Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

Destination-selection attributes for international association meetings: A T

mixed-methods study
Deokhyun Joa, Hyo-Yeun Parkb, Yeongbae Choec,∗, Dae-Kwan Kimd
a
Korea MICE Bureau, Korea Tourism Organization, 10 Segye-ro, Wonju, Gangwon-do, 26464, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Tourism Management, Korea Tourism College, 311 Ijang-ro 197-73, Sindun-myeon, Icheon, Gyeonggi-do, 17306, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Integrated Resort and Tourism Management, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau SAR, China
d
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Destination selection by international associations is a dynamic and complex decision-making process in which
International association many stakeholders participate. In this process, key decision makers in associations engage in a series of in-
Destination selection dividual decision-making processes based upon their own perceptions and decision criteria. The overall goal of
Selection attributes this study is to understand the decision-making process and identify important decision-making criteria in in-
Buying center
ternational associations by applying a mixed-methods approach. This study reveals the complex structure and
CVBs
Meetings and conventions
role of international association buying centers in the process of destination selection, and it identifies 24 im-
portant but underexplored attributes affecting this process based on a series of qualitative and quantitative
research methods. The findings serve as a foundation for better marketing strategies in destination marketing
organizations.

1. Introduction host international association meetings successfully, convention and

The international meeting and convention industry has been fairly
stable over the last 15 years. Indeed, the Union of International
Associations (UIA, 2018) reported that 10,786 meetings of international
associations were held in 2017, which was 1.9% fewer than the number
held in 2016 (11,000) but 2.7% more than the number held in 2012
(10,498). In addition, international meetings grew 8% per year on
average between 2000 and 2014 (Cró & Martins, 2018). Although
growth has slowed in recent years, the international meeting industry
has significantly contributed to national/regional economies and pro-
vided nonfinancial benefits (i.e. reputation, positive image develop-
ment) because of its large market size across the world (Crouch, Del
Chiappa, & Perdue, 2019; Getz & Page, 2016). Thus, many countries
and cities devote considerable efforts to hosting such events as a
method of boosting their local economies.
The widespread desire to host gives international associations more
influence and choices when choosing host destinations for annual
meetings. Under this pressure, destinations aiming for popularity have
invested in infrastructure and various meeting-related facilities – such
as accommodations, convention centers, and airports – and have de-
voted considerable marketing efforts to their target segments (Crouch &
Louviere, 2004; Dioko & Whitfield, 2015; Fenich, 2016). In addition, to
visitors bureaus (CVBs) and destination management organizations
(DMOs) require active and diverse processes of developing and mar-
keting an effective strategy to attract more participants (Cró & Martins,
2018). For example, association members must pay a membership and a
registration fee to attend the intentional association meeting, thus be-
coming more price sensitive (Mair, 2013; Shone, 1998). Furthermore,
meeting attendees often regularly and/or irregularly participate in
multiple associations throughout their careers (Mair & Thompson,
2009; Oppermann & Chon, 1997; Zhang, Leung, & Qu, 2007). The de-
cisions made by attendees can be based on both motivators and in-
hibitors arising from the association and the destination (Hahm, Breiter,
Severt, Wang, & Fjelstul, 2016; Lee & Back, 2008). Thus, DMOs require
a strong capability of forming a better destination image and attracting
more tourists.
Therefore, both academics and practitioners find it of paramount
importance to identify the appropriate decision criteria and processes
within international associations regarding the selection of destinations
(e.g. Comas & Moscardo, 2005; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997; Elston &
Draper, 2012; Lee & Back, 2005). In particular, cities that have invested
heavily in facilities and marketing have a keen interest in under-
standing why and how international associations choose their event
destinations to increase both their competitiveness as candidates and

