sustainability

Article
Perceived Sustainable Destination Image:
Implications for Marketing Strategies in Europe
Arminda Almeida-Santana 1, * and Sergio Moreno-Gil 2
1 Research Group in Business Management (Gide), University of León (ULE), 24007 León, Spain
2 Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Economic Development, Universidad Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,
35001 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 30 October 2019; Accepted: 15 November 2019; Published: 17 November 2019


Abstract: There is currently a growing concern about the consequences of tourism activity on the
environment. In this regards, sustainable management is understood as a key element that can help
destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to improve a tourist destination’s competitiveness.
This study provides some clues about the best way to develop the image and branding of a destination
using the concept of sustainable image. Through an analysis of 28,947 tourists from 18 European
countries, this paper studies what sociodemographic, cultural, and behavioral characteristics of
tourists influence their perception of sustainable destination. The results of the binomial logit analysis
show that destination primary and secondary images, motivations, cultural background of tourists,
and sociodemographic characteristics are determinant factors explaining the perception of sustainable
destination image (SDI). Thus, the fundamental role of segmentation to positioning a destination as a
sustainable destination is suggested. The study provides interesting recommendations for DMOs in
order to be able to design better marketing strategies focused on destination image.

Keywords: sustainable destination; destination image; marketing strategies;

communication; segmentation

1. Introduction
A concern of academics over the last couple of decades has been that of destination image [1],
with it becoming one of the key topics among researchers. Although there have been many attempts to
understand the concept of the image of a destination [1–3], it can be thought of as the accumulated
perception of both cognitive and affective evaluations [4–6]. Almeida-Santana and Moreno-Gil
(2018) [7] pointed out that the image’s cognitive component concerns the beliefs and information
in respect to a destination’s attributes which are retained by tourists, whereas emotional feelings or
responses to the characteristics of a place represent the affective component. Destination image has
been defined by Bigne, Sanchez, and Sanchez (2001) [8] as the subjective interpretation of reality within
the tourist’s mind.
There is no doubt that tourists’ profiles have undergone a significant change in recent years.
Previous studies indicate a greater awareness of tourists on how their activity can impact on the
destination’s environment, society, and culture [9]. Thus, it can be said that sustainable tourist behavior
is an extant and thriving field of study [9,10]. Some authors [11–13] dare to indicate that more and
more tourists make purchases with an eye to the environmental, social, and economic quality of
products. There is a growing trend towards the consumption of sustainable brands that influences the
destination choice [14–17]. Therefore, currently, destinations are more concerned with sustainability
in their response to adapt to the new demands of tourists [18]. Destination marketing organizations

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466; doi:10.3390/su11226466 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 2 of 12

(DMOs) must be able to convey a sustainable destination image if they want to improve their levels
of competitiveness.
Notable efforts have been made within the literature to investigate factors which have an influence
on image [18,19]; however, no research has undertaken analyses on the factors which determine a
tourist’s perception of an image of sustainable destination (SDI). Thus, the aim of this study is to
understand whether tourists’ sociodemographic, cultural, and behavioral characteristics influence
their perception of a destination as being sustainable.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Destination Image

A greatly explored construct within tourism literature is that of destination image [1,20,21].
Since its inception into the academic studies in the early 70s, scholars have sought to clearly define this
concept. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) [10] defined destination image as the mental representation
based on a group of images chosen by the tourist from the large amount of images available through
different information sources. The concept of a subjective, personal perception of the tourists was
added latter by other researchers [8,22].
Sustainable destination has been defined by past studies as a destination which provides economic
development, a higher level of standard of living, ecological preservation, and social and cultural
heritage preservation [23,24]. However, SDI may be differently perceived by visitors.
Destination image research attempts to conceptualize the concept of destination image and
to identify its dimensions [25–27]. These destination image researchers endeavor to unravel the
components of this concept in order to facilitate DMOs in shaping strategies regarding customer
segments. Thus, Echtner and Ritchie (1991) [19] claim a need for more research that will aim to
provide an improved understanding of the destination image, further conceptualizing it in terms of
an accumulation of attributes. Besides the more holistic impressions, it would also be important to
measure the cognitive and affective images with the consideration immersed within the characteristics
of the destination and the personal perception of the tourists [20,28]. Thus, the primary image is
formed via acquisition of information through visitation of the destination [20], while information
sources that are organic, induced, and autonomous form the secondary image [29].
Past research assumes that environmental and socioeconomic aspects of a location exhibit a
direct linkage to the image of the destination [30], highlighting the importance of sustainability as a
destination’s positioning strategy. Consequently, Souza et al. (2014) [30] have claimed that the concepts
of sustainability and image have a grounding in common basic aspects. However, past studies include
sustainability as a component of cognitive image [27,31,32]. Given this prominence that sustainability
is taking today, its association with the affective and general image of the destination is crucial.

