Measuring the Identity of a Touristic Destination:

Designing a Scale according to Rossiter Paradigm

Yassine Chamsi

Teaching Assistant

MaPReCoB Research Unit

University of Sousse, Tunisia

yassinechamsi@ymail.com

Anissa Negra, PhD

Assistant Professor

MaPReCoB Research Unit

University of Sousse, Tunisia

anissanegra@gmail.com

Abdullah Al-Dharrab

Lecturer

Department of Marketing

College of Business Administration

King Saud University

aldarrab@gmail.com

Mohamed-Nabil Mzoughi, PhD

Professor

Department of Marketing

College of Business Administration

King Saud University

teachershello@yahoo.fr

  1  
 Measuring the Identity of a Touristic Destination:

Designing a Scale according to Rossiter Paradigm

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a destination identity scale.

Convergences between identity and related concepts, like image and personality, were identified.
The Rossiter’s C-OAR-SE procedure was applied.

Semi structured interviews have been done nearby 20 professionals and 19 tourists. The
qualitative software NVIVO 7 was used to analyze the interviews. 10 academicians, considered as
experts in tourism marketing, classified the different verbatim into eleven components from
which 8 items were selected according to the elimination criterion of Rossiter: sociopolitical
climate, nature, history, gastronomy, local population, price, culture, and professionalism. These
items constitute a measure scale of the touristic destination identity. 203 tourists answered the
questionnaire aiming to test this scale.

Keywords: Destination Identity, Destination Image, Destination Personality, C-OAR-SE.

  2  
Introduction: Identity is the destination essence and one of its crucial bases of communication,
strategic orientation and positioning (Mak, 2011; Konecnik and Go 2008; Hankinson, 2004; Cai,
2002). A little attention has been paid to the destination identity concept in marketing literature
(Russell et al., 2014; Anholt, 2008). There are often confusions between identity and related
concepts (Saraniemi, 2009; Rindell, 2008), like image (Ind, 1990) and personality (Morgan et al.,
2002).

The touristic destination is always considered as a brand (Pike, 2009; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006;
Hankinson, 2004; Cai, 2002; Anholt, 2002; Morgan et al., 2002), a product (Konecnik and
Gartner, 2007; Olins, 2002; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002) or a corporate entity (Saraniemi and
Ahonen, 2008; Blichfeldt, 2005). These approaches are inappropriate (Ooi, 2004; Morgan and
Pritchard, 2003), destination is more complex and more difficult to manage because of the
number of its actors (Blichfeldt, 2005).

The destination identity concept is still unclear (Brown et al., 2006; Anholt, 2002). The literature
review suggests a new conceptualization of this construct (Kavaratzis, and Hatch, 2013;
Saraniemi and Kylänen, 2011; Saraniemi, 2010; Koneznik and Gartner, 2007; Davis, 2001;
Ritchie and Ritchie, 1998; Lew, 1999; Britton, 1991). The concept should include all the
historical, cultural, political and social specificities of the destination that is a sociocultural space
including several interacting actors (Saarinen 2004, 2001; Franklin and Crang, 2001; Pritchard
and Morgan, 2001; Shields, 1991).

The main objective of the paper is to highlight the various dimensions of the destination identity,
which will make possible the construction of a specific scale on the basis of the Rossiter’s
paradigm.

On the managerial level, this research will determine identity attributes of Tunisia. It will also
provide professionals with the means able to generate a positive perception and to help them
avoid negative consequences.

This paper consists of two sections devoted successively to the confusions between identity and
related concepts, and to an empirical investigation using the C-OAR-SE method.

  3  
 I. Conceptual confusions between identity, image and personality

Regarding the increasing competitiveness in the tourism sector, identity, as a differentiation

factor, becomes more important. Unlike the image, witch is well studied, destination identity is
neglected by researchers (Pike, 2010; Konecnik and Go, 2008; Pike, 2007; Konecnik, 2004).

We will define this concept and differentiate it from two similar notions: destination image and
destination personality.

1. Destination identity

To have an identity means to be himself, led by a personal goal, which differentiates us from the
others, and resist to changes “Having an identity means being your true self, driven by a personal
goal that is both different from others' and resistant to change” (Kapferer, 1997) (Kapferer,
2004). The concept of identity remains vague. Philosophers, anthropologists and psychologists do
not give a clear definition of the concept (Mucchielli, 1999). The identity was initially associated
to the brand (Kapferer, 1986). The brand identity includes all specificities that ensure its unicity
(Melin, 1997). It is a distinction criterion between brands witch have similarities (Melin, 1997).
The brand expresses an identity (Kapferer, 1995), throw which the consumer identifies
himself/herself (Aaker, 1996). It can be revealed with the name, the logo or the values (Melin,
1997), regardless the product attributes (Kapferer, 1995).

According to Kapferer (2004), the hexagonal model of the brand identity prism includes six
facets (figure 1):

  4  
 Figure 1: Brand identity prism model, Kapferer (1997)

- Physique is a tangible aspect, which includes physical specificities (the color or the form).
- Personality is an immaterial facet. It constitutes the internal character of the brand.
- Culture is integrated in the organizational aspect of the brand and makes it different.
- Relational aspect is external. It defines the behavior of the brand and determines the way
in which it communicates with environment. According to Kapferer (1998), the brand
often represents an opportunity of exchange between people.
- Reflection represents the customer’s attitude towards the brand.
- Self-image represents the way in which the customer wants to be considered by
consuming the brand.

Product, organization, person and symbol are the four elements proposed by Aaker (1996) in his
“Brand Identity Model”. It simplifies the identification of the principal element to build brand
identity (Aaker, 1996). The two central components of the model are the extended identity and
the basic identity of the brand (figure 2). The first one gives a texture to the brand and guides its
external coherence. The second one includes the brands’ perpetual basic values; it determines its
strategic orientation and ensures connection between the elements of the basic identity.

