transmitted to other people. image of a destination depends on the geographical
Destination image embodies subjective knowledge location, natural sources, climate conditions and
of a destination, whether it is expensive, urban, cold facilities provided by the destination. Beerlie and
or exotic one (Ekinci, 2003). Martin (2004) dealt with a different set of factors:
The image formation process is a continuum of natural resources, leisure and recreation, natural
individual agents that act independently and in environment, general infrastructure, culture,
combination they form unique destination image. history and arts, social environment, tourist
Gartner (1993) classified the agents into induced infrastructure, politics and economics and the
images created by suppliers or providers, organic atmosphere of the place.
images that are based on tourists´ own experience According to Molina et al. (2010) using
or their friends and family and lastly autonomous information sources as a promotion tool also has
images formed by media, guides, etc. a strong influence on destination image formed
Prayag (2007) sees destination image as in minds of tourists. What could also be included
a multidimensional concept with three primary here are various destination awards or certificates
dimensions – cognitive, affective and conative. (e.g. eco-labeling) which are considered to be
Beliefs and knowledge about the physical parts a marketing message towards a consumer as well
of a destination belong to the cognitive part. The (Ryglova, 2007).
affective dimension deals with feelings that visitors What also contributes to overall destination
have towards the destination (Baloglu and McCleary, image is the information gained from family,
1999). The third conative dimension evolved from friends and various media sources, as well as
cognitive and affective images and is considered a tourist’s previous travel experience with the
to be analogous to behavior and refers to the final destination (Roodurmun and Juwaheer, 2010). On
choice of a place (Prayag, 2007). Most studies have the other hand, overall image is the most important
paid attention only to the cognitive dimension of factor regarding the intention to revisit the same
destination image. The reason for that is that the destination (Alcaniz et al., 2005).
cognitive dimension of image is directly observable, According to Gunn (1972) all cities and countries
descriptive and measurable (Walmsley and Young, have organic images (impression of a destination
1998). On the other hand, Jeong et al. (2009) suggest without physically visiting the place) that are the
that both cognitive and affective images are the best result of history, geography and other non-tourism
predictors of visit intentions. information sources. Therefore, some potential
 Impact of Destination Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty 201