2.2. Motivations
Motivations, as one of the key influences that guides the development of a destination image,
are included in the models of destination choice and image formation [33]. These motivations can
be grouped with respect to push and pull factors [34]. For Dann (1977) [35], what can be termed as
internal (push) motives are linked to tourists’ wishes and include such aspects as desires to escape
or rest and to acquire prestige, adventure, and social interaction. Pull factors, on the other hand,
are connected with a destination’s attractiveness and resources. Previous research has shown that
an individual’s internal motivations significantly affects the formation of destination image [20,25].
For instance, Baloglu (2000) [36] found the relationship between motivations to relax, escape, and gain
knowledge to be statistically significant.
In current tourism literature, motivation has often been used as a criterion of segmentation [37–39]
with this method being suggested as one of the most effective [34,40]. Easy categorization of
heterogeneous groups of tourists via these motivational factors has been shown to be possible by
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 3 of 12

numerous empirical studies [41–43]. Thus, an expansion of knowledge on the various motivations
of tourists is important for the positioning of brands in differing markets [44,45]; however, previous
literature has not paid special attention to the relationship between motivations to travel and SDI.
Thus, the contribution of this study resides in a better understanding of this relationship. This can help
DMOs in their choice of content to be communicated according to the motivations of tourists.

2.3. Cultural Background

A considerable volume of research has utilized national culture as a rationale for market
segmentation [45–47], and thus, it is felt to be an appropriate basis for segmentation. Nationality has
received growing attention in research studies since Hofstede (1980) [48], as it has been argued to be
one of the most influential aspects that affects tourism behavior [49–52] and influences destination
image [53–57]. Furthermore, national culture plays a key role in the way tourists from different countries
interpret the sustainability and, in consequence, as a fundamental element on the sustainability image
of tourism destinations [30].
Nevertheless, extant research on the manner in which national culture affects consumer
behavior [58] and specially perceived destination image [59] is still not sufficiently conclusive.
Researchers are seeking further studies on segmentation which utilize geographical criteria [60,61] that
better guide the development of more improved, efficient marketing strategies [45,62].
Considering that which has been mentioned so far, the purpose of this paper is to initiate debate
on the relationship between the image of tourism destination sustainability and the tourists’ countries
of origin. There is importance, both with respect to the academic realm and for practitioners, to have
clarity in understanding how the national culture of tourists might cause SDI to differ. Through
this, the design of better marketing strategies will be possible, which will lead to a more appropriate
positioning of sustainable tourism destinations within different cultures.

2.4. Sociodemographic Characteristics

Consumer behavior research has traditionally been linked to sociodemographic characteristics,
and these have been frequently used as segmentation criteria [63]. The incorporation of
sociodemographic variables as factors influencing the perception of a destination’s image has occurred
in most image formation models [31,64]. Studies have identified that there are differences in image
perceptions by gender, age, and level of education [31,65].
Given the changes in consumer behavior in relationship with sustainability, there is a need for the
development of further research on SDI from the perspective of market segmentation. It is feasible that
segmentation criteria that has a basis in sociodemographic characteristics may not be fully aligned
with the profile of sustainable tourists.

3. Methodology

3.1. Population
Generating greater than half of the yearly international arrivals, Europe represents the world’s
largest outbound region with respect to tourist flow [66]. Therefore, tourists aged 16 or over who,
within the last two years, had gone abroad and who had made use of the Internet to plan their trip
were the target population for this research. Tourists from the 18 major European countries, in tourist
terms, were utilized for this study: Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Russia, Finland,
France, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, Czech
Republic, and Sweden.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 4 of 12

3.2. Sample Selection

This research was progressed through the use of a computer-assisted web interview (CAWI).
A sample from the 18 countries was considered and was yielded from a database of panelists residing
in each of these countries. It was to maintain the representativeness of the sample with respect to the
population of each country. In order to achieve this, a random selection of the sample was undertaken,
with this being based on the variables of stratification of the geographical area and province, on the one
hand, and of the criteria of gender and age, on the other. Participation in the research by the selected
sample was sought by sending them a personalized e-mail, with a personalized link being embedded
in the e-mail that led them to an online survey. To achieve the expected quantity of completed surveys,
two reminders were sent during the three months of fieldwork in the countries so as to encourage
response. This culminated in the final sample consisting of 28,947 tourists.
Visits to the Canary Islands (Spain) was the focus of the analysis of the results, in particular with
respect to the sustainable perceived image of this destination. In addition to the reason of convenience,
the Canary Islands were chosen as the specific case due to it being a leading destination in Europe
which enjoys a well-known brand throughout the continent. Given that it receives approximately
15 million tourists annually and has a complex economic ecosystem [7], these are factors which make it
a perfect subject for consideration of the topic of sustainability. One of the 17 autonomous communities
of Spain, the group of Canary Islands is formed as an archipelago located in the Atlantic Ocean.
Island destinations face specific challenges regarding tourism development [67]. The Canary
Islands are highly relevant as a place of research, due to steady discussions about tourism development
and growth [68] and the islands’ character as an experimental zone for sustainable tourism in the
context of an overflowing capacity of tourism growth [69]. Thus, sustainability in the Canary Islands
destination has been the subject of a great amount of recent studies [70–73].

