A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TOURISM DESTINATION ...

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TOURISM DESTINATION 

COMPETITIVENESS AND ATTRACTIVENESS 

Sebastian Vengesayi 

Monash University 

Track: Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory 

Abstract 

This conceptual paper proposes that the popularity of tourism destinations can be 

enhanced by a combination of the factors of competitiveness and attractiveness. The 

competitiveness elements are derived from the supply side and the attractiveness from 

the demand side of tourism. The purpose of combining these perspectives is to come 

up with a holistic understanding of the destination popularity dynamics. The input of 

both tourists and tourist facility operators is necessary for any destination to manage 

and enhance its competitive advantage. Tourism researchers have investigated 

destination attractiveness and destination competitiveness as separate and unrelated 

concepts. This paper proposes that the evaluation of tourism destinations can be 

approached by symmetrically conceptualising destination attractiveness and 

destination competitiveness as related and complementary dimensions. This approach 

allows comparisons to be made about the congruency between what the destination 

invest in and what customers are looking for in a destination. 

Introduction 

Traditionally, destinations have responded to a decline in visitor numbers by 

increasing their marketing expenditure (Buhalis 2000; Ritchie and Crouch 1993). This 

strategy seems not to be working as more and more destinations are spending more on 

marketing, with limited results. In the new millennium, tourism has become the most 

important economic activity on a worldwide scale (World Tourism Organisation 

2003a). International arrivals have, in 2002, for the first time in history reached the 

700 million mark (World Tourism Organisation 2003a). The contribution of the travel 

and tourism industry to the world economy is significant. Although the growth in 

global tourism appears to continue at rates comparable to other industries, tourism is 

in a mature stage leading to increasing competition among destinations (Buhalis 2000; 

Morgan et al. 2002b). 

Morgan et.al. point out that 70% of all tourists visit the ten major world tourist 

destinations, leaving the rest of the world sharing the remaining 30% of tourists 

(2002b). This indicates the intensity of competition for the other less known 

destinations. For the tourism industry to be profitable industry now and in the long 

term, its development and management should be according to a new competitiveness 

paradigm(Ritchie and Crouch 1993). Competitiveness is now widely accepted as the 

most important factor determining the long term success of organisations, industries, 

regions and countries (Kozak and Rimmington 1999). 

In the past destinations believed that it was enough to have only the tourists and 

destination resources and low salaries, attractive exchange rates etc. for them to 

compete and be successful in the international tourism industry (Bordas 1994). This 

approach gave rise to the formulation and implementation of strategies and policies 

ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December 2003 637

that aimed mainly at stimulating tourist volumes. In most cases results have not been 

as expected, leading to questioning of this strategy. Empirical evidence has shown 

that to secure long-term profits and continued patronage, it is essential to have 

competitive advantages (Poon 1993). 

A destination, according to the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary is defined as ‘the 

place to which a person or thing is going, the intended end of a journey.’ However 

when applied to the tourism context, authors have offered different perspectives of 

what constitutes a tourism destination. For example, Buhalis, (2000) defines 

destinations as places that offer an amalgam of tourism products and services, which 

are consumed under a brand name of the destination. He argues that ‘they are well 

defined geographical regions, understood by visitors as unique entities with a core of 

six main provisions, i.e. attractions, accessibility, available packages activities and 

ancillary services. Other definitions have also been proposed by Leiper (1990; 1995) 

and Hu and Ritchie (1993). The World Tourism Organisation recently defined a 

destination as “..a physical space in which visitors spend at least one night and is 

made up of tourism products such as support services and attractions, and tourism 

resources with physical and administrative boundaries that define its management, 

images/ perceptions of market competitiveness” (World Tourism Organisation 

2003b). 