visitors may have incomplete organic images about Not only is tourist destination image important
a particular place. The same results were also regarding tourist satisfaction with the given
proved by Leisen (2001) in his study. destination, it also influences tourists’ behavior like
To differentiate a particular destination brand on-site experiences, evaluations and destination
from others, destination marketers are using the loyalty for particular destination (Crompton, 1979;
combination of destination image and destination Jenkins, 1999).
personality (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Usakli and Loyal tourists are more likely to promote
Baloglu, 2011). a destination in better light, they are also more
Destination image influences future tourist likely to spend more time in the destination and
behavior. The research done by Park and Nukoo consume more goods. With regard to marketing
(2013) showed that feelings gained by tourists costs, loyal tourists are less cost-consuming than the
after their visit to a particular destination affects ones who are visiting the destination for the first
not only WOM communication, but also final time (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999 cited in Thang
recommendations. As a result of this, destination et al., 2014). Similarly, Kotler (2007) stated that
image also affects the total number of the visits a loyal customer is more likely to spread positive
to a destination. If the image is good, there is recommendations about the destination. Wang et al.
a higher chance that previous visitors will visit (2010) also added that tourists who are satisfied
the destination again (Assaker et al., 2011). with their travel experiences are more willing to
Furthermore, a destination lacking a favourable visit the same place again.
or positive image will find it difficult to compete in In the process of creating tourist loyalty,
an extremely competitive area like tourism. (Pike, destination image plays a significant role. Bigné
2002). et al. (2001) also advise that the relationship with
Hsu and Liping (2009) propose that destination tourists has to be handled proactively, in order to
image can also positively influence visitors’ become a lasting one. A traveller’s perception of
satisfaction and trust towards the destination. service experience after visiting the particular
Tribe and Snaith (1988) define tourist satisfaction destination is a key concept of destination loyalty
as a degree to which a tourist’s assessment of (Chiu et al., 2016).
the attributes of a destination exceeds his or her Positive WOM is very likely to create favourable
expectations for those attributes. Other authors images about the given destination. On the other
such as Ryan and Cove (2005) argue that satisfaction hand, the negative WOM might have damaging
is based on good feelings that visitors gained at the effects on destination image and the intention to
destination. According to Chen and Chen (2010) visit the destination (Zhang et al., 2014). The study
tourist satisfaction is a function of pre-travel of Lu et al. (2016) also showed that WOM received
expectations and post-travel experience. before making a decision to purchase can enhance
The main factor that influences the tourist or reduce perceived trust and perceived risk.
satisfaction with a destination, according to Baker
and Crompton (2010), is the quality of the most
MATERIALS AND METHODS
important establishment in the destination. Other
factors that have an influence on the overall tourist The study is aiming at domestic tourism of
satisfaction are price and the perceived value of the Czech Republic; therefore, the primary data
products or services offered in the destination were obtained through personal and electronic
(Kotler, Bowen and Makens, 2006). questionnaire among the Czech Republic
Tourist satisfaction does not only influence population. Quota sampling based on gender, age
the choice of a destination, the usage of products and district of the Czech Republic was applied.
or services – it also influences the intention to The total number of respondents was n = 435.
return. Like destination image, satisfaction with The sample structure is described in Tab. I. Going
a destination leads to revisit intentions and positive further, only the respondents who stayed out of
WOM recommendations which are also indicators residence overnight in a Czech tourism destination
of loyalty (Kozak and Remmington, 2000). last year were taken into consideration. The data
Most tourism studies agree that there is a strong were mostly collected from the 1st May to the
relationship between tourist satisfaction, loyalty 31st June 2018. Overall, 50.8% of respondents were
and revisit intentions (ex. Yoon and Usal, 2005; women and 49.2% were men. Furthermore, the
Awadzi and Panda, 2007). On the other hand, there respondents were divided into six categories based
are few studies that deny the positive relationship on their age.
between tourist satisfaction and revisit intention The questions aiming to explore the image, loyalty
(ex. Um et al., 2006). and satisfaction were formulated on a five-point
According to Chon (1992), if destination visitors Likert scale, where the number five represents
have higher levels of self-image connected to the strong agreement with the given statement.
given destination, they will also have higher levels The 16 research factors of destination image
of satisfaction with this particular destination. (see Tab. II first column) that were evaluated in the
questionnaire were formulated based on previous
202 Andrea Králiková, Astrid Peruthová, Kateřina Ryglová

I: Sample structure

Category of respondent Absolute number of respondents Relative number of respondents

18–26 years old 105 21.0%
27–35 years old 71 14.2%
36–45 years old 114 22.8%
46–55 years old 83 16.6%
56–65 years old 59 11.8%
over 66 years old 68 13.6%
Men 246 49.2%
Women 254 50.8%
Less than high school graduate 23 4.6%
High school graduate with diploma 96 19.2%
High school graduate without diploma 229 45.8%
College or university graduate 152 30.4%
Source: own research