3.3. Questionnaire, Quality Control, and Data Analysis

The questionnaire was translated into the languages of each of the 18 countries. The survey
was undertaken once the questionnaire had been pre-tested in the languages of the potential tourists
and questions that had raised difficulties in comprehension had received pertinent corrections.
Upon completion of the necessary programming, the online system undertook a review of all of the
conducted surveys. This included detecting the amount of time that respondents had taken to complete
the survey, and any survey answered in less than 5 minutes was deemed as not valid. A binomial
logit analysis was performed after completion of the fieldwork. A logit model based on the theory
of random utility was chosen for this research. In utilizing this model, robustness in the estimated
results is guaranteed, along with fulfilment of the properties of the conventional utility functions as
established by the theory of the consumer.
With respect to the variables included in the model, tourists were invited to answer how sustainable
they perceived the Canary Islands destination. A score of 1 indicates very unsustainable and 7 indicates
very sustainable. For the statistical treatment of this variable, following the study of Almeida-Santana
and Moreno Gil (2018) [7], it was necessary to dichotomize it, understanding that tourists who marked
a 6 or 7 out of 7 were considered to perceive the destination as sustainable, while we understand that
those who gave values between 1 and 4 do not perceive the Canary Islands destination as sustainable.
Table 1 shows the description of all the variables included in the estimated model.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 5 of 12

Table 1. Description of the variables included in the model.

Category Variables Definition

A continuous variable that explains the age of the
Age
individuals in years
Sociodemographic and
Dichotomic variables that take 0 as a value when
geographic variables Gender
the individual is male and 1 when is female
Years of study Number of years of study
Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Spain, Russia, Finland, France, Dichotomic variables that take 0 as a value when
Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the individual does not belong to one of the
Norway, Poland, Portugal, United nationalities under study and 1 when they do
Kingdom, Czech Republic, Sweden
Scale of 1 to 7 (very negative image to very
Motivation variables Fodness Scale (1994) [74]. See Table 2
positive image)
A continuous variable that explains the number
Number of times a destination is visited
Behavioral characteristics of visits to Canary Islands
(Primary and secondary images) Last year visited Number of years since the last visit
Dichotomic variables that take 0 as a value when
Has seen advertising about the
the individual has seen advertising about the
destination
destination and 1 when they have not
Dichotomic variables that take 0 as a value when
Endogenous Sustainable Destination Image (SDI) the individual has not perceived a sustainable
image and 1 when they have

Table 2. Motivation factor analysis.

Variables MOT1 MOT2 MOT3 MOT4 Cronbach´s Alpha

To go to places that are
0.738
fashionable
0.560
To look for entertainment and fun 0.688
To enjoy and spend time
0.479
with friends
To rest and relax 0.772
To spent time in a destination with
0.654 0.623
good beaches and pleasant climate
To enjoy and spend time
0.611
with family
To go to comfortable places 0.495
To do sports 0.834
To be in contact with nature 0.692
0.692
To do watersports 0.636
To do exciting things 0.487
To know new and different places 0.780
0.413
To escape from daily routine 0.545
Cronbach´s alpha 0.768
% Explained variance: 55.933
KMO: 0.806
Bartlett: 49379.541
Significance: 0.000

4. Results
Below, in order to fulfil the aim of this study, a binomial logit model has been estimated with the
perception of a sustainable destination image (SDI) as dependent variable. The model explored the
existence of a relationship between SDI and sociodemographic, cultural, and behavioral characteristics
of tourists.
A factor analysis was undertaken prior to estimating the model so as to examine the motivations’
dimensions. The aim for this was to affect a reduction in their dimensions and an appropriate
identification of the determining factors. With due regard to the criteria addressed in the literature,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 6 of 12