Destination Attractiveness 

The attractiveness of a destination reflects the feelings and opinions of its visitors 

about the destination’s perceived ability to satisfy their needs. The more a destination 

is able to meet the needs of the tourists, the more it is perceived to be attractive and 

the more the destination is likely to be chosen. Mayo and Jarvis (1980), define 

attractiveness as, ‘the perceived ability of the destination to deliver individual 

benefits’. This ability is enhanced by the attributes of a destination, i.e. those 

components that makeup a destination. This is a demand side perspective of the 

destination. The importance of these attributes help people to evaluate the 

attractiveness of a destination and make relevant choices. 

The attractiveness of a tourist destination encourages people to visit and spend time at 

the destination. Therefore the major value of destination attractiveness is the pulling 

effect it has on tourists. Without the attractiveness, tourism does not exist and there 

could be little or no need for tourist facilities and services. It is only when people are 

attracted to a destination that facilities and services follow (Ferrario 1979b). 

Destination competitiveness 

“Competitive strategy is the search for a favourable competitive position in an 

industry. It aims to establish a profitable and sustainable position against the forces 

that determine industry competition” (Porter 1985). The search for the forces and 

factors that determine the competitiveness of the tourism industry is an area that has 

not been fully explored (Dwyer et al. 2003a). In tourism context, the concept of 

competitiveness has been applied to different settings. Various authors have linked 

competitiveness to economics, marketing and strategic perspectives, price, quality and 

satisfaction. 

A destination can be said to be competitive if its market share, measured by visitor 

numbers and financial returns are increasing (Hassan 2000). This approach supports 

the widely held view that competitiveness should be linked to high visitor numbers 

and increasing destination income. Recent studies have shown that growth in tourism 

Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 638

often crowds out other economic activities, hence tourism simply replaces the 

industries that have been there before, to other researchers (Buhalis 2000), destination 

competitiveness is linked to the economic prosperity of the residents of the country. 

Because of the multifaceted nature of the tourism industry and the diversity of the 

industries that are involved in making destinations competitive, it is important to look 

beyond inter firm rivalry (Hassan 2000). Destination competitiveness could be 

associated with the ability to deliver an experience that is more satisfying than that 

offered by other destinations. 

Pearce (1997) posit destination competitiveness as the techniques and methods that 

can be used to analyse and compare the diverse attributes of destinations in the 

context of planning. The evaluation of the major destination components can provide 

a better understanding of the competitiveness of such destinations. Competitiveness in 

tourism destinations has also been discussed from an environmental perspective 

(Mihalic 2000). 

Destination Attractiveness/Competitiveness link 

Competitiveness and attractiveness view destinations from two different perspectives 

(Buhalis 2001), one from the tourist perspective (attractiveness), and the other from 

the destination perspective (competitiveness). Dual analyses of these two concepts 

provide a holistic perspective of the Tourist Destination Competitiveness and 

Attractiveness (TDCA) dynamics. TDCA is defined as the ability of a destination to 

provide social, physical and economic benefits to the destination population as well as 

a satisfying experience to the tourist. Studies of destination attractiveness have 

centred on the needs of the tourists and what attracts them to various destinations 

(Formica 2001; Hu and Ritchie 1993) while those on destination competitiveness 

have focused on the ability of organisations to produce products that are accepted 

internationally (Kozak and Rimmington 1999; Newall 1992). These two concepts 

have not been analysed together and empirically tested. This conceptual paper 

attempts to address this link between tourism demand and supply. The proposed 

model is shown in Figure 1. The TDCA model proposes that destination supply 

factors and tourist demand factors help in creating an environment in which tourism 

flourish and can be consumed satisfactorily. The ‘destination experience 

environment’ is proposed to be positively related to and as the most important factor 

in determining TDCA, enhanced by (a) availability of attractions and mix of activities 

and (b) the supporting factors. Reputation, branding and the trip cost are proposed to 

moderate the relationship. 

In the following sections a discussion of the salient features of the proposed model 

and the hypothesised relationships is provided. 