studies (Kim and Richardson, 2003; Beerlie and RESULTS

Martin, 2004; Prayag, 2007; Park and Nunkoo, The following Tab. II states the order of image
2013). Specifically, the factors are as follows: the factors based on the average evaluation of image
attractiveness of a destination, natural attractions, factors by respondents. Number 5 indicates strong
cultural attractions, the suitability of a destination agreement with the given statement about the
for summer holiday, the suitability for winter image factor and on the other end of the scale
holiday, the suitability for all-year-round holiday, number 1 indicates strong disagreement with the
food, infrastructure of transportation, the level of given statement about image factor. It also shows
personnel quality in tourism services, the friendly the results of the dependence analysis on gender,
acceptance by the locals, the sense of security, economic activity, purpose of the visit, length of the
the overcrowding of a destination, destination stay and on the decision with whom the respondent
cleanliness, additional infrastructure, the visited the destination. The value YES means that
uniqueness of a destination and accommodation. the dependence of the factor on the given variable
To find out whether the evaluation of those was proved at 5% significance level.
16 image factors depends on gender, economic The dependence on gender was proved in 7 out
activity, the purpose of the visit, the length of stay of 16 image factors, which accounts for almost
and on the decision with whom the respondents 44%. The seven factors are the attractiveness of
visited a destination, the Kruskal-Wallis test was a destination, natural attractions, the suitability
used. It is a non-parametric equivalent of one-way of a destination for summer and all-year-round
analysis of variance that had to be used due to the holiday, the sense of security, destination cleanliness
non-normal data distribution. The rejection of the and additional infrastructure. Furthermore, women
null hypothesis that the evaluation of a particular evaluated all factors except the overcrowding of
image factor has the same distribution for each a destination higher than men. The dependence
group (e.g. gender or economic activity) confirms on economic activity was proved only in case of
that differences are statistically significant. This factors of the attractiveness of a destination and
means that the dependence of the particular factor the suitability of a destination for all-year-round
of image on e.g. gender has been proved. holiday. That accounts only for 12.5%. Overall,
The impact of the factors of image on the the evaluation of 11 image factors was proved
customer´s overall satisfaction with the given to be dependent on the purpose of the visit. That
destination and his or her loyalty towards this accounts for almost 69%. Four image factors (25%)
destination is analyzed by the multiple regression – natural attractions, the suitability of a destination
analysis and OLS method (Nunkoo and Ramkissoon, for summer and winter holiday and destination
2012). The loyalty of visitors is reflected by their cleanliness – were proved to be dependent on
intention to revisit the destination and by their the length of stay. Visitors who have visited the
willingness to recommend the destination either particular destination for the period of 11 to
online or orally to their friends and relatives (Chen 14 days have evaluated 10 out of 16 image factors
and Tsai, 2007). higher than any other length of the stay. Lastly,
the dependence on the decision with whom the
 Impact of Destination Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty 203

II: Result of dependence analysis

KW test KW test KW test KW test

KW test
Perceived image factor Mean Median Std. Dev. econ. purpose length with whom
gender
activity of the visit of stay they visited
1. Attractiveness of a destination 4.48 5.00 0.77 YES YES YES NO YES
Suitability of a destination
2. 4.37 5.00 0.87 YES NO YES YES YES
for summer holiday
3. Friendly acceptance by the locals 4.24 4.00 0.76 NO NO YES NO YES
4. Sense of security 4.20 4.00 0.91 YES NO YES NO YES
5. Natural attractions 4.13 4.00 1.04 YES NO YES YES YES
6. Destination cleanliness 4.13 4.00 1.00 YES NO YES NO YES
7. Uniqueness of a destination 4.10 4.00 0.96 NO NO YES NO YES
8. Cultural attractions 4.06 4.00 0.97 NO NO YES NO NO
9. Food 3.98 4.00 0.87 NO NO NO NO NO
10. Accommodation 3.91 4.00 0.92 NO NO NO NO NO
Suitability of a destination for
11. 3.85 4.00 1.06 YES YES YES NO NO
all- year-round holiday
Level of personnel quality
12. 3.84 4.00 0.85 NO NO NO NO YES
in tourism services
13. Additional infrastructure 3.73 4.00 0.96 YES NO NO NO NO
Suitability of a destination
14. 3.65 4.00 1.18 NO NO YES YES YES
for winter holiday
15. Infrastructure of transportation 3.64 4.00 0.91 NO NO NO NO NO
16. Overcrowding of a destination 3.29 3.00 1.18 NO NO YES YES NO
Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree
Source: own research

respondents visited the destination was proved in of stay and with whom they visited the destination,
case of 9 factors, which is little more than 56%. The might help destination managers understand their
dependence on age was not statistically proved in target group better. This information might also be
any of the destination image factors. used when creating the destination strategy or the
Regarding the significance of destination image marketing plan.
factors for domestic tourists of the Czech Republic, Overall, the tourists were highly satisfied with the
the most significant factors are the attractiveness destination they visited. Similarly, the tourists also
of a destination followed by the suitability of evaluated the loyalty indicators very highly. The
a destination for summer holiday and friendly average values for the overall satisfaction and loyalty
acceptance by the locals. On the other hand, indicators towards a destination are mentioned in
the least significant factors are the suitability of the Tab. III below.
a destination for winter holiday, the infrastructure The regression models were used to explore the
of transportation and finally the overcrowding influence of relevant factors of destination image on
of the destination. Regardless the mean value, all the overall satisfaction of the visitors of a destination
factors except for the image factor of overcrowding and their loyalty towards the destination. The
of the destination have median 4 or higher. These
values show that all factors of image are relevant III: The average values for the overall satisfaction and loyalty
for respondents. indicators
The tourists’ perception of the destination image
factors is crucial for effective destination marketing Average value
and management. Understanding the importance of Overall satisfaction 4.47
image factors regarding the tourist satisfaction and
Online recommendation 3.63
loyalty better might possibly lead to better targeted
marketing strategy. More importantly, knowing Oral recommendation 4.29
which destination image factors are significant for Revisit intention 4.27
a certain type of visitors, regarding their gender,
Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree
economic activity, the purpose of their visit, the length
Source: own research
204 Andrea Králiková, Astrid Peruthová, Kateřina Ryglová