each item has been classified in respect to the higher loading. With the majority of the factor loadings
being greater than 0.40, this is an indication of a good correlation between the items as well as the
factor grouping to which they belong [75,76]. The validity of these analyses was further supported by
the outcome of Pearson correlation coefficient calculations for each of the variables and factors.
Completion of the factor analysis on the motivations revealed four dimensions that explain 55.93%
of the variance. As portrayed in Table 2, the first factor incorporates 3 items which we have labelled
as “Fashion, Fun, and Friends”. Four items are collected together for the second factor, namely “Sun,
Beach, Relax, and Family”. The third factor also holds 4 items, in this instance, related to “Sports and
Nature”. Lastly, 2 items comprise the fourth factor named “Knowledge”. Regarding the findings of
the Cronbach’s alpha calculations, it is necessary to consider that MOT4’s low value could feasibly
be consequential to this factor only consisting of 2 items, given that Cronbach’s alpha is known to
be sensitive to the number of items in a scale [68]. It can be said that these findings are largely in
accordance with the literature [18,55,77,78].
Table 3 summarizes the results of the estimation for the proposed model. Regarding the consumer’s
previous experience as a tourist in a specific destination, it was unsurprisingly found that the greater
the number of times a destination is visited, the greater is the likelihood of SDI being evident (β = 0.004;
p < 0.01). Furthermore, it is also not surprising that a tourist having had a recent travel to the Canary
Islands increases the probability of perception of SDI (β = 0.200; p < 0.01). These findings align with the
argument that primary sources of information influence the perceived destination image, as suggested
by Beerli and Martín (2004) [20].
As for advertising, tourists having seen advertisements about the destination have a positive
influence on SDI (β = 0.187; p < 0.05), and thus, this portrays the importance of this tool being utilized by
destinations (as secondary sources of information) for enhancing the image of sustainable destination.
Furthermore, the motivations related to going to places that are fashionable, to looking for
entertainment and fun, and to enjoying and spending time with friends have positive effects on SDI
(β = 0.365; p < 0.01). In the light of the results of our study, those tourists are 40% more likely to
perceive the destination as sustainable. The motivations of rest and relaxation, of spending time in
a destination with good beaches and pleasant climate, of enjoying and spending time with family,
and going to comfortable places all positively influence SDI (β = 0.244; p < 0.01). They are 27.7% more
likely to perceive SDI. The motivations of doing sports and being in contact with nature (β = 0.205;
p < 0.01) also has a positive effect on the tourist perceiving SDI. These are the tourists with the minor
probability to perceive SDI. However, the motivations to know new and different places and to escape
from the daily routine do not have an influence on SDI.
Furthermore, the relationship between the nationality of the tourists and their perception of SDI
was analyzed. Here, positive relations were revealed with the majority of the markets: Germany,
Austria, Belgium, Spain, Russia, France, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, United Kingdom, and Czech Republic. Therefore, the Canary Islands are more likely to be
perceived as an SDI by tourists from these countries, whereas the nationalities of Denmark, Finland and
Sweden were found to be nonsignificant. Attending to the differences between countries, it could be
confirmed that the nationalities with a minor perception of sustainability are the Austrians, the Dutch,
and those from Luxembourg. However, the Russians are those who, only because they are of this
nationality, are more likely to perceive the destination as sustainable. The greatest value in the case of
Russians can be explained by the fact that Russia could be considered as not being a typical European
country and, further, that the preferences and experience of Russian tourists differ strikingly from
those of tourists of the other European countries [79]. Those results give weight to the concept that
national culture influences the way tourists from different countries interpret the sustainability and its
fundamental role in the formation of sustainability image of tourism destinations [30].
The results found that age and level of studies determine SDI. The results show, in line with
Baloglu and McCleary (1999) [31] and Calantone et al. (1989) [65], that the older a person is, the greater
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 7 of 12

is the likelihood that the individual will perceive SDI (β = 0.163; p < 0.01). On the other hand,
the relationship between the mean studies level of a tourist and SDI is negative (β = 0.140; p < 0.01).

Table 3. Estimated binomial logit model.

Sustainable Destination Image

β ε Percent Change in the Odds
Number of times a destination is visited 0.004 *** 0.001 0.4
Last year visited 0.200 *** 0.023 22.1
Has seen advertising about the destination 0.187 *** 0.061 20.5
MOT1: Fashion, Fun, and Friends 0.365 *** 0.033 44.0
MOT2: Sun, Beach, Relax, and Family 0.244 *** 0.031 27.7
MOT3: Sports and Nature 0.205 *** 0.031 22.7
MOT4: Knowledge - - -
Germany 0.753 *** 0.160 112.4
Austria 0.457 ** 0.185 57.9
Belgium 0.867 *** 0.184 138.0
Denmark - - -
Spain 2.171 *** 0.171 776.9
Russia 2.637 *** 0.312 1296.4
Finland - - -
France 0.906 *** 0.203 147.4
Netherlands 0.452 *** 0.168 57.1
Ireland 1.262 *** 0.168 253.1
Italy 1.814 *** 0.205 513.7
Luxembourg 0.592 ** 0.259 80.8
Norway 0.822 *** 0.172 127.6
Poland 1.745 *** 0.234 472.6
Portugal 1.836 *** 0.214 526.9
United Kingdom 1.102 *** 0.163 201.0
Czech Republic 0.973 *** 0.239 164.5
Sweden - - -
Age 0.163 *** 0.029 17.7
Gender - - -
Education −0.140 *** 0.031 −13
Constant −1.690 *** 0.197
−2 Log likelihood 6815.447
Note: *** 0.01%; ** 0.05%.