Attractions and Mix of Activities 

Attractions are the primary elements of destination appeal. They are the key 

motivators for visitation to a destination (Crouch and Ritchie 1999). They are the 

fundamental reasons why prospective visitors choose one destination over another. 

Researchers have grouped, classified and categorised attractions differently. Goeldner 

et al (2000) categorised attractions into five main groups; cultural, natural, events, 

recreation and entertainment (page 217). The range of activities within a destination is 

an important pull factor and represents some of the most critical aspects of destination 

appeal. Moreover destination managers have significant control and influence over 

the mix of activities. The mix of activities is a result of initiatives and creativities by 

the destination. The activities are important as tourists increasingly seek ‘experiences 


that go beyond the more passive visitation practices of the past’ (Crouch and Ritchie 

1999). The variety of the attractions and the mix of activities offer the tourist a wide 

choice and ultimately they stay longer. This leads to Proposition 1: 

P1. The destination’s mix of tourist activities and attractions is related to its 

attractiveness and competitiveness 

Supporting Facilities 

These are the facilities that exert a secondary effect on the motivation to travel eg. 

Accommodation transport infrastructure and services, energy etc. Facilities provide 

the foundation upon which a tourist industry is based (Crouch and Ritchie 1999). The 

attractiveness of a destination is enhanced by its ability to provide facilities that 

tourists can use at the destination. Competitiveness of a destination is achieved when 

the provision of services and facilities are competitive against alternative destinations. 

Tourism support services are varied and depend on the type of destination and the 

objectives of the Destination Management Organisation (DMO). The DMO 

contributes to the attractiveness and competitiveness of a destination through the 

strategic decisions like the type of destination they want to be the level and range of 

facilities that should be available and the regulation of operators. This leads to 

Proposition 2: 

P2. The range and level of destination supporting facilities and the management 

abilities of the DMO is associated with its attractiveness and competitiveness. 

Intrinsic destination resources & 

Mix of Activities 

Experience Environment: 

Physical and Social; 

Crowding, Safety and 

Security, Human 

resources, competition, 

Supporting Services: Venues, 

Accommodation, Transport, Energy 

cooperation 

Figure 1: The proposed conceptual model of TDCA 

Communication/Promotion 

Reputation, Branding, 

Pricing, 

Competitiveness 

Unique destination 

Brand 

Attractiveness 

Experience Environment 

The place in which the experience is enjoyed has been defined as the environment in 

which the service is assembled and the firm and customer interact (Baker et al. 1992). 

Both the physical and social environments are important for the acceptability and 

Destination image 

Tourist satisfaction 

Organisational 

performance 


satisfaction of the consumer. The environment in which a service is provided in terms 

of both the physical and the social element has been termed the servicescape (Bitner 

1992). The experience (service) environment (Clarke and Schmidt 1995) consists of 

four elements: the physical facility, the location, ambience and interpersonal 

conditions. The service environment is postulated to impact on the behaviour of an 

individual in three ways: cognitively, physiologically and affectively. Kotler (1973) 

defined atmospherics (experience environment) as the designing of buying and 

consumption environments to produce specific emotional effects in the consumer that 

enhance and maintain purchase probability. Atmospherics are perceived through our 

five senses. 

TDCA the experience environment 

Consumer behaviour and tourism literature suggest that the environment, both 

physical and social, is an integral part of the tourism experience and plays an 

important role in the attractiveness, satisfaction and competitiveness of a given 

destination. Further literature searches reveal that the destination environment is made 

up of various elements. The major elements that shape the destination environment 

include crowding, safety and security, human resources development, competition 

and cooperation. 

Crowding is an environmental characteristic that has a significant effect on human 

behaviour and social interaction. It reduces the freedom of movement and goal 

achievement. Crowding affects consumers in both psychological and physiological 

ways. In tourism both the physical and social environment play a major role in the 

attractiveness and competitiveness of a destination, culminating in tourist satisfaction. 