IV: Regression analysis overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction Reg. coef P-value

Const 1.604 2.20E-17
Attractiveness of a destination 0.129 3.00E-03
Uniqueness of a destination 0.127 8.05E-05
Friendly acceptance by the locals 0.111 0.0157
Food 0.099 0.0019
Natural attractions 0.079 0.0109
Suitability of a destination for all-year-round holiday 0.074 4.40E-03
Destination cleanliness 0.062 0.0485
Level of personnel quality in tourism services 0.061 0.0850
Overcrowding of a destination -0.055 0.0142
R2 = 0.459; R2 adj. = 0.448, 5% significance level
Source: own research

V: Regression analysis online recommendation

Online recommendation Reg. coef. P-value

Const 0.724 0.0295
Sense of security 0.218 0.0016
Cultural attractions 0.208 0.0002
Suitability of a destination for all-year-round holiday 0.184 0.0006
Natural attractions 0.105 0.0711
R2 = 0.166; R2 adj. = 0.158, 5% significance level
Source: own research

VI: Regression analysis oral recommendation

Oral recommendation Reg. coef. P-value

Const 1.236 1.69E-07
Attractiveness of a destination 0.173 1.50E-03
Sense of security 0.133 0.0042
Accommodation 0.126 0.0033
Suitability of a destination for summer holiday 0.119 0.0158
Natural attractions 0.110 0.0067
Infrastructure of transportation 0.071 0.0849
R2 = 0.324; R2 adj. = 0.314, 5% significance level
Source: own research

following Tab. IV is showing the list of image factors that the more crowded the destination is the less
that have an influence on the overall satisfaction. satisfied the tourists are in the destination.
The list is ordered according to their influence on The next three Tabs. 5–7 are showing the list of
the overall satisfaction, beginning with the most image factors that have an impact on the visitor’s
influential one. loyalty towards a destination. The lists are ordered
The overall satisfaction is mostly influenced by the according to their influence, with the most
image factor of the attractiveness of a destination influential factor as the first. The visitors’ loyalty
followed by the uniqueness of a destination and the was assessed based on the three criteria – whether
friendly acceptance by the locals. All factors except the visitor is going to recommend the destination to
for overcrowding of a destination have positive his or her friends and relatives either online or oral
impacts on the overall satisfaction. This means and weather the visitors are planning to revisit the
destination.
 Impact of Destination Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty 205

VII: Regression analysis intention to revisit

Intention to revisit Reg. coef. P-value

Const 1.463 7.73E-10
Uniqueness of a destination 0.263 1.57E-09
Food 0.183 1.96E-05
Suitability of a destination for summer holiday 0.128 5.90E-03
Suitability of a destination for all-year-round holiday 0.114 2.90E-03
R2 = 0.294; R2 adj. = 0.287, 5% significance level
Source: own research