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: deokhyun@hotmail.com (D. Jo), hyopark@ktc.ac.kr (H.-Y. Park), ychoe@um.edu.mo (Y. Choe), kdk@khu.ac.kr (D.-K. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.05.005
Received 21 December 2018; Received in revised form 3 April 2019; Accepted 9 May 2019
2212-571X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Jo, et al.
the effectiveness of their long-term investments (Fenich, 2015; Var,
Cesario, & Mauser, 1985). Similarly, many studies (e.g. Crouch et al.,
2019; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997; Elston & Draper, 2012) have been con-
ducted to understand the convention/meeting site selection process.
Crouch and Ritchie (1997) identified eight important destination at-
tributes, but many subsequent studies on this topic have been con-
ducted to test either entire categories or several categories from their
seminal work in different contexts.
Nonetheless, previous studies have focused more on the perceptions
or perspectives of meeting planners or meeting attendees (e.g. Choi &
Boger, 2000; DiPietro, Breiter, Romph, & Godlewska, 2008; Go &
Zhang, 1997). However, recent changes such as fierce competition
among candidate destinations, huge investments in infrastructure, and
trends in sponsorship reduction require a renewed focus on the inter-
national association (e.g. bylaws, decision makers) to understand what
international associations want. International associations usually have
more formal and decentralized processes than corporate meetings
(Astroff & Abbey, 2006) because many different stakeholders (e.g.
presidents, past presidents, regional representatives, and board mem-
bers) are directly and indirectly involved in the process of destination
selection. In some situations, non-task-related factors (e.g. power or
relationships among members) are more important than formalized
task-related factors (e.g. event-, city- and venue-related factors) (Clark
& McCleary, 1995).
The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the destination-se-
lection process and the attributes of international association meetings
using a mixed-methods approach. In particular, this study focuses on
the perspectives of DMOs and CVBs and follows three study phases. This
study first conducts an extensive review of the literature on the attri-
butes and processes of destination selection. Second, three qualitative
research methods – focus group interviews; in-depth personal inter-
views; and content analyses of the constitutions, statutes, and bylaws of
international associations – are used to identify additional destination-
selection attributes that have rarely or never been studied. Third, a
quantitative analysis using a survey questionnaire empirically confirms
the validity of the destination-selection attributes derived from both
earlier studies and the qualitative analyses conducted in this research.
The findings from this study provide both a much clearer picture of the
destination-selection process of international associations and insights
into how local and national DMOs can promote themselves to decision
makers for international association meetings while eventually devel-
oping better marketing and promotion strategies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Destination-selection process
Destination selection has been regarded as an important topic in
convention or event research, albeit it represents a relatively small
number of earlier studies. In general, most conventions and events
make a request for proposal (RFP), including a list of requirements the
DMOs and the local hosting origination should follow to win the bid
(Mair, 2013). With fierce competition among candidates, however,
DMOs, CVBs, or the local hosting organization should not only carefully
review the requirements listed in the RFP but also understand their
unique selling points and the entire selection process. Understanding
the process helps destinations and local hosting organizations build
their bidding/marketing strategies appropriately by providing high-
quality services and products tailored to the needs of their target as-
sociations (Go & Govers, 1999; Lee & Back, 2005; Mair & Thompson,
2009). A successful site-selection process is also beneficial to interna-
tional associations because it likely attracts more participants and
provides a more enjoyable experience during the event. In this study,
the terms “site”, “destination”, and “city” are interchangeably used, but
the intended meaning of all three terms is the destination intending to