Human resources development has been identified as the most single-important issue 

facing world tourism in the 2000s, (Esichaikul and Baum 1998). The availability of 

adequately and professionally trained staff is an essential component of today’s 

destinations. Well-trained personnel are required in all service establishments at a 

destination (Briguglio and Vella 1995). However, because the quality of customer 

experience in tourism is human resource based, a destination’s ability to develop 

sufficient human resources should be seen as a competitive advantage (Baum 1994a; 

Conlin and Titcombe 1995). 

Tourism and the physical environment are inseparable companions, as most 

destinations are based on the natural attractions. The management of the environment 

is one of the most important issues facing the world at the moment (Middleton and 

Hawkins 1998). Though some scholars have criticised this relationship, (Butler 2000) 

there is no doubt that tourism and the environment are in a complex relationship. The 

quality of the environment is related to the attractiveness of a destination. Mihalic 

(2000) posits that a well-managed destination environment is the best destination 

advertiser. 

Peace, safety, and security are primary requirements for growth, attractiveness and 

competitiveness of tourism destinations. Without safety destinations cannot 

successfully compete on the generating markets as potential tourists do not want to 

visit a place that they perceive as unsafe, (Cavlek 2002). Safety and security has been 

identified as one of the five global forces that would drive the tourism industry in the 

new millennium (Chiang 2000), and is an important consideration in tourist 

destination choice (Sonmez and Graefe 1998b). Recent acts of terrorism and crimes in 

the USA, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are examples of how sensitive the tourism 

industry is to any form of violence. 


Political violence has affected tourism the world over, for example Egypt, Israel, and 

Peru where political instability adversely affected tourist perceptions of these 

destinations. Safety concerns causes a decline in tourist arrivals, reduce tourists 

expenditures and can cause a downturn in local travel. The safety and security of a 

destination therefore plays a role in determining the level of attractiveness. 

The competitive advantage and collaborative advantage paradigms have dominated 

management and marketing theory, research and practice as alternatives. The 

competitive advantage enables a firm to compete and perform better than competition 

(Day and Wensley 1988; Porter 1985). The alternative model, the 

collaborative/cooperative model enables firms to enhance their performance through 

strategic collaboration (Contractor and Lorange 1988; Neilsen 1987). 

Various actions have been debated about how firms can compete and corresponding 

strategies put forward. For instance product/service innovations, entry barriers, 

marketing and promotion campaigns and competitive rivalry among others, have been 

identified as drivers of competition in an industry. Early economists suggested that 

competition in an industry is ruinous (Jones 1920) especially if it is solely based on 

price. Extending this view, competition within a destination can be ruinous if it is 

solely based on price-cutting. 

The advantages that cooperative agreements provide for organisations have been well 

documented. Close relationships with suppliers and customers can provide firms with 

a very important source of innovation, costs reduction (Hagen and Soonkyoo 1998; 

Ring and Van de ven 1992). Lado, Boyd and Hanlon (1997) suggest that 

organisations can enhance their performance through competition and cooperation 

simultaneously. They argue that for firms to enhance their competitiveness they need 

to “adopt a repertoires of behaviour that support cooperation and trust” (pg 111). 

Thus cooperation can enhance the competitiveness of an organisation, for example 

Toyota’s cooperation with its suppliers and the cooperation between Ford and Mazda. 

In their Syncretic Model, Lado, Boyd and Hanlon (1997) proposed that organisations 

could generate long-term performance by simultaneously competing and cooperation. 

Striking a balance between competition and cooperation is vital to the performance 

and survival of organisations (Jorde and Teece 1989). Firms within a destination need 

to cooperate and compete against other destination. 

The destination environment is the most important factor in TDCA. The components 

of the destination environment can either enhance or destroy the destination. As an 

experience product, tourists requires an environment that is safe, with employees that 

are customer and service focussed, enhanced by close cooperation by businesses 

within the destination. A conducive destination environment is vital for visitors to 

enjoy and be satisfied with the tourist experience. This leads us to Propositions 3 and 

4: 

P3. The destination environment composed of crowding, safety, skilled human 

resources and the level of cooperation and competition within the destination. 