Only 4 image factors have a statistical influence out of 16). On the other hand, the suitability of
on online recommendation, with most influential a destination for summer holiday was the second
factor being the sense of security. Only two factors, most evaluated factor. Almost 45% of respondents
namely the suitability of a destination for all-year- stated relaxation as the purpose of their visit.
round holiday and natural attractions, are the same Accordingly, the attractiveness of a destination,
as for the overall satisfaction. friendly acceptance by the locals, the sense of
Six factors have been statistically proved to have security, natural attractions and the cleanliness of
an impact on oral recommendation. Only two image a destination are among the most evaluated factors
factors – the attractiveness of a destination and of image for respondents. High ranking of natural
natural attractions – also have an impact on overall attractions might also be caused by the number of
satisfaction with a destination. The most influential national parks and other unique natural spots that
factor is the previously mentioned attractiveness the Czech Republic possesses. Also, high ranking of
of a destination followed by the sense of security. the factor of sense of security might be caused by
Similarly, only two factors – the sense of security the general perception regarding the security issues
and natural attractions – also influence the online in Europe, caused by number of terrorist attacks
recommendation. Overall 8 factors have impacts on that have occurred throughout past years in some
the decision whether the visitor will recommend European countries. Regardless the situation in
the destination to his or her friends or not. Europe, the Czech Republic is considered to be a safe
Only 4 factors have been statistically proved country. In 2018 the Czech Republic was on 7th place
to have an impact on revisit intentions, the regarding the Global Peace Index evaluation. Seeing
most influential factor being the uniqueness of the Czech Republic as a country with security
a destination followed by the factor of food. All problems might lead to the decline in the number
factors except for the suitability of a destination of potential visitors as well. Therefore, it is crucial
for summer holiday also have an impact on overall to maintain the perception of a safe country. On
satisfaction. the other hand, the least significant image factor
There is not a single factor that influences all is overcrowding of a destination. Except for the
loyalty indicators and also overall satisfaction. Only capital city of Prague, the Czech Republic is not
natural attractions and suitability of a destination considered to have problems with overcrowding.
for all-year-round holiday are influencing three That might be the reason why domestic tourists are
out of four indicators. Specifically, the factor of not concerned about this specific image factor and
natural attractions influences the oral and online therefore this factor scored the lowest among the
recommendation and overall satisfaction. On 16 researched factors.
the other hand, the suitability of a destination Regarding tourist satisfaction and loyalty, the
for all-year-round holiday influences online average values of the overall satisfaction and
recommendation, intention to revisit the destination loyalty indicators towards the destination are
and also the overall satisfaction. quite high. The lowest value scored the online
recommendation (3,63). It is not surprising
that the lowest score can be found in the age
DISCUSSION
group of 66 years old and higher where the
The most significant image factors are the mean value is only 2,83. Therefore, the Kruskal-
attractiveness of a destination, the suitability of Wallis test suggests the dependence of online
a destination for summer holiday and the friendly recommendations on the age of respondents. Not
acceptance by the locals. The Czech Republic is only are online recommendations depending on the
not considered to be a typical winter holiday age of respondents, but they are also related to the
destination. That might be the reason why the permanent residence and gender of respondents.
image factor of the suitability of a destination for Similarly, the dependence on gender was also
winter holiday is one of the least evaluated image proved in case of oral recommendations. This
factors for Czech residents (specifically 15th factor indicates that image influences revisit intentions
206 Andrea Králiková, Astrid Peruthová, Kateřina Ryglová