host an international association meeting and preparing a proposal to
62
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72
satisfy the destination-selection criteria.
Fortin and Ritchie (1977) were among the earliest researchers to
study the destination/site-selection process in the convention industry.
In their model, antecedents (e.g. association characteristics, the identity
of the buying center, and the situation), the decision process (e.g. de-
fining the objective, searching for alternatives, evaluating alternatives,
and making the final selection), and outputs (e.g. choice of destination)
are based on the industrial adoption process model. Clark and McCleary
(1995) then incorporated the concept of buying stages, evoking sets,
buying centers, and situation variables (e.g. by class, power) in the
convention destination/site-selection process for association meetings
by applying the concept of organizational buying behavior (OBB). In
the context of OBB, buying centers can be defined as a group of people
who are involved in the destination-selection process and who even-
tually make a final decision, i.e. executives, board members, a site-se-
lection committee, or powerful members (Clark & McCleary, 1995). The
buying stage in OBB is referred to as the process of purchasing products
and services in the organization, which starts from problem/need re-
cognition to the evaluation of the purchased product/service (Clark &
McCleary, 1995). In the case of the destination-selection process,
buying stages constitute the entire procedure, starting from the pre-
paration of the RFP to the post-event evaluation. Fawzy and Samra
(2008) proposed nine steps in the destination-selection process by
connecting OBB and the convention destination-selection process.
An earlier seminal work on convention destination selection was
published by Crouch and Ritchie (1997), who proposed a conceptual
model of the site-selection process by reviewing 64 publications ad-
dressing convention site-selection issues. In their model, convention
preplanning was introduced as the first step in the destination selection
process (e.g. dates, nature of organization, objectives, past experience).
This precondition and the site-selection factors may influence each
other and eventually impact decision makers’ subjective evaluations of
the destination candidates in the final selection stage. Decision makers
then analyze the collected information based on selection criteria and
recommend the most appropriate potential destination to the executive
or board of directors. The rest of the process involves organizing and
hosting an event and finally evaluating the entire process of events.
Comas and Moscardo (2005) proposed an extended model of the des-
tination-selection process and emphasized the importance of preplan-
ning processes such as bidding processes and internal committees (e.g.
organizing or site-selection committees). In addition, Fawzy and Samra
(2008) proposed an expanded model of the convention site-selection
process and emphasized the four OBB variables (i.e. environment, or-
ganizational, individual, and interpersonal relationships), the formation
of a buying center, and the type of buy class (e.g. new task: choosing a
specific destination for the first time; modified rebuy: re-choosing a
specific destination with a slight modification of the conditions; and
straight rebuy: re-choosing a specific destination without any changes).
Fawzy and Samra (2008) included problem recognition and the for-
mation of a buying center as an earlier stage of the destination selection
process.
Given these several variations in the original model developed by
Crouch and Ritchie (1997), this study aims to further refine the desti-
nation-selection model of international meetings by reviewing written
legal documents in addition to conducting interviews and a thorough
literature review.
2.2. Destination-selection attributes
As the international meeting market has grown dramatically in re-
cent decades, many scholars have focused on the identification of
destination attributes or selection factors and their impact and role in
the process of destination selection (e.g. Cró & Martins, 2018; Crouch &
Ritchie, 1997; Elston & Draper, 2012). Obviously, the destination-se-
lection process is highly complex and influenced by many internal and
external factors simultaneously (Clark & McCleary, 1995; Crouch et al.,
D. Jo, et al.
2019; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997). Lee and Back (2005) reviewed aca-
demic publications in convention research and confirmed that the as-