5. Discussion
The theoretical implication of this study lies in presenting a comprehensive understanding of
factors influencing an SDI. More specifically, the model uses destination primary and secondary images,
motivations, cultural background of tourists, and sociodemographic characteristics to explain the
perception of SDI. Those variables are crucial in fully understanding the perception of SDI. This means
that destination marketing organizations should adjust their strategies to different market segments,
attending to the mentioned variables. As far as we are aware, no other researchers have investigated
this relationship prior to us.
The more intense the previous experience (primary image) in the destination, the more likely are
travelers to have an SDI. This study further suggests that a key determinant of SDI is a destination
secondary image. Thus, destination marketing organizations should consider these findings when
designing their marketing strategies. The secondary image of a destination could be affected by
destinations and the companies operating in the sector through various sources of information such as
magazines, tour operators, travel agencies, social media, and so on [80]. DMOs must be able to design
strategies in which an image of a sustainable destination is projected since, according to the results of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 8 of 12

our study, the information that the tourist receives through these sources will influence their perception
of a sustainable destination and, consequently, their decision of whether to visit the destination. Those
results are in line with the study of Lian and Yu (2019) [81], who highlighted the influence of online
information sources in the decision to travel.
Furthermore, the results suggest that three motivational factors (“Fashion, Fun, and Friends”,
“Sun, Beach, Relax, and Family”, and “Sports and Nature”) are statistically significant for SDI. Whilst
we had hypothesized that a traveler’s motivation to know new and different places and to escape
from the daily routine would have a positive effect on the SDI, our findings have revealed that this is
not supported. Therefore, destination marketing organizations should project the SDI according to
tourists’ motivations [33,82]. Thus, the content used to promote the SDI should be adapted to match
tourism motivations. In this way, the possible congruence that exists between the message and the
specific motivations of the target market could determine better results [45]. Either way, developing a
professional social command centre in charge of managing the social content of the destination seems
to be an interesting strategy to foster SDI.
Our findings also suggest that the cultural background of a tourist is an important factor
determining SDI. More specifically, our findings reveal that national culture influences the way tourists
from different countries interpret sustainability and its fundamental role on the sustainability image
of tourism destination formation [30]. This sheds lights on the usefulness of using the nationality as
a segmentation criterion, helping marketers to tier customers. DMOs should pay special attention
to the markets of The Netherlands, Austria, and Luxembourg, since they are those that have a lower
probability of perceiving the destination as sustainable. In markets such as Russia, Spain, Portugal,
and Italy, efforts must be aimed at maintaining or even improving the SDI. This is in accordance
with the Almeida-Santana et al. (2018) [45] study, which suggests nationality as being a relevant
factor when seeking to comprehensively understand the behavior of travelers when choosing their
holiday destination.
Furthermore, the results also determined that age and level of studies determine SDI. The results
show, in line with Baloglu and McCleary (1999) [31] and Calantone et al. (1989) [65], that the older a
person is, the more likely they are to perceive SDI. The negative relationship between the mean study
levels expressed by the tourists and SDI is demonstrated. Destination marketing organizations should
consider those results in order to better design their marketing strategies. Younger tourists have a
lower perception of a sustainable destination, so marketing campaigns aimed at this younger segment
should place greater emphasis on the projection of a sustainable destination image. The same approach
could be applied to the segment with a high level of studies.
Finally, some limitations of this research are given. This study considers SDI only in respect to the
Canary Islands. However, it could be applied to other destinations. SDI could also be further analyzed,
with introduction to the model of other factors influencing SDI.

6. Conclusions
This study has focused on seeking to explain the factors that influence the perception of a
sustainable destination image by tourists. The importance of carrying out this research is justified
by the growing concern shown by tourists about the impact of their activity [83]. DMOs must adapt
to the new demands of tourists and design strategies that allow them to position themselves as a
sustainable destination if they want to remain competitive in this day and age in which sustainability
is fundamental [83].
In order to achieve the aims of this study, information was collected from tourists from 18 European
countries who have visited the Canary Islands. This is presented as an appropriate destination to
study sustainability [70–73].
The findings of this research confirm that the primary and secondary images of the destination,
the travel motivations of tourists, and their nationality, as well as their age and level of studies influence
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 9 of 12

their perception of SDI. This gives emphasis to the importance of segmentation in the design of
destination marketing strategies to position the destination as sustainable.