and at the same time satisfaction influences not consistent was the one of friendly people. It was
only revisit intentions but also the willingness to the most important factor out of 32 researched
recommend the destination. In all of those cases, factors in 1991, the 4th most important factor out
women scored higher average values of loyalty of 24 researched factors in 2008 and the 3th most
indicators than men did. Lastly, overall satisfaction important factor out of the 16 researched factors
was proved to be dependent only on a tourist region in 2018 in our study. If we take a look only at the
that they visited. To summarize it, seven out of the study by Gibson et al. (2008), the factor of natural
sixteen image factors and five out of the seven attractions was the single most important factor
loyalty indicators were statistically proved to be (5th factor in our study). On the other hand, the
dependent on gender (loyalty indicators being oral safety of a destination was the 20th most important
and online recommendations, intention to revisit, factor out of 24 researched factors and clean
overall satisfaction, indicator that image influences country was the 23rd most important factor. In our
revisit intentions and indicator that satisfaction study the situation was rather different. The safety
influences revisit and recommendation intentions). of the destination was the 4th most important factor
Therefore, it is necessary to pay close attention out of the 16 researched factors and the cleanliness
to gender diverse marketing and management of the country was the 6th most important factor.
plans. It was also necessary to discover the levels The biggest difference between these two studies
of indicators of satisfaction and loyalty in order to was in the factor concerning the overcrowding
explore the importance of the destination image of the country. It was the second most important
factors on the overall satisfaction and loyalty. For factor in the research done by Gibson et al. (2008).
this purpose, the regression models were used. On the other hand, it was the least important factor
Fakeye and Crompton (1991) were also evaluating (16th place) in our research. That might be caused by
image factors. Their focus was on prospective, first- the general perception of China as an overcrowded
time and repeat long-stay winter visitors of Rio country.
Grande Valley in Texas. They evaluated 32 image Kim and Richardson (2003) put the image
factors, with the most important factor being factors into three major groups – cultural or
friendly people. In case of our study, the factor of natural attractions, community characteristics and
friendly acceptance by the locals also scored high. infrastructure, and basic needs or comfort. From
It was the third most important factor out of the 16 the first group the most significant factor was
researched factors. Other two factors also reached interesting historical and cultural attractions. This
results that are quite similar to those in Fakeye´s result is different form the results of this study
and Crompton´s study. These were namely the where the more significant factor were natural and
wide variety of types of food, being the fifth most not cultural attractions. That is probably caused
important factor (in our study it was the 9th most by the aim of the research. This study was aiming
important factor), and plentiful cultural and at the domestic tourism of the Czech Republic. On
historical sites being the 10th most important factor the other hand, Kim and Richardson (2003) were
(the 8th most important factor in our study). On studying the movie-induced image of Vienna. That
the contrary, attractive scenery was the 15th most being said, Vienna possesses many historical and
important factor, but in our study it was the most cultural attractions, which is why the factor natural
significant factor. attractions is less significant in case of Vienna. From
Similarly, Gibson et al. (2008) were evaluating the second group of factors the least significant
24 image factors in order to investigate the image factor is personal safety, which is also quite contrary
that young Americans held of China. One of their to the results of this study of image of the Czech
researched factors were also cultural attractions Republic. This might be caused by the year of 2003
and friendly people as in the study by Fakeye and when Kim and Richardson research was conducted
Crompton (1991). Cultural attractions were the in comparison to the current situation in Europe.
10th most important factor out of 32 researched The results of factors from the last group, i.e. basic
factors in 1991, the 3rd most important factor out needs or comfort, are quite similar to this study.
of 24 researched factors in 2008 and the 8th most The resemblance might be caused by similarities in
important factor out of the 16 researched factors perceptions of Vienna and Prague.
in 2018 in our study. The factor which was more

CONCLUSION
This paper provides the results of the study concerning the perception of image and its impact on tourist
satisfaction and loyalty among residents of the Czech Republic. The evaluation of 16 destination
image factors has been done in order to take a closer look at their dependence on the specific group
of respondents and their significance regarding the tourist overall satisfaction and loyalty.
The order of these 16 factors differs among men and women and among different age groups.
In general, women evaluated the factors higher than men. Taking the age of respondents into account,
 Impact of Destination Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty 207

the higher evaluation of the image factors becomes more evident at middle age, more specifically
between age 27 and 55. Then the significance of the factors decreases with age except for four factors,
namely the attractiveness of a destination, natural attractions, food and accommodation. In those
four cases the higher evaluation of image factors occurred in the age group of 66 years of age and
older. Despite all of this, the dependence of image factors on age was not proved.
The identification of image factors, their significance and dependence on the specific group can be
used for destination management or marketing to evaluate the image of the specific destination
better. It also provides more detailed information concerning which part of the destination
image destination marketers or managers should focus on, regarding their specific target group.
Understanding the image factors better can also improve their competitiveness in the current tourism
market and support the efficiency of positioning strategy setting in the particular target markets.
Due to quota sampling based on gender and age, the results could be generalized on domestic
tourism in the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, the quota sampling based on administrative regions
in the Czech Republic was not fulfilled entirely. The further research could therefore use quota
sampling based also on administrative regions to secure even more representative results. In further
research it would be suitable to consider the influence of a respondent’s personal features that might
have a significant impact on the loyalty towards the destination, especially in case of the indicator
of revisiting the destination. Further research could be also focused on destination image in a specific
type of destination, ex. wine or countryside destination.