P4. The environment in which tourist product is experienced, is related to the 

attractiveness and competitiveness of destinations. 

Communication and Promotion 

Branding of destinations enable tourists to identify a destination and differentiate it 

from competitive offerings. Destination branding also acts as a cue for the 

communication of benefits to the tourist. The brand acts as a shorthand device for 

communicating functional and emotional benefits (de Chernatony and McDonald 

1998). As such, it can quicken the destination choice decision process. Branding 


signals the level and performance of tourism destination quality to the tourist 

(D'Hauteserre 2001). Reputable brands provide reassurance or a guarantee' of 

performance delivery. 

Until recently there has been little study on the concept of corporate reputation. 

Reputation has been looked at from various and different theoretical perspectives; 

strategic management, marketing, sociology and economics (Ashforth and Mael 1989; 

Keller 1993; Rindova and Fombrun 1999; Sabate and Puente 2003; Weigelt and 

Camerer 1988). An understanding of the concept of reputation is important to both 

destination organisations and consumers in that ‘reputation not only gives information 

as to the past behaviour of the firm, but also guarantees it’ (Sabate and Puente 2003). 

Fombrun (1996) emphasises that reputation represents the emotional reaction and 

involves the overall estimation in which stakeholders hold an organisation, the extant 

to which the organisation is known; good or bad, reliable, trustworthy, reputable and 

believable (Caruana and Chircop 2000), while Weigelt and Camerer (1988) emphasis 

that reputation is a result of past actions. Reputation is defined as a set of economic 

and non-economic attributes ascribed to an organisation and inferred from the 

organisation’s past behaviour. Therefore reputation can be viewed as a global 

perception of the extant to which the organisation is held in high esteem or regard and 

has serious ramifications for destination visitation choice. Reputation has been 

scarcely applied to the tourism industry but has an important role to play in 

moderating the relationship between tourists and the travel destinations. To tourists 

visiting a reputable destination guarantees the quality of experience that they would 

enjoy, from the past performance of the destination. Tourists value their associations 

with high reputation organisations. To the destination, owning a positive reputation 

could mean increased visitation and longer length of stay for the visitors. Positive 

reputation is a source of competitive advantage (Roberts and Dowling 2002), and help 

to fight competition. Reputation is also related to the financial performance of a firm 

(Whetten 1999). 

The costs involved in holidaying are a determinant of how well the destination 

performs in world markets and thus determine the competitiveness of the destination. 

Travelling cost money and tourists are only keen to pay for an experience that they 

believe is worthwhile 

The cost of the tourism experience to the visitor includes the cost of transport services 

to and from the destination and the cost of the ground component i.e. accommodation 

food, beverages, tour services. It is accepted that travellers are price sensitive (Crouch 

1992). Price competitiveness has been defined as the destination price differentials 

coupled with exchange rate movements, productivity levels of various components of 

the tourist industry and qualitative factors affecting the attractiveness of a destination 

(Dwyer et al. 2000). 

Various studies have been sought to explain the effect of prices on tourism demand 

(Crouch 1992), but little on the role of prices on the competitiveness of destinations. 

The competitiveness of destinations have been said to be determined by the exchange 

rates, thus attempting to determine costs by the exchange rate of two countries, 

(Dwyer et al. 2000). The price competitiveness of the touristic products purchased by 

visitors is exchange rate determined (Dwyer et al. 2002a), the weaker the destination 

country’s exchange rate against the source market the more competitive the 

destination becomes. The seasonality nature of the tourism industry affects the price 

competitiveness of a destination. Tourist taxes charged by the host government also 

impact on the prices paid by the tourists. 