Author Contributions: All authors made a proportional contribution.

Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research and the APC was funded by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y
Competitividad ECO2017-82842-R and by the Canarian Agency for Research, Innovation, and Information
Society (ACIISI) cofinanced by the European FEDER Fund under project 2017010116.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Költringer, C.; Dickinger, A. Analyzing destination branding and image from online sources: A web content
mining approach. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1836–1843. [CrossRef]
2. Gallarza, M.G.; Saura, I.G.; García, H.C. Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Ann. Tour.
Res. 2002, 29, 56–78. [CrossRef]
3. Moreno-Gil, S.; Martín-Santana, J.D. Understanding the image of self-contained and serviced apartments:
The case of sun and beach destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2015, 39, 373–400. [CrossRef]
4. Baloglu, S.; Mangaloglu, M. Tourism Destination Images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as Perceived by
US-Based Tour Operators and Travel Agents. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 1–9. [CrossRef]
5. Carballo, M.M.; Araña, J.E.; León, C.J.; Moreno-Gil, S. Economic valuation of tourism destination image.
Tour. Econ. 2015, 21, 741–759. [CrossRef]
6. Kim, D.; Perdue, R.R. The Influence of Image on Destination Attractiveness. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2011,
225–239, 225–239. [CrossRef]
7. Almeida-Santana, A.; Moreno-Gil, S. Understanding tourism loyalty: Horizontal vs. destination loyalty.
Tour. Manag. 2018, 65, 245–255. [CrossRef]
8. Bigne, J.E.; Sanchez, M.I.; Sanchez, J. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour:
Inter-relationship. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 607–616. [CrossRef]
9. Pulido-Fernández, J.; López-Sánchez, Y. Are tourists really willing to pay more for sustainable destinations?
Sustainability 2016, 8, 1240. [CrossRef]
10. Weeden, C. Responsible and Ethical Tourist Behaviour; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
11. Miller, G. Consumerism in sustainable tourism: A survey of UK consumers. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003, 1, 17–39.
[CrossRef]
12. Yeoman, I. Tomorrow’s Tourist: Scenarios & Trends; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2008.
13. Boniface, B.; Coope, C. Worldwide Destinations Casebook—The Geography of Travel and Tourism; Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2005.
14. Rheem, C. PhoCusWright’s Going Green: The Business Impact of Environmental Awareness on Travel; PhocusWright:
Sherman, CT, USA, 2008.
15. Adlwarth, W. Corporate social responsibility: Customer expectations and behavior in the tourism sector.
In Trends and Issues in Global Tourism 2010; Conrady, R., Buck, M., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin,
Germany, 2010.
16. Dodds, R.; Graci, S.R.; Holmes, M. Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand
and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 207–222. [CrossRef]
17. Hedlund, T. The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices
to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives.
Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011, 11, 278–288. [CrossRef]
18. Edgel, S.D.L. Managing Sustainable Tourism: A Legacy for the Future; Haworth Hospitality Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2006.
19. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.B. The meaning and measurement of destination image. J. Tour. Stud. 1991, 2, 2–12.
20. Beerli, A.; Martin, J.D. Factors influencing destination image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681. [CrossRef]
21. Pike, S. Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23,
541–549. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 10 of 12