Acknowledgements
The results presented in this paper are the part of the project IGA PEF_TP__2018002: Vliv image
destinace na spokojenost a loajalitu návštěvníků (Destination image impact on satisfaction and
loyalty of visitors).

REFERENCES
ALCANIZ, E. B., GARCIA, I. S., and BLAS, S. S. 2005. Relationships among residents’ image, evaluation
of the stay and post-purchase behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(4): 291–302.
ASSAKER, G., VINZI, V. E. and O’CONNOR, P. 2011. Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction,
and destination image on tourist’s return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model.
Tourism Management, 32(4): 890–901.
AWADZI, W. and PANDA, D. 2007. Relationship Marketing in the tourism Industry: towards an
integrated model for research. Consortium Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(1): 47–56.
BAKER, D. A. and CROMPTON, J. L. 2010. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(3): 785–804.
BALOGLU, S. 1999. A path analysis model of visitation intention involving information sources,
socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
8: 81–90.
BEERLIE A. and MARTIN J. D. 2004. Factors influencing destination image. Annal. Tourism Res., 32(3):
657–681.
BIGNÉ, J. E., SÁNCHEZ, M. I. and SÁNCHEZ, J. 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables, and after
purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 26(6): 607–616.
CARROLL, B. A. and AHUVIA, A. C. 2006. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Market
Letter, 17(2): 70–89.
CHEN, C.-F. and TSAI, D. C. 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4): 1115–1122.
CHI, C. G.-Q., and QU, H. 2008. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4): 624–636.
COUNTRYECONOMY.COM. 2018. Czech Republic – Global Peace Index. Cuntryeconomy.com. [Online].
Available at: https://countryeconomy.com/demography/global-peace-index/czech-republic
[Accessed: 2019, April 23].
CROMPTON, J. L. 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(Spring): 18–23.
ČSÚ. 2019. Cestovní ruch – časové řady. Český statistický úřad. [Online]. Available at: https://www.
czso.cz/csu/czso/cru_cr [Accessed: 2019, May 20].
EKINCI, Y. 2003. From destination image to destination branding: an emerging area. e-Review of
Tourism Research, 1(2): 21–24.
208 Andrea Králiková, Astrid Peruthová, Kateřina Ryglová

EKINCI, Y. and HOSANY, S. 2006. Destination personality: an application of brand personality to