  5  
 Extended Identity

Core Identity  

Essence  
 

Brand as a Brand as Brand as a Brand as a

product organisation   person   symbol  
   
 

Figure 2: Brand identity model (Aaker, 1996)

Destination is often studied as a brand (Pike, 2009; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Park and
Petrick, 2006; Konecnik, 2004; Morgan and Pritchard, 2002; Cai, 2002; Dosen et al., 1998).
Destination identity represents one of the most important success factors in marketing strategy
(Baker and Cameron, 2007). It constitutes the essence of the destination (Hankinson, 2004).
According to Saarinen and Kask (2008), “destination identity contains features from the present,
traces of the past and signs of future changes”. The cultural heritage and the history are two
crucial determinants for the destination identity design (Yeoman et al., 2005; Pritchard and
Morgan, 2001). The heritage is a source of the collective memory, a representation of the past
and guarantees the destination longevity (McLean and Cooke, 2003). The destination identity is
partially derived from the history and the cultural heritage, which differentiate the destination
from its competitors (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006). The historical context represents a starting base
for tourism. It is often developed to ensure continuity in future (Yeoman et al., 2005). Identity is
summarized in historical, social, economic and political specificities. This can be perceived in the
communication practices of a tourist destination (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Culture and
history are the background of the communication strategy (Anholt, 2002).

The influence of the destination identity on the internal elements could be studied in different
ways. From a sociological point of view, the identity of a destination concentrates on the self-
perception at the citizens of a geographical area (Droseltis and Vignoles, 2010). Similarly to the
identity of an organization, destination identity depends on the degree of host population
implication and its own identification. It also depends on the attachment given by the local

  6  
population for the destination and its impact on their life (Droseltis and Vignoles, 2010).

The destination identity depends on the values of the visitor and his evaluation of the experience
(Konecnik and Go 2008; Peters et al., 2006). The tourist chooses a destination according to his
own identity (Dann, 1996).

According to Cornelissen and Harris (2001), the identity is not acquired in advance by a
destination. It results from the social interaction between different actors such as the local
population, tourists and the professionals of the tourism industry. Accessibility, infrastructure and
attraction elements also contribute to the creation of its identity (Framke, 2002). It also depends
on practiced activities (Saarinen 1998). Saraniemi and Ahonen (2008) propose to integrate
identity with the corporate branding in a destination context. The concept of corporate identity
refers to the distinctive attributes of the organization and it regenerates the two following
questions: “we are what?” and “who we are?” (Balmer and Gray, 2003). This prospect takes into
consideration the interaction between different elements with distinct identities (Urde, 2003; He
and Balmer, 2007). For a destination, it is possible to integrate the various identities of
stakeholders (local population, firms, State…) and consumers (Urde, 2003). This interaction
reveals the existence of a corporate identity in a destination (Hankinson, 2004; Cai, 2002). The
interaction between different actors can be the remedy of a weak destination identity
development (Morgan et al., 2003).

2. Identity: Related concepts

Identity is sometimes confused with other related concepts (Saraniemi, 2009; Rindell, 2008) like
image (Ind, 1990) and personality (Morgan et al., 2002).

2.1. Destination image

It is a set of beliefs, ideas and impressions that people have about a place or a destination
(Crompton, 1979). It involves cognitive and emotional dimensions (Mackay and Fesenmaier,
2000; Uysal et al., 2000; Baloglu and McClearly, 1999; Lawson and Band-Bovy, 1977). The first
represents the beliefs and knowledge concerning the physical attributes of a destination. The
second refers to the feelings towards the environment, as well as the attributes of the destination
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Most of tourism studies are limited to the cognitive dimension of

  7  
destination image (Chen and Uysal, 2002; Walmsley and Young, 1998; Echtner and Ritchie,
1991) and neglect its emotional side. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) indicate that focusing only on
the cognitive component is not appropriate to study destination image “the meaning of a place is
not entirely determined by its physical properties” (Ward and Russell, 1981).

According to Ind (1990), identity and image are interchangeable whereas, some studies make a
distinction between them. From a strategic point of view, Cai (2002) considers that destination
identity is more important than image. Rode and Vallaster (2005) explain that the brand includes
an external dimension that is image and an internal one, which is identity. “Image is a concept of
reception contrary to the identity considered as a concept of emission” (Kapferer, 1995). The
distinction between the brand identity and the brand image is summarized in the differentiation
between the expected and what is really perceived. For Srivastava (2011), the brand image
represents how the brand is currently perceived whereas, the identity branding is the consumer’s
perception that the company wishes to reach.

The destination identity is the origin of the image development (Mayes, 2008). The identity
represents the link between the destination and its image (Cai, 2002). It varies according to its
image variation nearby its own population (Anholt, 2007).

Another concept has an influence on the destination rating: destination personality (Hosany et al.,
2006).

2.2 Destination personality

Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand”. It can generate several associations in the consumer memory (Keller, 1993) and can
represent a criterion of differentiation (Crask and Henry, 1990). It is an essential component of
the brand diversity success (Batra et al., 1993). A well-established brand personality insures
loyalty, trust and a strong emotional relationship with consumers (Fournier, 1998).

Tourism literature acknowledges the role of destination personality in strengthen the perceived
image of a place and influencing tourist choice (Crockett and Wood, 2002). The tourist takes the
features of personality always into consideration when he assesses a destination (Hosany et al.,
2006).