22. Kim, S.S.; Morrison, A.M. Changes of images of South Korea among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA
World Cup. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 233–247. [CrossRef]
23. Blažević, B.; Peršić, M. Turistička Regionalizacija u Globalnim Procesima; Fakultet za Turistički i Hotelski
Menadžment: Opatija, Croatia, 2009.
24. Pearce, D. Destination management in New Zealand: Structures and functions. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015,
4, 112. [CrossRef]
25. San Martín, H.; Del Bosque, I.A.R. Exploring the cognitive–affective nature of destination image and the role
of psychological factors in its formation. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 263–277. [CrossRef]
26. Hallmann, K.; Zehrer, A.; Müller, S. Perceived destination image: An image model for a winter sports
destination and its effect on intention to revisit. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 94–106. [CrossRef]
27. Stylidis, D.; Shani, A.; Belhassen, Y. Testing an integrated destination image model across residents and
tourists. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 184–195. [CrossRef]
28. Moreno Gil, S.; Ritchie, B.J.; Almeida-Santana, A. Museum tourism in Canary Islands: Assessing image
perception of Directors and Visitors. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 2019, 1–20. [CrossRef]
29. Phelps, A. Holiday destination image—The problem of assessment: An example developed in Menorca.
Tour. Manag. 1986, 7, 168–180. [CrossRef]
30. de Souza, A.G.; de Farias, S.A.; de Brito, M.P. Cultural dimensions and image: An essay on the impacts of
masculinity and individualism on the interpretation of the sustainability of tourism destinations. Rev. Bras.
Pesqui. Em Tur. 2014, 8, 238–260.
31. Baloglu, S.; McCleary, K.W. A model of destination image formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897.
[CrossRef]
32. Wehrli, R.; Priskin, J.; Schaffner, D.; Schwarz, J.; Stettler, J. Do Sustainability Experienced Travellers Prefer a More
Rational Communication of the Sustainability of a Tourism Product; Hochschule Luzern-Wirtschaft, ITW Institut
für Tourismuswirtschaft: Luzern, Switzerland, 2013.
33. Li, M.; Cai, L.A.; Lehto, X.Y.; Huang, J. A missing link in understanding revisit intention—The role of
motivation and image. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 335–348. [CrossRef]
34. Crompton, J.L. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 408–424. [CrossRef]
35. Dann, G.M. Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1977, 4, 184–194. [CrossRef]
36. Baloglu, S. A path analytic model of visitation intention involving information sources, socio-psychological
motivations, and destination image. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2000, 8, 81–90. [CrossRef]
37. Bieger, T.; Laesser, C. Market segmentation by motivation: The case of Switzerland. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41,
68–76. [CrossRef]
38. Chen, G.; Bao, J.; Huang, S. Segmenting Chinese backpackers by travel motivations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014,
16, 355–367. [CrossRef]
39. Sung, Y.K.; Chang, K.C.; Sung, Y.F. Market segmentation of international tourists based on motivation to
travel: A case study of Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 862–882. [CrossRef]
40. Park, D.B.; Yoon, Y.S. Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tour. Manag. 2009,
30, 99–108. [CrossRef]
41. Awaritefe, O.D. Destination environment quality and tourists’ spatial behaviour in Nigeria: A case study of
third world tropical Africa. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2003, 5, 251–268. [CrossRef]
42. Awaritefe, O.D. Destination image differences between prospective and actual tourists in Nigeria. J. Vacat.
Mark. 2004, 10, 264–281. [CrossRef]
43. Keng, K.A.; Cheng, J.L.L. Determining tourist role typologies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers.
J. Travel Res. 1999, 37, 382–390. [CrossRef]
44. De Mooij, M.; Hofstede, G. Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review of research findings. J. Int. Consum.
Mark. 2011, 23, 181–192.
45. Almeida-Santana, A.; Moreno-Gil, S.; Boza-Chirino, J. The paradox of cultural and media convergence.
Segmenting the European tourist market by information sources and motivations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 20,
613–625. [CrossRef]
46. Budeva, D.G.; Mullen, M.R. International market segmentation: Economics, national culture and time. Eur. J.
Mark. 2014, 48, 1209–1238. [CrossRef]
47. Tkaczynski, A.; Rundle-Thiele, S.R.; Beaumont, N. Segmentation: A tourism stakeholder view. Tour. Manag.
2009, 30, 169–175. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 11 of 12