Nevertheless the price tourists pay to visit and enjoy a destination experience has a 

role to play in determining the choice travellers make. TDCA is determined by both 

price and non-price factors. Given the evidence of price sensitivity of the travel 

demand, destinations need to monitor their price competitiveness relative to 

alternative destinations. Proposition 5 is derived, hence. 

P5. The ability of a destination to attract visitors and compete internationally is 

associated with its reputation and image and is moderated by the perceived cost of 

the experience. 

Outcomes of TDCA 

Pizam, Neumann and Reichel (1978) defined tourist satisfaction as ‘ the result of the 

interaction between a tourist’s experience at the destination area and the expectations 

he had about the destination’ based on the Expectations-disconfirmation paradigm. 

Tourist satisfaction is central in destinations as it determines tourist’s intention to 

revisit and recommend the destination to friends and relatives. Pizam and Ellis 

(1999), argue that tourist satisfaction can be used to measure competitive strengths 

and weaknesses by determining tourist perceptions of competitive choices. 

Destination attractiveness is related to perceived satisfaction (Ferrario 1979a; Pizam 

et al. 1978). 

Tourist destination image’s (TDI) importance is universally acknowledged as it affect 

people’s subjective perception, behaviour and the choice of a destination (Walmsley 

and Young 1998). Destination image is related to destination selection intention and 

tourist satisfaction. As such, image refers to the perceptions of tourists at a destination 

and these correspond to the perceived contribution of the different tourism services 

available, and consequently the destination experience. TDI is also related to 

destination positioning, competitive and strategic image (Ahmed and Krohn 1990) 

and is thus a concept that can help to explain competitiveness in tourism. 

Strategic management literature abounds with organisational performance measures 

like profitability, return on investment, return on assets, productivity of human 

resources, there has been a limited success in the attempt to come up with the 

measures of destination performance. For the overall destination performance, various 

statistical measures have been proposed. For example, total arrivals and the associated 

measures like the visitors (a) growth rate, average length of stay; (b) total destination 

and (c) employment created as measures of TDCA. More meaningful measures like 

net tourism receipts and the per capita net tourism receipts have also been proposed 

(Jayawardema and Ramajeesingh 2003). 

Conclusion 

Though there have been advances in modelling competitiveness in tourism there is 

little empirical evidence to support the models proposed by researchers. More 

importantly the dual perspective of TDCA has not been explored. The symmetrical 

approach to tourism destination evaluation should be a starting point in harmonising 

the interests of the destination as well as those of the tourists. The results of such an 

approach could be used to sell the destination interests to visitors as well as the 

interests of visitors to the destination operators. Researchers now need to move from 

conceptual to empirical validation of the proposed models. Initially the challenge 

should be to investigate the relationship between the identified variables and how 

strongly they influence the attractiveness and competitiveness of tourism destinations. 

The proposed model, as shown in Figure 1 can be tested using Structural Equation 


Modelling or Path Modelling to allow for the identification of both direct and indirect 

effects. 

References 

Ahmed, Zafar U and Franklin B Krohn (1990), "Reversing the USA Declining 

competitiveness in the marketing of International Tourism: A perspective on 

future policy.," Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 23-29. 

Ashforth, Blake and Fred Mael (1989), "Social identity theory and the organisation," 

Academy of Management Journal, 14 (1), 20-40. 

Baker, J, D Grewal, and A Parasuraman (1992), "An Experimental approach to 

making retail store environmental decisions," Journal of Retailing, 68 (4), 445- 

63. 

Baum, Tom (1994a), "Managing the development and implementation of national 

human resource policies for tourism," in Tourism: the state of the art, A V 

Seaton, Ed. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. 

Bitner, Mary J (1992), "The impact of physical surroundings on customers and 

Employees," Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 57-71. 

Bordas, Eulogio (1994), "Competitiveness of tourist destinations in long distance 

markets," Tourism Review, 4 (3), 3-9. 