sociations' destination-selection process and the evaluation of meeting
services and destinations are two of the most popular research areas,
although many studies have focused exclusively on the meeting plan-
ners’ perspective.
Fortin and Ritchie (1977) conducted one of the earliest empirical
studies identifying and measuring the relative importance of 39 factors
influencing the choice of a convention destination and site. These fac-
tors range from the general aspects of a destination (e.g. climate, lan-
guage) to the facilities at the destination (e.g. convention center,
meeting facilities). Moreover, the authors showed similarities and dis-
similarities in the relative importance of factors among the organiza-
tion's permanent staff, elected officers, and regular buying-center
members. Similarly, Oppermann (1998) conducted a survey of mem-
bers of the Professional Convention Management Association to un-
derstand the importance of destination attributes, i.e. five factors with
15 attributes. The five factors were service, cost, image, location, and
facilities, and among the fifteen attributes, meeting room facilities and
hotel service quality were the most important.
Another important study was performed by Crouch and Ritchie
(1997), who also identified eight groups of destination-selection attri-
butes based on their extensive review of 64 academic and trade pub-
lications. These eight groups were accessibility, local support, extra
conference opportunities, accommodation facilities, meeting facilities,
information, site environment, and other criteria. While this study
covered most of the earlier publications, the identified factors were
mostly related to the physical aspects of a destination, except for local
support, information, and other criteria. Nelson and Rys’ (2000) study
provided similar insights into the importance of physical attributes,
particularly direct flights, and airline accessibility. Their findings,
which were based on research into association executives, suggested
secondary convention destinations might be less attractive unless they
have an international airport or are easily accessible. Several studies
have been conducted as a follow-up. Crouch and Louviere (2004) in-
vestigated the importance of each attribute in the process of destination
selection by applying the choice experiment method, while Chen
(2006) applied the analytical hierarchy process approach to identify the
relative importance of destination-selection criteria. Both studies were
based on Crouch and Ritchie (1997); however, the two studies had
some discrepancies in their relative rankings of, e.g. food quality and
climate. More recently, Cró and Martins (2018) empirically analyzed
the importance of destination attributes based on secondary data.
While the categories proposed by Crouch and Ritchie (1997) cov-
ered numerous aspects of convention destination, many subsequent
research studies in this area have supported the findings of their study
and then attempted to identify various criteria and measures in their
respective categories (Crouch et al., 2019). Table 1 shows the list of
destination-selection factors, and previous studies have used the cor-
responding categories and factors. First, accessibility has been included
in the form of international access, the proximity of the convention
center, or the ease of local access. Because international or long-haul
travel is often involved, attendees are often very sensitive to the ac-
cessibility or availability of direct flights (Nelson & Rys, 2000). Second,
as the importance of convention destination has increased, many stu-
dies have investigated site/destination environmental issues such as
local climate, safety and security, sightseeing, cultural and tourist at-
tractions, the hospitality of local residents, and many other factors. In
recent years, the importance of the local environment has increased
significantly, as many convention attendees combine pleasure travel at
the destination while attending the event or during a business obliga-
tion; they are called “bleisure travelers” (Lichy & McLeay, 2018). Third,
in addition to the destination attribute itself, the contributions of gov-
ernment incentives and quality of assistance have been extensively
studied to assure a sufficient level of local support. Specifically, asso-
ciation meetings, unlike corporate meetings, often require a financing
63
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72
strategy to reduce the financial burden on the local organization and
lower the registration fee for members. Fourth, extra conference op-