48. Hofstede, G. Culture and organizations. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 1980, 10, 15–41. [CrossRef]
49. Crotts, J.C.; Erdmann, R. Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel services? A test of
Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2000, 10, 410–419. [CrossRef]
50. Hudson, S.; Wang, Y.; Gil, S.M. The influence of a film on destination image and the desire to travel:
A cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 13, 177–190. [CrossRef]
51. Muskat, B.; Muskat, M.; Richardson, A. How do Europeans travel in Australia? Examining cultural
convergence in travel behaviour. J. Vacat. Mark. 2014, 20, 55–64. [CrossRef]
52. Thrane, C.; Farstad, E. Nationality as a segmentation criterion in tourism research: The case of international
tourists’ expenditures while on trips in Norway. Tour. Econ. 2012, 18, 203–217. [CrossRef]
53. Frías, D.M.; Rodríguez, M.A.; Alberto Castañeda, J.; Sabiote, C.M.; Buhalis, D. The formation of a tourist
destination’s image via information sources: The moderating effect of culture. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2012, 14,
437–450. [CrossRef]
54. Kim, B. Prideaux Marketing implications arising from a comparative study of international pleasure tourist
motivations and other travel-related characteristics of visitors to Korea. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 347–357.
[CrossRef]
55. Kozak, M. Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities.
Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 391–401. [CrossRef]
56. Andersen, O.; Øian, H.; Aas, Ø.; Tangeland, T. Affective and cognitive dimensions of ski destination images.
The case of Norway and the Lillehammer region. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 18, 113–131. [CrossRef]
57. de la Hoz-Correa, A.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. The role of information sources and image on the intention to visit a
medical tourism destination: A cross-cultural analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 204–219. [CrossRef]
58. Ko, S.; Lee, T.; Yoon, H.; Kwon, J.; Mather, M. How does context affect assessments of facial emotion? The
role of culture and age. Psychol. Aging 2011, 26, 48. [CrossRef]
59. Lee, G.; Lee, C.K. Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived by Korean and Japanese leisure
travelers: Importance–performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 922–931. [CrossRef]
60. Min, K.S.; Martin, D.; Jung, J.M. Designing advertising campaigns for destinations with mixed images: Using
visitor campaign goal messages to motivate visitors. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 759–764. [CrossRef]
61. Obenour, W.; Lengfelder, J.; Groves, D. The development of a destination through the image assessment of
six geographic markets. J. Vacat. Mark. 2005, 11, 107–119. [CrossRef]
62. Agarwal, J.; Malhotra, N.K.; Bolton, R.N. A cross-national and cross-cultural approach to global market
segmentation: An application using consumers’ perceived service quality. J. Int. Mark. 2010, 18, 18–40.
[CrossRef]
63. Cleveland, M.; Papadopoulos, N.; Laroche, M. Identity, demographics, and consumer behaviors: International
market segmentation across product categories. Int. Mark. Rev. 2011, 28, 244–266. [CrossRef]
64. Baloglu, S. The relationship between destination images and sociodemographic and trip characteristics of
international travellers. J. Vacat. Mark. 1997, 3, 221–233. [CrossRef]
65. Calantone, R.; Di Benetton, C.; Hakam, A.; Bojanic, D. Multiple multinational tourism positioning using
correspondence analysis. J. Travel Res. 1989, 28, 25–32. [CrossRef]
66. World Tourism Organization. International Tourism Highlights, 2019 ed. UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
[CrossRef]
67. Bramwell, B. Mass Tourism, Diversification and Sustainability in Southern Europe’s Coastal Regions.
In Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe; Bramwell, B., Ed.;
Channel View: Bristol, UK, 2004; pp. 1–31.
68. Jimenez, F.; García Quesada, M.; Villoria, M. Corruption in Paradise: The puzzling case of Lanzarote.
In Proceedings of the XXII Pisa World Congress of Political Science, Canary Islands, Spain, 9 July 2012.
69. Santana-Talavera, A.; Fernández-Betancort, H. Times of Tourism: Development and Sustainability in
Lanzarote, Spain. In Tourism as an Instrument for Development: A Theoretical and Pracitcal Study; Fayos-Solà, E.,
Ed.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2014; pp. 241–264.
70. Eckert, C.; Pechlaner, H. Alternative product development as strategy towards sustainability in tourism:
The case of Lanzarote. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3588. [CrossRef]
71. González-Morales, O.; Talavera, A. CSR as a strategy for public-private relationships in protected island
territories: Fuerteventura, Canary Islands. Isl. Stud. J. 2019, 14. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6466 12 of 12

72. Pérez, F.; Martín, R.; Trujillo, F.; Díaz, M.; Mouhaffel, A. Consumption and Emissions Analysis in Domestic
Hot Water Hotels. Case Study: Canary Islands. Sustainability 2019, 11, 599. [CrossRef]
73. Uche-Soria, M.; Rodríguez-Monroy, C. An Efficient Waste-To-Energy Model in Isolated Environments.
Case Study: La Gomera (Canary Islands). Sustainability 2019, 11, 3198. [CrossRef]
74. Fodness, D. Measuring tourist motivation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1994, 21, 555–581. [CrossRef]
75. Hair, J.; Babin, B.; Money, A.; Samouel, P. Fundamentos de Métodos de Pesquisa em Administração; Bookman
Companhia Ed: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2005.
76. Meyers, L.S.; Gamst, G.; Guarino, A.J. Data screening. In Applied Multivariate Research-Design and Interpretation;
SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2006.
77. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: A quantitative
analysis—A case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 623–636. [CrossRef]
78. Chen, R.S.; Tsai, C.C. Gender differences in Taiwan university students’ attitudes toward web-based learning.
Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 645–654. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Whang, H.; Yong, S.; Ko, E. Pop culture, destination images, and visit intentions: Theory and research on
travel motivations of Chinese and Russian tourists. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 631–641. [CrossRef]
80. Marine-Roig, E.; Ferrer-Rosell, B. Measuring the gap between projected and perceived destination images of
Catalonia using compositional analysis. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 236–249. [CrossRef]
81. Lian, T.; Yu, C. Impacts of online images of a tourist destination on tourist travel decision. Tour. Geogr. 2019,
1–30. [CrossRef]
82. Hernández-Mogollón, J.; Duarte, P.; Folgado-Fernández, J. The contribution of cultural events to the formation
of the cognitive and affective images of a tourist destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 170–178.
[CrossRef]
83. Hanna, P.; Font, X.; Scarles, C.; Weeden, C.; Harrison, C. Tourist destination marketing: From sustainability
myopia to memorable experiences. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 36–43. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).