Briguglio, Lino and Leslie Vella (1995), "The competitiveness of the Maltese Islands 

in the Mediterranean International Tourism," in Island Tourism: Management 

Principles and Practice, Michael V Conlin and Tom Baum, Eds. Brisbane: John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Buhalis, Dimitrios (2000), "Marketing the competitive destination of the future," 

Tourism Management, 21 (1), 97-116. 

---- (2001), "Tourism in Greece: Strategic Analysis and Challenges," Current Issues in 

Tourism, 4 (3), 440-80. 

Butler, Richard (2000), "Tourism and the environment: a geographical perspective," 

Tourism Geographies, 2 (3), 337-58. 

Caruana, Albert and Saviour Chircop (2000), "Measuring Corporate Reputation: A 

Case Example," Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (1), 43-57. 

Cavlek, Nevenka (2002), "Tour operators and destination safety," Annals of Tourism 

Research, 29 (2), 478-96. 

Chiang, Leong Choon (2000), "Strategies for safety and security in tourism: A 

conceptual framework for the Singapore hotel industry," The Journal of Tourism 

Studies, 11 (2), 44-52. 

Clarke, Ian and Ruth A. Schmidt (1995), "Beyond the Servicescape: The experience 

of place," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2 (3), 149-62. 

Conlin, Michael V and J Alex Titcombe (1995), "Human Resources: a strategic 

Imperative for Caribbean Tourism, in," in Island Tourism: Management 

Principles and Practice, Conlin Michael V and Tom Baum, Eds. Brisbane: John 

Wiley and Son. 

Contractor, F L and P Lorange (1988), "Why should Firm cooperate? The strategy 

and economics basis for cooperative ventures," in Cooperative strategies in 

international business. Lexington MA: Lexington Books. 

Crouch, Geoffery I (1992), "Effect of Income and Price on international tourism," 

Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4), 643-64. 


Crouch, Geoffery I and Brent J R Ritchie (1999), "Tourism. Competitiveness, and 

Societal Prosperity.," Journal of Business Research, 44, 137-52. 

Day, George S. and Robin Wensley (1988), "Assessing Advantage: A framework for 

Diagnosing Competitive Advantage," Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 1-20. 

de Chernatony, Leslie and Malcolm McDonald (1998), Creating powerful brands in 

consumer, service and industrial markets. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Butterworth 

Heinemann. 

D'Hauteserre, Annie-Marie (2001), "Destination Branding in a Hostile Environment," 

Journal of Travel Research, 39 (February), 300-07. 

Dwyer, Larry, Peter Forsyth, and Prasada Rao (2002a), "Destination Price 

Competitiveness: Exchange Rate Changes versus Domestic Inflation," Journal 

of Travel Research, 40 (February), 328-36. 

---- (2000), "The Price competitiveness of travel and tourism: a comparison of 19 

destinations," Tourism Management, 21, 9-22. 

Dwyer, Larry, Zelko Livaic, and Robert Mellor (2003a), "Competitiveness of 

Australia as a Tourist Destination," Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 

Management, 10 (1), 60-78. 

Esichaikul, Ranee and Tom Baum (1998), "The case for government involvement in 

human resources development: A study of the Thai hotel industry," Tourism 

Management, 19 (4), 359-70. 

Ferrario, F (1979a), "The evaluation of Tourist resources: An Applied Methodology 

(Part 1)," Journal of Travel Research, 17 (3), 18-22. 

---- (1979b), "The evaluation of Tourist Resources: An Applied Research (Part 2)," 

Journal of Travel Research, 17 (4), 24-30. 

Formica, Sandro (2001), "Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A proposed 

Framework," in International Business Conference. Miami, Florida: TTRA. 

Hagen, James M and Choe Soonkyoo (1998), "Trust in Japanese interfirm relations: 

Institutional sanctions matter," Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 589- 

600. 

Hassan, Salah S (2000), "Determinants of Market competitiveness in an 

environmentally sustainable tourism Industry," Journal of Travel Research, 38 

(February), 239-45. 