portunities (e.g. conference programs, entertainment, shopping, re-
creation, professional opportunities) have been proposed and empiri-
cally tested. Many studies on convention attendees' motivations and
values (e.g. Lee & Min, 2013; Mair & Thompson, 2009; Severt, Wang,
Chen, & Breiter, 2007) repeatedly reported the importance of various
activities while attending a convention event such as educational ben-
efits, professional opportunities, and networking opportunities. Fifth,
various facilities (e.g. accommodation, meeting, and exhibition) are an
important component ensuring the quality of the conference site. Both
event attendees and meeting planners evaluated the physical service
environment (e.g. quality of meeting rooms) as an important ante-
cedent of overall satisfaction and revisit intention while attending the
meeting, convention, incentive, and exhibition/event (MICE) events
(e.g. Choe, Lee, & Kim, 2014; Choi, 2005). Finally, information about
the destination, previous experience, reputation, profitability, and
technological capabilities are also considered as an important factor in
selecting a convention destination. These factors are intangible aspects
of convention destinations.
Earlier studies on international meeting attendees have reported
various motivations for attending international events. Several studies
(e.g. Lee & Min, 2013; Mair & Thompson, 2009; Oppermann & Chon,
1997; Severt et al., 2007) identified networking, professional develop-
ment and education, location or destination, cost, safety or security,
and the timing of conferences. However, Mair (2010) found potential
heterogeneity in attendees’ motivations. In her study, five distinct at-
tendee groups emerged: indifferents, price-sensitive delegates, time and
convenience attendees, employer-driven networkers, and independent
networkers. Lee and Min (2013) also categorized three attendee groups
based on multidimensional values in convention attendee behaviors
and found significant differences in the evaluations of convention ex-
perience, satisfaction, and behavioral intention among groups. Each
attendee possibly chooses to attend the conference for different reasons.
These results clearly showed the destination-selection attributes used
by the international association may not always perfectly fit their target
groups, which causes international associations to focus more on the
choice of the best candidate possible to attract more attendees.
Destination-selection attributes have also been used to identify a
strategic direction based on importance and performance analyses. For
example, Choi and Boger (2000) attempted to understand the im-
portance and performance (i.e. satisfaction) of the destination-selection
criteria of state association meeting planners. In their study, nine ca-
tegories (e.g. quality of bedrooms, price, inventory, hotel personnel,
safety/security, quality of meeting services, quality of meeting rooms,
overall affordability of destination, and location) from 45 destination
factors were identified. A similar study was performed by Go and Zhang
(1997), who focused on Beijing as an international meeting destination,
collected data from 61 meeting planners from fifteen countries, and
asked them about their perceived importance of and satisfaction with
six categories based on twenty-two destination attributes (e.g. housing
and meeting properties, price of products, site attractiveness and ac-
cessibility, tourist attractions, the efficiency of personnel, and site se-
curity and friendliness). More importantly, Go and Zhang (1997) em-
phasized two broad categories of destination/site-selection criteria: the
capacity of the host destination and the meeting facilities.
Other scholars have found differences in the importance of desti-
nation-selection factors between types of associations, types of events,
or types of event professionals (e.g. DiPietro, Breiter, Rompf, &
Godlewska, 2008; Rompf, Breiter, & Severt, 2008). These differences
may be caused by the different interests of the host organization. For
example, industry, labor and trade associations view functional services
(e.g. hotel services, rooms) as more important than other types of as-
sociations, while social, military, educational, religious, and fraternal
(SMERF) associations consider local support, finances, and access to the
convention facility more important than other factors (Fortin & Ritchie,
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Table 1
Destination selection factors in previous studies.
Categories Selection factors Prior studies

