Content area
Full Text
Abstract
This paper, continuing from Pike (2002), and Stepchenkova and Mills (2010), reviews 177 articles published between 2008 and 2012 about destination image. The major characteristics of these articles are highlighted to show the development of destination image studies. Two broad categories of destination image studies (i.e. perceived image, and projected image) are discussed separately. It is hoped that researchers of the following period can find some suggestions to locate their studies in this very popular body of research.
© 2014 International University College. All rights reserved
Keywords: academic articles; destination image; perceived image; projected image; Google search engine
Introduction
In the early 1970s, when John Hunt (1971, 1975), Clare Gunn (1972), and Edward Mayo (1973) introduced the concept of image into tourism study (see in Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010; Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008), would they foresee the popularity of this body of research after forty years? Indeed, they have contributed to the field one of the most "prevalent" (Pike, 2002, p.541), and widely recognized (Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010), topics.
Many attempts have been made since then to capture the development of tourism destination image studies (e.g. Chon, 1990; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Gallarza, Saura & García, 2002; Pike, 2002; Tasci, Gartner & Cavusgil, 2007; Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010). Chronologically, two reviews conducted by Pike (2002), and Stepchenkova and Mills (2010) have done the work for the period from 1973 to 2007. Following Pike, and Stepchenkova and Mills, the current review intends to summarise the articles in the period of 2008-2012. It is necessary to conduct this review in order to understand the recent development of studies on tourism destination image, and to show fellow researchers where they can find their originality. Thus, the two major questions addressed in this study are: (1) what are the characteristics of destination image studies in 2008-2012?, and (2) what can fellow researchers learn from previous studies?
However, before moving to the discussion of the methods and findings of this study, it is necessary to start with a note on the review methodology. Whereas Pike (2002) titled his paper "review" or "synthesis," Stepchenkova and Mills (2010) named their work "meta- analysis." Thus, a question arises: why the two previous literature reviews had been treated as if they...