Hu, Yangzhou and Brent J R Ritchie (1993), "Measuring destination attractiveness: A 

contextual approach," Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 25-34. 

Jayawardema, Chandana and Diaram Ramajeesingh (2003), "Performance of tourism 

analysis: a Caribbean perspective," International Journal of Contemporary 

Hospitality Management, 15 (3), 176-79. 

Jones, Eliot (1920), "Is competition in Industry ruinous," The Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, 34 (3), 473-519. 

Jorde, Thomas, M and David J Teece (1989), "Competition and cooperation: Striking 

the right balance," California Management Review, Spring, 25-37. 

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualising, Measuring, and Managing Customerbased 

Brand Equity," JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 57 (January), 1-22. 

Kozak, Metin and Mike Rimmington (1999), "Measuring tourist destination 

competitiveness: conceptual considerations and empirical findings," Hospitality 

Management, 18, 273-83. 

Middleton, Victor T C and Rebecca Hawkins (1998), Sustainable Tourism: A 

Marketing perspective. Melbourne, Australia: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Mihalic, Tanja (2000), "Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor 

of tourism competitiveness," Tourism Management, 21 (1), 65-78. 


Morgan, Nigel, Annette Pritchard, and Rachel Piggott (2002b), "New Zealand, 100% 

Pure. The creation of a powerful niche destination brand," Journal of brand 

management, 9 (4-5), 335-54. 

Neilsen, R.P (1987), "Cooperative strategy in Marketing," Business Horizons, July- 

August, 61-68. 

Newall, Lawrence W (1992), "The Challenge of Competitiveness.," Business 

Quarterly, 56, 94-100. 

Pizam, Abraham, Yoram Neumann, and Arie Reichel (1978), "Dimensions of tourist 

satisfaction with a Destination Area," Annals of Tourism Research, 5 (3), 314- 

22. 

Poon, A (1993), Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Oxon, UK: CAB 

International. 

Porter, Michael (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior 

Performance. New York: The Free Press. 

Rindova, Violina P and Charles J Fombrun (1999), "Constructing competitive 

advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions," Strategic Management 

Journal, 20, 691-710. 

Ring, Peter Smith and Andrew H Van de ven (1992), "Structuring Cooperative 

Relationships between Organisations," Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483- 

98. 

Ritchie, Brent J R and Geoffery I Crouch (1993), "Competitiveness in International 

Tourism: A Framework for Understanding and Analysis," in Proceedings of the 

43rd congress of the AIEST. San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina,. 

Roberts, Peter W and Grahame R Dowling (2002), "Corporate reputation and 

sustained superior financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, 23, 

1077-93. 

Sabate, Juan Manuel de la Fuente and Esther de Quevedo Puente (2003), "The 

concept and measurement of corporate reputation: An application to Spanish 

Financial Intermediaries," Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (4), 280-301. 

Sonmez, Sevil F and Alan R Graefe (1998b), "Influence of terrorism risk on foreign 

tourism decisions," Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1), 112-44. 

Walmsley, D J and M Young (1998), "Evaluating Images and tourism: the use of 

personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images," Journal of 

Travel Research, 36 (winter), 65-69. 

Weigelt, Keith and Colin Camerer (1988), "Reputation and corporate strategy: A 

review of recent theory and applications," Strategic Management Journal, 9, 

443-54. 

Whetten, David A (1999), "Theory development and the study of corporate 

reputation," Corporate Reputation Review, 2 (3), 25-34. 

World Tourism Organisation (2003a), "World tourism in 2002: Better than expected," 

Vol. 2003: WTO: www.worldtourism.org/newsroom/Releases/2003/jan/numbers2002. 

---- (2003b), "WTO Think Tank enthusiastically reaches consensus on frameworks 

for tourism destination success," Vol. 2003: WTO: www.worldtourism.org/education/news/news_releases/newsrelease_thinktank_pressrelease 

2htm.

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TOURISM DESTINATION ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?