Accessibility • International access Baloglu and Love (2005), Cró and Martins (2018), Crouch and Louviere (2004), DiPietro
• Proximity
center
of convention et al. (2008), Go and Zhang (1997), Lee, Choi, and Breiter (2016), Nelson and Rys (2000),
Oppermann (1998), Para and Kachniewska (2014), Upchurch, et al. (1999), Zhang et al.
• Ease of local access (2007)
• Local transportation
• Ease of air access
• Air fare;
• Geographical location
Destination environment • Local climate Baloglu and Love (2005), Chen (2006), Cró and Martins (2018), Crouch and Louviere
• Safety and security (2004), Crouch et al. (2019), Dioko and Whitfield (2015), DiPeitro et al. (2008), Go and
• Sightseeing Zhang (1997), Nelson and Rys (2000), Oppermann (1998), Park, Wu, Shen, Morrison, and
• Cultural/tourist attractions Kong (2014), Upchurch et al. (2000), Whitfield, Dioko, Webber, and Zhang (2014)
• Hospitality of local residents
• Friendliness of local staff
• Overall affordability
• Foreign language skills
• Destination image
Local support • Financial support Chen (2006), Crouch and Louviere (2004), Crouch et al. (2019), Dioko and Whitfield (2015)
• Government incentives
• Quality of assistance
• Local hospitality/friendliness
Extra conference • Nightlife Baloglu and Love (2005), Cró and Martins (2018), Crouch and Louviere (2004), Crouch et al.
opportunities • Restaurant (2019), DiPeitro et al. (2008), Mair and Thompson (2009), Severt, et al. (2007), Tanford,
• Shopping and entertainment Montgomery, and Nelson (2012), Yoo and Chon (2010), Zhang et al. (2007)
• Conference program
• Recreation
• Professional opportunities
Facilities (e.g. meeting, accommodation, and • Capacity of facilities Baloglu and Love (2005), Crouch et al. (2019), Crouch and Louviere (2004), DiPeitro et al.
exhibition) • Cost of facilities (2008), Go and Zhang (1997), Jin, Weber, and Bauer (2013), Lee and Back (2005), Lee and
• Availability of facilities Lee (2017), Nelson and Rys (2000), Para and Kachniewska (2014), Park et al. (2014),
• Quality of facilities Upchurch et al. (2000)
• Choice of alternative hotels
Other factors • Information availability Cró and Martins (2018), Crouch et al., 2019; Kozak, Aksoz, and Özel (2015)
• Prior experience
• Reputation
• Technological capabilities
• Profitability
• Exchange rate
1997). In addition, exhibition facilities are more important for larger quantitative research method was then performed to validate the newly
meetings, while tourism and recreational activities are more important identified convention destination attributes.
for smaller meetings (Oppermann, 1998). A thorough review of the previous research was first conducted to
identify the most common convention destination-selection attributes
2.3. Summary found in earlier studies. This process resulted in 21 destination attri-
butes, which are called “conventional attributes” in this study, to be
Previous literature on convention/international meetings, the des- compared with the newly identified selection attributes, which are
tination-selection process and factors, and attendees’ motivations re- called “unconventional attributes”. The study then implemented three
vealed many important selection criteria for the international associa- qualitative research methods: a focus group interview; in-depth inter-
tion meeting destination. However, recent fierce competition among views; and content analyses of constitutions, statutes, and bylaws of
candidate destinations and the stable market trend in the international international associations regulating the convention destination-selec-
meeting industry over time require a better understanding of the des- tion process. These sequential processes were pre-planned to reflect the
tination-selection process and criteria for international association destination-selection process and criteria within the international as-
meetings. International associations involve a complex decision-making sociation in greater detail by considering all possible aspects of the
process because of their decentralized processes and multiple internal destination-selection process from past experiences and official docu-
stakeholders. With this process in mind, the next chapter of this study ments. Therefore, participants in the focus group and in-depth inter-
aims to carefully examine the policies, official legal documents, and views were chosen without overlap and in a manner calculated to im-
destination-selection procedures of international association meetings prove the reliability and validity of the findings of the current study.
to obtain deeper insights into the destination-selection process and re- These methods focused primarily on the associations' policies and
lated factors that might have been overlooked or neglected in earlier practices with regard to destination selection and the factors under-
studies. explored or less explored in earlier studies.