  8  
Brand personality and identity are often used as synonyms (Morgan et al., 2002). Heylen et al.,
(1995) consider that both are components of the brand image. For Kapferer (1997), they are two
attributes of brand identity. Some tools used to measure destination personality are based on
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale (Johansson, 2007). The last encompasses 42 features
gathered in 15 facets and 5 factors: sincerity, excitement, sophistication, competence and
roughness. Hosany et al., (2006) keep only the first three factors suggested by Aaker (1997).
Santos (2004) explains that personality has 4 attributes: sophisticated, contemporary, modern and
traditional. Six features of personality describe Singapore’s destination: modern, cosmopolitan,
young, vibrating, reliable and comfort (Henderson, 2000). In this respect, it is important to note
that the number of factors of a destination personality is a controversial issue (Morgan et al.,
2002; Crockett and Wood, 2002; Henderson, 2000).

II. Development of the destination identity scale

The main objective of this study is to develop a scale to measure the destination identity of
Tunisia. The C-OAR-SE procedure developped by Rossiter (2002) is applied. Indeed the
systematic adoption of the Churchil paradigm was sometimes at the origin of suspect
measurement scales (Rossiter, 2002). This method is recommended only to workout scales
related to individual psychology. Churchil paradigm represents a particular case of the C-OAR-
SE procedure (Rossiter, 2002). Rossiter (2002) highlights rather the contribution of the researcher
than the role of the software.

Since various stakeholders interacting with each other are taken into account in this study,
Rossiter approach seems more pertinent. It includes encompasses six steps (Figure 3):

C: Construct Definition
O: Object Classification
A: Attribute Classification
R: Rater Identification
S: Scale Formation
E: Enumeration
Figure 3: Procedure C-OAR-SE (Rossiter, 2002)

  9  
 1. Construct definition

A construct has a theoretical implication it includes (1) the object its components, (2) the attribute
and its elements, as well as (3) the rater entity (Rossiter, 2002). For this research, the construct is
the destination identity perceived by the tourist so that the object is the destination, the attribute is
the identity and the rater is the tourist.

To check the nature of the construct (Object-Attribute-Raters), thirty-nine semi-structured

interviews have been done nearby nineteen tourists of eight nationalities (Table 1) and twenty
professionals (Table 2). Most of tourists are seniors who do not visit Tunisia for the first time.

Interviews with professionals took place at the workplace, while tourists were interviewed in
some hotels of Susah in East Central Tunisia. Interviews lasted about twenty minutes. An
interview guide was adopted for each of these two groups. Tourists were asked eleven questions
in French or in English whereas professionals answered five questions.

Table 1: Tourists’ Profile

Tourists Nationality Sex
Rater 1 British M
Rater 2 New Zealander M
Rater 3 New Zealander M
Rater 4 British F
Rater 5 French M
Rater 6 Swedish F
Rater 7 French F
Rater 8 Swedish M
Rater 9 Lebanese M
Rater 10 French F
Rater 11 Belgian F
Rater 12 British F
Rater 13 Belgian M
Rater 14 Algerian M
Rater 15 Canadian F
Rater 16 Scottish F
Rater 17 Scottish M
Rater 18 British F
Rater 19 Belgian F

  10  
 Table 2: Professionals’ Profile
Raters Function Sex
Rater 1 Reservation chief in a travel agency M
Rater 2 Tourist guide M
Rater 3 Hotel training manager F
Rater 4 Travel agency sales manager M
Rater 5 Hotel sales manager F
Rater 6 Airline sales manager M
Rater 7 Manager of a travel agency M
Rater 8 Hotel sales manager M
Ratert9 Hotel sales manager M
Rater10 Hotel sales manager M
Rater11 Travel agency director M
Rater 12 Key account manager M
Rater 13 Hotel sales manager M
Rater 14 Hotel sales agent M
Rater 15 Airline sales manager M
Rater 16 Hotel marketing director for the Maghreb area F
Rater 17 Hotel sales director M
Rater 18 Hotel director M
Rater 19 Tourist guide M
Rater 20 Responsible at the Tunisian national tourism board M

2. Object classification

According to Rossiter (2002), objects can be classified in three categories:

Table 3: Object Classification

Concrete Singular Abstract Collective Abstract Formed

Nearly everyone (of a sample The object suggests somewhat Abstract formed object:
of raters) describes the object different things to the sample of Object that suggests
identically. raters. These different things will somewhat different things
be the constituents or the to the sample of raters.
components.
Source: Rossiter (2002)

Interviews confirm that Tunisia, as a destination, is an abstract formed object. A divergence

between raters has been noticed as the following verbatim shows it:

  11  
-“Tunisia has many resorts and thalassotherapy centers ”,

-“Tourists come to Tunisia for its 10 golf space”,

-“Tunisia represents 3000 years of history”,

-“Tunisia is at the same time an African and Eastern country”,

-“I like the climate of Tunisia”,

-“I appreciate the sun in Tunisia”,

-“Tunisia is a cordial and welcoming country”,

-“Tunisia is a very cheap destination”.

These verbatim highlight the Tunisian destination diversity since they deal with history, nature,
price and touristic activities.

3. Attribute classification

Rossiter (2002) distinguishes three types of attributes: concrete, abstract formed and eliciting
abstract.

Table 4: Attribute Classification (Rossiter, 2002)

Concrete Abstract Formed Eliciting Abstract

Formed: (Abstract) attribute in
Nearly everyone (of a sample which the main components
of raters) describes the attribute add to form the attribute. The
identically. components must be concreted.
All main components must be
included in the scale (definitive
items).
Source: Rossiter (2002)
Abstract eliciting attribute
that has eliciting attributes as
components. All main
second-order components
must be included in the scale.

The concrete attribute is defined in the same way by all the raters. For the abstract formed
attribute, raters give slightly different definitions. In the case of eliciting type, the attribute is
abstract “raters answers would differ moderately if asked what the characteristic is” (Rossiter,

  12  
 2002).