tourism destination. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2): 127–139.
FAKEYE, P. C. and CROMPTON. J. L. 1991. Image Differences between Prospective, First-Time, and
Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2): 10–16.
GARTNER, W. 1989. Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism products using
multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2): 15–19.
GARTNER, W. C. 1993. Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2/3): 191–
215.
GIBSON, H. J., QI, C. X. and ZHANG, J. J. 2008. Destination Image and Intent to Visit China and the 2008
Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 427–450.
GUNN, C. 1972. Vacationscape. Austin, TX: Bureau of Business Research.
CHIU, (bylo HIU) W., ZENG, S. and CHENG, P. S.-T. 2016. The influence of destination image and tourist
satisfaction on tourist loyalty: a case study of Chinese tourists in Korea. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2): 223–234.
HSU, C. and LIPING, A. C. 2009. Brand knowledge, trust and loyalty – a conceptual model of destination
branding. In: Hospital and Tourism Management, 2009 International CHRIE Conference-Refereed
Track. ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst.
HUNG, K. and PETRICK, J. F. 2012. Testing the effects of congruity travel constraints, and self-efficacy
on travel intentions: an alternative decision-making model. Tourism Management, 33(4), 855–867.
HUNT, J. D. 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 13: 1–7.
CHEN, C.-F. and CHEN, F.-S. 2010. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1): 29–35.
CHON, K. S. 1992. Self-image/destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2): 360–363.
JANG, S. and FENG, R. 2007. Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of Novelty seeking and
satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2): 580–590.
JENKINS O. 1999. Understanding and measuring tourist destination image. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 1(1): 1–15.
JEONG, C., KIM, Y. K., KO, Y. J., LEE, H. and JEONG, R. S. 2009. Horse Racing Image: Re-Examination
of Relations between Image and Intention to Visit. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 10(3): 194–217.
KIM, H. and RICHARDSON, S. L. Motion picture impacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(1), 216–237.
KOTLER, P., BOWEN, T. J. and MAKENS, C. J. 2006. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. 4th Edition.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
KOTLER, P., HAIDER, D. H. and REIN, I. 1993. Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and
Tourism to Cities, States and Nations. New York: The Free Press.
KOTLER, P. and KELLER, K. L. 2007. Marketing Management. 1st Editon. Praha: Grada- Publishing.
KOVARI, I. and ZIMÁNYI, K. 2011. Safety and Security in the Age of Global Tourism (The changing
role and conception of Safety and Security in Tourism). APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness
and Commerce, 3: 59–61.
KOZAK, M. 2001. Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3):
784–807.
KOZAK, M., and REMMINGTON, M. 2000. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season
holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38: 260–269.
LEISEN, B. 2001. Image Segmentation: The Case of a Tourism Destination. Journal of Services
Marketing, 15(1): 49–54.
LU, H. Y., WU, W. Y. and CHEN, S. H. 2016. Influences on the perceived value of medical travel: the
moderating roles of risk attitude, self-esteem and word-of-mouth. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(5):
477–491.
MOLINA, A., GOMEZ, M. and MARTIN-CONSUEGRA, D. 2010. Tourism Marketing information and
destination image management. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4(5): 727–728.
MONEY, R. and CROTTS, J. 2003. The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning
and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management, 24(2): 191–202.
NUNKOO, R. 2013. Relationship between Destination Image and Loyalty: Developing Cooperative
Branding for Rural Destinations. In: ICITI 2013: Non-tariff measures: The new frontier of trade policy.
Le Meridien Hotel, Mauritius, 4–6 September.
NUNKOO, R. and RAMKISSOON, H. 2012. Structural equation modelling and regression analysis in
tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(8): 777–802.
PETRICK, J., MORAIS, D. and NORMAN, W. 2001. An examination of determinants of entertainment
vacationer’s intention to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1): 41–48.
 Impact of Destination Image on Satisfaction and Loyalty 209

PIKE, S. 2002. Destination image analysis – a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism
Management, 23(5): 541–549.
PRAYAG, G. 2007. Exploring the relationship between destination image and brand personality of a
tourist destination: an application of projective techniques. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research,
7(2): 111–130.
ROODURMUN, J. and JUWAHEER, T. D. 2010. Influence of trust on destination loyalty an empirical
analysis the discussion of the research approach. In: International Research Symposium in Service
Management. Le Meridien Hotel, Mauritius, 24–27 August 2010, pp. 1–23.
RYAN, C. and CAVE, J. 2005. Structuring Destination Image: A Qualitative Approach. Journal of Travel
Research, 44(2): 143–150.
RYGLOVA, K. 2007. Eco-certification as a tool of sustainable tourism. Agricultural Economics-
Zemedelska ekonomika, 53(3): 138–143.
SIRGY, M. J. and SU, C. 2000. Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward an
Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4): 340–352.
TRIBE, J. and SNAITH, T. 1998. From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: Holiday satisfaction in Varadero Cuba.
Tourism Management, 19(1): 25–34.
UM, S., CHON, K. and RO, Y. 2006. Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4):
1141–1158.
USKALI, A. and BALOGLU, S. 2011. Brand personality of tourist destinations: an application of self-
congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32: 114–137.
WALMSLEY, D. Y. and YOUNG, M. 1998. Evaluative images and tourism: the use of personal constructs
to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3): 65–69.
WANG, Y.-J., WU, C. and YUAN, J. 2010. Exploring visitors’ experiences and intention to revisit a
heritage destination: the case of Lukang, Taiwan. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 11(3): 162–178.
YOON, Y. and UYSAL, M. 2005. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1): 45–56.
ZHANG, H., FU, X., CAI, L. A. and LU, L. 2014. Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis.
Tourism Management, 40: 213–223.
ZHANG, Z., ZHANG, Z. and LAW, R. 2014. Positive and Negative Word of Mouth about Restaurants:
Exploring the Asymmetric Impact of the Performance of Attributes. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 19(2): 162–180.

Contact information
Andrea Králiková: [email protected]
Astrid Peruthová: [email protected]
Kateřina Ryglová: [email protected]