In accordance with C-OAR-SE procedure, a content analysis was carried out and highlighted the
attribute components. Two marketing experts using NVIVO software classified the latter into
categories. Rossiter (2002) proposes to retain components mentioned by at least one-third of
respondents (Table 5). Therefore the last three attributes (i.e. Architecture, Cleanliness and
Customer curiosity) were discarded.

Table 5: Components evoked by tourists

Component Citation in %
Price 94%
Nature 92%
Local population 74%
Culture 48%
History 42%
Professionalism 40%
Socio-political Climate 34%
Gastronomy 32%
Architecture 22%
Cleanliness 10%
Customer curiosity 6%

We identified items, constituting each retained component, from the verbatims:

Table 6: Destination identity: Component’s items

Components Items

• I visit Tunisia for its stability.

Security
• Tunisia is a quiet destination.

Socio-political • I’m loyal to Tunisia and political changes do not

climate affect me.
Social Climate • There are a lot of beggars in the city center.
• Tunisians are less cheering, less lovely and less
welcoming than they were in the past.
Nature • Tunisian weather is very nice
Weather
• Tunisia is sunny all the time.

  13  
 • I would appreciate to have the Tunisian weather in
my country.
• I chose Tunisia for its weather.
• The proximity between Tunisia and Europe
Geography encourages me to visit it.
• I chose Tunisia especially because the flight is short.
• There are beautiful beaches in Tunisia.
• Tunisian natural richness, from North to South,
Landscape encourages me to discover it.
• Tunisian Sahara differentiates Tunisia from other
destinations.
• I chose Tunisia for the quality of its touristic
institutions (hotels, restaurants, golf courses,
Tourist thalassotherapy centers….).
institutions
• Tunisia is famous for its important number of
thalassotherapy centers.
Service • I am well served at the hotel.
quality
• In the hotel, everybody is smiling.
Professionalism • The staff of the hotel is helpful.
Staff
• I like the kindness and the simplicity of the hotel
staff.
• In the Medina, sellers are too sticky.
• The Tunisian sellers approach me and touch me to
propose their goods.
Sellers
• I do not appreciate the Tunisian sellers’ behavior.
• In shops, sellers force me to buy.
• When I refuse to buy, some sellers offend me.
• The Tunisian culture is rich and diversified.
• I appreciate the Tunisian culture.
• The Tunisian heritage is remarkable.
• Visiting Tunisia guarantes a total cultural
Culture
disorientation.
• Tunisia is authentic.
• I appreciate both African and Oriental aspects of
Tunisia.
• I appreciate Tunisian traditional food.
Gastronomy • I am enthusiastic to the idea of eating Tunisian food
at the hotel.

  14  
 • There is a tasty gastronomy in Tunisia.

• The history of Tunisia is rich.

• The historical aspect of Tunisia is crucial.
History
• I visit Tunisia for its 3000 years of history,
archeological sites and mosaic collections.
• The price of the journey to Tunisia is reasonable.
• The standard of living and the purchasing power
encouraged me to come in Tunisia.
• In Tunisia, I take advantage of the duty-free
Price
shopping.
• Tunisia is the less expensive destination.
• The price/quality ratio encourages me to visit
Tunisia.
• Tunisians are always smiling.
• Tunisians are lovely.
• Tunisians are helpful.
• Tunisians are friendly.
• Tunisians are welcoming.
• It is easy to communicate with Tunisians.
• Tunisians are charming.
• Tunisians do not hate athers.
Local population • Tunisians are not racist.
• Tunisians are conservative.
• Tunisians are warm.
• Tunisians are gentle.
• Tunisians are open-minded.
• Tunisians are comprehensive.
• The Mediterranean character of Tunisians is
remarkable.
• The Tunisian population is multilingual.

The remaining attributes were submited to the judgment of eight other experts classified this
components in two categories, second order or first order components, according to whether
encompass subcomponents or not. Each subcomponent comprises convergent items. Three
second-order components wore highlighted: Socio-political Climate, Nature and Professionalism,

  15  
while and five components are first-order ones: Culture, Gastronomy, History, Price and Local
population (Table 7).

Table 7: Components
Second-order components First order components

Socio-political Security Gastronomy

climate Social Climate Culture
Weather
Price
Nature Geography
Landscape
History
Tourist institutions

Professionalism Service quality

Staff Local population
Sellers

The attribute, wich is destination identity, includes second-order and first order components.
Hence the attribute is an eliciting abstract.

According to Rossiter (2002), after objects and attributes classification, the construct definition
construct must be refined. Indeed, the contents validation depends on the accuracy of this
definition. The latter results from verbatims inherent to each component:

- Socio-political climate

Since majority of raters do not visit Tunisia for the first time, they compare, spontaneously, their
current visit to previousones, done before January 2011. They notice that the socio-political
climate has worsended (i.e. “We feel an unusual activity near people in the streets”; “I notice that
the general attitude dropped, people are less welcoming”). Other tourists affirm their indifference
about the change (“I am faithful to Tunisia. The political changes do not affect me”). Some
professionals affirm that tourists visit Tunisia for its stability (i.e. “looking for an escape”).

-Nature

The weather was highlighted by most of respondents (i.e. “I chose Tunisia for its climate”; “In
Tunisia it is always sunny”). Some emphasize the landscapes of Tunisia, particularly Sahara and

  16  
sea (i.e. “The beauty of the beach distinguishes the destination”; “The natural wealth of Tunisia,
from North to the South, encourages me to discover it”). The geographical proximity between
Tunisia and Europe was also largely evoked (i.e. “Tourists choose Tunisia mainly because of its
proximity”; “I chose Tunisia especially because the flight does not exceed two hours”; “The
proximity is one of the advantages which differentiate Tunisia from other destinations”).

-Professionalism

A positive aspect concernes the hotel staff (i.e. “The personnel is lovely, all of them are helpful”;
“I appreciate the kindness and the simplicity of people in the hotel”). Salesman’s behavior,
particularly in the Medina, was mentioned as a negative aspect, but only by tourists (i.e. “The
salesmen on the Medina always negotiate and try to force us to buy”; “I do not appreciate the
behavior of the merchants in the Medina, they are very sticky”; “When we refuse to buy,
sometimes we are insulted”).

-Culture

Fore some interviewees, it is major differentiation factor (i.e. “Tunisia is different with its
culture”; “Tunisian culture is at the same time African and Eastern”. Others underline the
cultural escape that Tunisia reprensts. A marketing director indicates (i.e.“Tourist is not looking
only for the luxury, he is also asking about the authenticity of a destination”).

-Gastronomy

Despite the fact that Tunisian gastronomy was not frequently evoked, experts maintain it The
Tunisian gastronomy is evoked, (i.e. “During Tunisian gastronomy dinner tourists become very
enthusiastic”; “I like Tunisian food”; “The Tunisian gastronomy marked me”).

-History

Professionals pointed out that Tunisian history should be better exploited. (i.e. “Tunisia is in to
the crossroads of civilizations Punique, Roman, Carthaginian and Moslem”; “Tunisia has the
second largest collection of mosaics after Italy”; “Tunisia represents 3000 year of historical
heritage ”; “Tunisia contains eight historical sites inscribed on the UNESCO world heritage”)

  17  
 -Price

It appears in 94% of the interviews. The following verbatims are interesting: (i.e. “Tunisia is a
very cheap destination”; “Low prices are one of the advantages of the Tunisian destination”;
“The price remains the most effective argument to drain more customers”). The duration of their
stay is twice that of a vacation in Spain that tourists indicate that thanks to prices applied in
Tunisia, they doubled the duration of their stay (i.e. “For the same price I spend the double of the
duration that I would have spent in Spain”; “The price is very accessible”: “For the same price I
allow myself to have the double of duration that I spend in the Canary Islands”)

-Local population

It is of great importance according to professionals and the Tourists. Some are interested in the
Tunisians’ communication aspect (i.e. “The Tunisian people are welcoming and they
communicate easily with others”; “Tunisians are close to others”; “The Tunisian population is
polyglot”). The behavioral aspect of Tunisian people was also mentioned (i.e. “Tunisia is a
welcoming country its local population is cordial”; “I would like to bring back this human
warmth to my country”; “The Tunisian hospitality and charm are very important”; “the
Mediterranean character of the Tunisian is remarkable”).

On the basis of this information, the destination identity can be defined as the result of the
interaction between various actors, including tourists. While considering historical, natural,
cultural and socio-political specificities (components revealed by the interviews) ensure the
differentiation of a destination.

4. Raters’ identification

Rossiter (2002) distinguishes three types of raters: individuals, experts and groups. In this study,
raters are tourists (group).

  18  
 Table 8: Raters’ Classification (Rossiter, 2002)

Individuals Groups Experts

Self, as in self-rating of a Sample of consumers, Small group of judges with
personal attribute when the industrial buyers, managers, expertise regarding the
object is oneself. salespersons, or employees. construct. Used to rate any
Most often used to rate an external object on an
external object on an attribute. attribute.

Source: Rossiter (2002)

5. Scale creation

Rossiter (2002) recommends writnig a first version of the scale. The selected items must
represent the various facets of the object and those of the attributes, by using comprehensible
concepts. This first version is pretested by experts in order to check the understanding of the
selected items and if they represent the construct. The items must also be randomized to limit the
effect of artifact (Rossiter, 2002).

6. Enumeration

At the final stage, Rossiter (2002) indicate that the reliability of the score obtained by each
attribute should be calculated. « The reliability (precision) of the score depends almost entirely
on the size of the rater group. If a group is the rater entity, the reliability of the object's mean
score increases with group sample size and decreases with the standard deviation of the ratings,
which together provide a confidence interval for the object's mean score on the attribute »
(Rossiter, 2002). For this purpose, 350 questionnaires were distributed, but only 203 collected
surveys were found to be usable.

The sample comprises 136 men and 67 women. Among these 203 interviewees, 156 already
visited Tunisia. 123 are more than 45 years old. The sample has the following structure:

  19  
 Table 9: Raters’ characterisitcs
Sex
Male Female
136 67
Age
<18 years old Between 18 Between 26 Between 36 Between 46 > 55 years
and 25 years and 35 years and 45 years and 55 years old
old old old old
4 14 43 29 37 76
Socio-professional category
Student Middle- Executive Liberal Retired Other
grade manager
manager
18 41 32 16 91 5
Number of visits
1 2 >2
47 61 95

Furthermore, for the abstract eliciting attribute, a seven point Likert scale, ranging from “1”
(Strongly disagree) to “7” (Strongly agree), was adopted, in accordance with Rossiter
recommendation. The use of a likert scale may generate confusion among raters (Rossiter, 2002).
For example, when some respondents choose the answer “strongly disagree” for the item “this
product is rarely used”, the researcher is unable to check whether the rater never uses the product
or uses it often. As a matter of fact, this problem was taken into consideration in the research by
avoiding terms related to intensity.

In our study, the rater entity is a group of consumers (203 respondents). According to Rossiter, if
the attribute is of the eliciting type, coefficient alpha is incorporated in the reliability. For a
sample of 203 respondents, the 95% confidence interval (CI) around an observed score is ±7%.

  20  
 Table 10: Reliability

Component α Percentage precision-

of-score
Socio-political Climate 0,55 76%
Nature 0,79 83%
History 0,58 77%
Gastronomy 0,77 82%
Local population 0,76 82%
Price 0,76 82%
Culture 0,78 83%
Professionalism 0,56 76%

According to the Rossiter’s (2002) C-OAR-SE paradigm, there is no need to eliminate items in
order to increase scale’s reliability. For each application of the scale, the reliability should be
regarded as no more than a precision-of-score estimate. Rossiter recommends the rethinking of
predictive validity, not to maximize prediction, but to try to come closest to the true theoretical
correlation between the predictor construct and the criterion construct.

It is important to note that « coefficient alpha is incorporated in the reliability estimate only if the
attribute is of the eliciting type, as the accuracy of scores is sensitive to the number of items used
to sample the eliciting attribute, given that the items have been shown to be unidimensional,
though usually over the remarkably small range of three to five items for most eliciting-attribute
scales in marketing » (Rossiter, 2002).

The reliability, wich is measured through the percentage precision-of-score, is calculated

according a formula which depends on the type of attribute:

  21  
 Table 11: Reliability (percentage precision-of-score) estimates for rater entities by type of
attribute (Rossiter, 2002)

Rater entity Individual % (self- Group (of consumers,

Panel of experts
Attribute rating) etc.)

Concrete 100 Average PRLa (over 100 - 95% CI

object items)

Average PRL (over

Formed 100 object and attribute 100 - 95% CI
items)

verage PRL (over object

items, and over average
Eliciting 100 (α)b of attribute items 100 - (95% CI/ α)d
multiplied by α)c

a PRL is Proportional Reduction in Loss calculation.

b E.g., if a = 0.8, then Precision = 100 (0.8) = 80%.

c E.g., if there are several object items and their average PRL is 85%, and any number of attribute items

and their average PRL is 90% and their a = 0.8, then Precision=[85 + 90(0.8)]/2=[85 + 72]/ 2 = 78.5% =
78%, rounded down.

d E.g., if the 95% confidence interval (CI) around an observed score based on a sample of 200 people is

about 7% and α = 0.8, then Precision = 100 - (14/.8) = 100 - 17.5 = 82.5% = 82%, rounded down.

Since this research deals with eliciting attributes, the formula to use is the following:

Precision-of-score = 100-(95% CI/α)

Therefore, for this study is:

Precision-of-score = 100-[(203*0,07)/α] = 100-(14/α)

  22  
Discussion

The aim of implementing C-OAR-SE procedure in this research is to build a destination identity
scale.

The findings confirm those obtained by Gnoth (2007), who examines the role of the local
population in a destination. The interaction between tourists and the host population is a
component of Tunisia destination identity. The human warmth of Tunisians gives a positive
impression to visitors. Indeed, the population is the essence of a destination (Droseltis and
Vignoles, 2010; Gnoth, 2007).

The interaction is bilateral between the tourist and the population. This result is contradictory
with the conclusions of Wetzel (2006) and Blichfeldt (2005) about the interaction between all
stakeholders. This gap, interms of behavior, is considerable between people working inside hotels
and external salesmen. The latter are characterized by a lack of professionalism. The tourist’s
attitude towards these two groups of professionals is also different.

This study highlights the importance of the natural, climatic and geographical aspects of Tunisia.
Most of tourists and professionals share this opinion. The good weather, the sun, the sea and the
Sahara are specific charcteristics of the destination. The geographical proximity between Tunisia
and Europe is synonymous of a reduced duration of flights, and therefore of a travel risk
minimization (Hang et al., 2005).

The destination is a historical entity (Saarinen, 2004), a multicultural market (Moisander and
Valtonen, 2006) a space of sociocultural exchange (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Tourists value
two particular attributes: history and culture of Tunisia.

According to tourism professionals, the element on which the Tunisian destination is actually
acting is the price. It has a prominent role in the tourist’s choice. Urry (1990) indicates that the
tourits selects a destination on the basis of his (her) needs. But, Prick and Gilmore (1999)
consider that he (she) seeks to reproduce his (her) own identity. Furthermore, Firat et al., (1995)
explain that the tourist is coherent and his (her) actions are predictable.

The identity of the Tunisian destination can therefore be summarized as a set of historical, natural

  23  
and cultural specificities, ensuring the social interaction between the tourists and the local
population.

Conclusion

This paper aimed to conceptualize a destination identity scale. The first part was dedicated to
convergences between identity and related concepts, like image and personality (Morgan et al.,
2002, Ind, 1990), whereas the second one dealt with the destination identity scale developement
using C-OAR-SE procedure.

Semi structured interviews have been administred nearby 20 professionals and 19 tourists. The
data were analyzed with the qualitative software NVIVO 7. 10 experts classified the different
verbatim into 11 components. According to the elimination criterion of Rossiter, only 8 were
selected. They constitute a measure scale of the touristic destination identity that was tested on
203 tourists answered the questionnaire.

This research has various contributions: methodological, managerial and theoretical. The
recourse to C-OAR-SE procedure, as an alternative to Churchill paradigm, represents a
methodological contribution. In line with Rossiter recommendation to experiment this method in
different contexts, we conceptualized an identity measurement scale specifically for the tourist
destination, and particularly in the case of Tunisia.

This study offers new prospects for decision makers in tourism industry. It identifies the potential
attributes of differentiation for the Tunisian destination. This managerial contribution of this
research is rather strategic. The destination identity involves a set of stable and perpetual
elements. For the long and medium-term, stakeholders must develop the historical, natural,
cultural, social and gastronomical specificities of Tunisia. The adoption of a low price politics is
a temporary solution, but its association with Tunisian touristic identity cannot be beneficial from
a strategic point of view.

Although a true social relationship should exist between the actors of the destination (Wetzel,
2006; Blichfeldt, 2005), this study reveals a lack of significant relations between the destination
stakeholders. The social interaction is concrete only between the host population and tourist.
Stakeholders cannot interact permanently between them (Ooi, 2004). Relations are limited to the

  24  
bilateral level in which tourist is always involved. Indeed, he is at centre of the process. The other
actors are there just to serve him (Haahti and Komppula, 2006). Once a destination is considered
as a market organized by rules and values, the application of a sociocultural approach becomes
possible (García et al., 2007; Framke, 2002). This optics ensures a bridging gap between the
literature experimenting destinations and professionals’ practices (García et al., 2007).

The main limits of this work are methodological. Given that it investigates destination identity,
some important actors, particularly the local population and the salesmen, should have been
interviewed. The context of global crisis and the economic situation of tourist-sending countries
as well as European competitors were not taken into account either.

In spite of its limits, this study outlines a new research area. It would be relevant to implement
another scale of the destination identity by using Churchill paradigm. It will give researchers the
opportunity to compare both procedures. Furthermore, it would be interesting to build a more
exhaustive scale, taking into account the specificities of various destinations. Future researches
can also test our scale for other destinations than Tunisia.

Bibliography

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3),

347-356.

Anholt, S. (2002). Foreword. Journal of Brand Management, 9, (4-5), 229-239.

Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity. The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and
Regions. UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Anholt, S. (2008). Place branding: Is it marketing or isn’t it? Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy, 4 (1), 1-6.

Baker, M.J., & Cameron, E. (2007). Critical Success Factors in Destination Marketing. Tourism
& Hospitality Research, 8 (2), 79-97.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 972-997.

  25  
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal of Travel
Research, 35 (4), 11-15.

Baloglu, S., & McClearly, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26 (4), 868-97.

Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. & Singh, D. (1993). The Brand Personality Component of Goodwill:
Some Antecedents and Consequences. In D. A. Aaker and A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand Equity and
Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, (pp. 83–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum Associates.Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005). Unmanageable place brands? Place branding, 1 (4),
388-401.

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image,
construed image and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 99-106.

Cai, L. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (3),
720-742.

Chen, J., Uysal, M. (2002). Market positioning analysis: a hybrid approach. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29 (4), 987-1003.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.

Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 538-62.

Cinotti Y. (2006). Mesurer la qualité perçue d’un site web: une application de la procédure C-
OAR-SE, Actes du XXIIème Congrès de l’AFM, Nantes.

Cornelissen, J., & Harris, P. (2001). The corporate identity metaphor: Perspectives, problems and
prospects. Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (1/2), 49-71.

Crask, M. R., & A. L. Henry (1990). A Positioning-Based Decision Model for Selecting
Advertising Messages.Journal of Advertising Research, 30 (4), 32-38.

Crockett, S. R., & L. J. Wood (2002). Brand Western Australia: Holidays of an Entirely Different
Nature. In Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (Eds.), Destination branding and the role of
the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (3), 285-299.

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 (4), 18-
23.

Dann, G. (1996). The People of the Tourist Brochures. In T. Selwyn (Eds.), The Tourist Image:
Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Dosen, D.O., Vranesevic, T., & Prebezac, D. (1998). The importance of branding in the
development of marketing strategy of Croatia as tourist destination. ActaTuristica, 10 (2), 93-
182.

  26  
Droseltis, O., Vignoles, V. (2010). Towards an integrative model of place identification:
Dimensionality and predictors of intrapersonal-level place preferences. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30 (1), 23-34.

Echtner, C.M., Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image,
Journal of Tourism Studies, 14 (1), 37-48.

Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to
tourism destinations. Journalof Travel Research, 45 (2), 127-139.

Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N. & Venkatesh A. (1995). Marketing in a Postmodern World. European
Journal of Marketing, 29 (1), 40-56.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.

Framke, W. (2002). The Destination as a Concept: A Discussion of the Business-related

Perspective versus the Socio-cultural Approach in Tourism Theory. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 2 (2), 92-108.

García-Rosell, J. C., Haanpää, M., Kylänen, M., & Markuksela V. (2007). From Firms to
Extended Markets. A Cultural Approach to Tourism Product Development. Tourism: An
International Interdisciplinary Journal, 55 (4), 445-59.

Gnoth, J. (2007). The Structure of Destination Brands: Leveraging Values. Tourism Analysis, 12
(7/8), 345-358.

Haahti, A., & Komppula, R. (2006). Experience design in tourism. In B. Costa (Eds.), Tourism
business frontiers (pp. 101–110). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Hang, W. K., Nunes, C. Dioko, N. A. L. 2005. Does the type of perceived travel risk associated
with destinations affect visitors’ likelihood of visiting? An Exploratory Study. International
Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing for Regional Tourism Development. Macao,
SAR, China, 8-10 December: 149-159.

Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10 (2), 109-121.

Hankinson, G. (2004). The brand images of tourism destinations: A study of the saliency of
organic images. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13 (1), 6-14.

He, H. W., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Identity Studies: Multiple Perspectives and Implications
for Corporate-Level Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 41 (7/8), 765-785.

Henderson, J.C. (2000). Selling places: the new Asia-Singapore brand, Journal of Tourism
Studies, 11 (1), 36-44.

Heylen, J. P., Dawson B., & Samps, P. (1995). An Implicit Model of Consumer Behaviour.

  27  
Journal of Market Research Society, 2 (4), 65-75.

Hosany S., Yuksel E., & Muzzafer U. (2006). Destination image and destination personality: an
application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business research, 59, 638-642.

Ind, N. (1990). The Corporate Image. Strategies for Effective Identity Programmes. London:
Kogan Page.

Johansson, J. (2007). Working with events to build a destination brand identity-the DMO
perspective. Tourism Management thesis, Goteborg University.

Kapferer, J. N. (1986). Une rumeur dans la publicité: la manipulation par les messages
subliminaux. Revue Française de Marketing, 110 (5), 67-75.

Kapferer, J. N. (1995). Strategic Brand Management: New approaches to creating and evaluating
brand equity, London: Kogan Page.

Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic Brand Management. Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long
Term, 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.

Kapferer, J. N. (1998). Strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page.

Kapferer, J. N. (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management, Creating and Sustaining Brand
Equity Long Term, London: Kogan Page.

Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands: an identity-based approach
to place branding theory, Marketing Theory, 13, (1), 69-86.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Measuring and Conceptualising Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1),
1-22.

Konecnik, M. (2004). Evaluating Slovenia’s Image as a Tourism Destination: A Self- Analysis

Process Towards Building a Destination Brand. Journal of Brand Management, 11 (4), 307-316.

Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based Brand Equity for a Destination. Annals
of Tourism Research, 34 (2, 400-421.

Konecnik, M., & Go, F. (2008). Tourism destination brand identity: the case of Slovenia. Journal
of Brand Management, 15 (13), 177-189.

Lawson, F., & Baud-Bovy M. (1977). Tourism and Recreational Development. London:
Architectural Press.

Mackay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural destination image

assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 417-23.

Mayes, R. (2008). A place in the sun: The politics of place, identity, and branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(2), 124-135.

  28  
McLean, F., & Cooke, S. (2003). Constructing the identity of a nation: The tourist gaze at the
museum of Scotland. Tourism Culture and Communication, 4(3), 153-162.

Moisander, J., & Valtonen A. (2006). Qualitative Marketing Research: A Cultural Approach.
London: Sage.

Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2002). Contextualizing destination branding. In Morgan, N. J.,
Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (Eds.), Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The
case of New Zealand, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (3), 285-299.

Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (3), 285-299.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2002). Destination Branding-Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Mucchielli, A. (1999). L’Identité, Que Sais-Je? Paris: PUF.

Melin, F. (1997). Varumärket som strategiskt konkurrensmedel. Doctoral thesis. Lund University
Press, Suede. In Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (Eds.), Using brand personality
to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of travel research, 46 (5), 5-14.

Ooi, C. S. (2004). Poetics and politics of destination branding: Denmark.Scandinavian Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism. Vol. 4 (2), 107-128.

Park, S. Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2006). Destinations Perspectives of Branding. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33 (1), 262-265.

Peters, M., Weiermair, K., & Katawandee, P. (2006). Strategic brand management of tourism
destinations: Creating emotions and meaningful intangibles.

Pike, S. (2007). Consumer-Based Brand Equity for Destinations: Practical DMO Performance
Measures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22 (1), 51-61.

Pike, S. D. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations.

Tourism Management, 30(6), 857-866.

Pike, S. (2010). Destination branding case study: Tracking brand equity for an emerging
destination between 2003 and 2007. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 34, 124-139.

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (1998). Mood marketing - the new destination branding strategy: a
case of Wales the brand. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 4 (3), 215-29.

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2001). Culture, Identity and Tourism Representation: Marketing
Cymru or Wales?. Tourism Management, 22 (2), 167-179.

Rindell, A. (2008). Image heritage. The temporal dimension in consumers’ corporate image
constructions, Academic dissertation. Helsinki: Svenska Handelshögskolan.

  29  
Rode, V., & Vallaster, C. (2005). Corporate branding for startups: the crucial role of
entrepreneurs. Corporate Reputation Review, 8 (2), 121-35.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335.

Russell, N., Adderley, S., Stokes, P., & Scott, P. (2014). The Competing Dynamics and
Relationships in Corporate and Local Government Agency Constructions of Place. Dynamic
Relationships Management Journal, 3 (1), 3-16.

Saarinen, J. (1998), The Transformation of a Tourist Destination: The Transformation Process of

Saariselkä Resort in Finnish Lapland. In Ringer, G (Eds.), Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of
Tourism. (pp. 154-173), London: Routledge.

Saarinen, J. (2004). Destinations in Change. The Transformation Process of Tourist.Tourist

Studies, 4 (2), 161-79.

Saarinen, J., & Kask, T. (2008). Transforming Tourism Spaces in Changing Socio-Political
Contexts: The Case of Pärnu, Estonia, as a Tourist Destination.Tourism Geographies, 10 (4),
452-473.

Santos, C. A. (2004). Framing Portugal Representational Dynamics. Annals of Tourism

Research, 31 (1), 122-138.

Saraniemi, S. (2009). Destination branding in a country context: a case study of Finland in British
market. Doctoral dissertation, University of Joensuu, Finland.

Saraniemi, S. (2010). Destination brand identity development and value system. Tourism
Review, 65 (2), 52 - 60.

Saraniemi, S., & Ahonen, M. (2008). Destination branding from corporate branding perspective.
Proceedings of the Conference on Corporate Communication, June 6-9, 2008, Wroxton, England.

Saraniemi, S., & Kylänen, M. 2011. Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An
Analysis of Different Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (2), 133-43.

Srivastava, R.K. (2011). Understanding brand identity confusion. Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 29 (4), 340-352.

Urde, M. (2003). Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing, 37
(7/8), 1017-1040.

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.

Uysal, M., Chen, J., & Williams, D. (2000). Increasing state market share through a regional
positioning , Tourism Management, 21 (1), 89-96.

Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of personal

  30  
constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (3), 65-
69.

Ward, L.M., & Russell, J.A. (1981). Cognitive set and the perception of place, Environment and
Behavior, 13, 610-32.

Wetzel, F. (2006). Brand England. Place Branding, 2 (2), 144.

Williams, P. W., Gill, A. M., & Chura, N. (2004). Branding Mountain Destinations: The Battle
for Peacefulness, Tourism Review, 59 (1), 6-15.

Yeoman, I., Durie, A., McMahon-Beattie, U., & Palmer, A. (2005). Capturing the essence of a
brand from its history: The case of Scottish Tourism Marketing. Brand Management, 13 (2), 134-
147.

  31