3. Qualitative research 3.1. Focus group interview

Given the nature and purpose of this study, a two-stage mixed-
methods approach was employed (see Fig. 1). First, a series of quali-
tative research methods (i.e. focus group interviews, in-depth inter-
views, and content analyses) were employed sequentially to capture the
destination-selection attributes not used in earlier studies. A
A focus group interview was first performed to gain insights into
new convention destination-selection attributes affecting international
association decision-making. The interviewees consisted of five direc-
tors and managers of regional CVBs in Korea who were in charge of the
bidding process of an international association meeting and had long-

64
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Fig. 1. Mixed-methods research procedure.

Table 2
Findings of the focus group interview.
Category Attributes Description

Consensus Final assistance ➢ Public sector

➢ Private sector
Networking ➢ Networking with international opinion leaders or members of the buying center
Competence/Capability ➢ Competence of the bidding organization in administration and finance
➢ Competence of the person in charge of the local chapter/hosta
➢ International recognition of the person in charge of bidding/local chapter a
Credibility ➢ Credibility of local/host organization a
➢ Credibility of person in charge of biddinga
Elected officer ➢ Becoming a member of the board, executive committee & president, secretary general, chairman, etc a

Membership ➢ Size of local membership

➢ Potential of local membership
Contribution to the international association ➢ Financial
➢ Academic/Scholastic a
➢ Technical
Experience ➢ Successful hosting of similar conventions of host organization
➢ Experience of the host committee membersa
Visit experience ➢ Visit experience of candidate city by the members of the buying centera
Power structure ➢ Level of influence of the host organization in the international associationa
Agreement Hospitality ➢ Attitude of the host committee members
➢ Friendliness of the host organization
Willingness or determination ➢ Strong will of the bidding organization, destination
Sponsorship ➢ Local sponsorship potential
➢ Participation by local suppliers a
Extra-conference ➢ Technical site visit
Opportunities ➢ Business opportunities with local membersa
Previous convention ➢ Experience of the previous convention
➢ Experience of the previous destination visit
Image ➢ Image of destination

Note:
a
Nonconventional destination selection criterion.

term relationships with the international association (including its
members) during the bidding process. The length of the participants'
work experience in this field ranged from three to eight years (5.4 years
on average). The geographical boundaries covered the most important
convention destinations as well as both national and regional CVBs in
Korea. Several broad questions were derived from the literature review
and the personal experience of the first author of this paper. In parti-
cular, the moderator of the focus group interview initially asked
questions associated with the participants’ experiences with and per-
ceptions of the important destination attribute in the process of bidding
on an international conference. The session lasted two hours, which
allowed the participants to discuss their observations and experiences
of the entire bidding process of the international association meeting.
As suggested by Byers and Wilcox (1991), the findings of focus group
interviews were coded using the classifications of I (individual/idio-
syncratic), C (consensus), and A (areas of agreement/disagreement).
The final results of the focus group interview are presented in Table 2.
3.2. Individual in-depth interviews
Next, a series of in-depth interviews was conducted with four in-
dustry experts who did not participate in the focus group interview to

65
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Table 3
Findings of individual in-depth interviews.
Attributes Description Number of Interviewees

Financial assistance ➢ Public sector 4 (100%)

➢ Private sector
Networking ➢ Networking with international opinion leaders or the members of the buying centera 4 (100%)
Strong will/Determination ➢ Strong will and support of host cities, convention bureaus 3 (75%)
Characteristics of local industry ➢ Relationship between the characteristics of the association and the local industrya 2 (50%)
Relationship ➢ Relationship with key person in the association buying centera 4 (100%)
Accessibility ➢ International accessibility 2 (50%)
Overall cost ➢ Financial 3 (75%)
➢ Academic programs
➢ Technical
Tourist attractions ➢ Entertainment and tourist attractions 2 (50%)
Competence ➢ Host association's involvement in the international association's activitiesa 3 (75%)
➢ Power and status of host committee members in international associationa
Accommodation ➢ Cost and availability of accommodations 2 (50%)
Political stability ➢ Political stability of the host destination 3 (75%)
Sponsorship ➢ Sponsorship from local suppliers 2 (50%)
Visit experience ➢ Site inspection toura 1 (25%)

Note:
a
Nonconventional destination selection criteria.

gain further insights into the destination-selection process and criteria
from different perspectives. To do so, the interview participants were
chosen carefully to cover different positions, regions, and experiences.
Among these four participants, two experts participated in the decision-
making process of international association meetings, and the other two
had previous experience working with international association board
members to host an international event in Korea. The length of the
participants' work experience in this field ranged from 5 to 10 years
(6.8 years on average). Although their levels of expertise cannot be
quantified, four participants had been actively involved in many bid-
ding processes and actual events in Korea. One of the authors, acting as
an interviewer, provided basic information (e.g. the purpose of the
interview) and then asked questions associated with the participants’
experiences with and perceptions of important destination attributes
when bidding on an international conference. During the interview, a
researcher also provided participants with an open-ended questionnaire
based on the findings from the focus group interviews to give them an
opportunity to elaborate further on convention destination-selection
attributes. The results of the interviews are summarized in Table 3.
3.3. Content analysis
Finally, a content analysis was conducted on the constitutions,
statutes, bylaws, and guidelines of international associations describing
the destination-selection process. This step is particularly noteworthy
because, as the legal and binding governing rules, those written docu-
ments are the most authoritative and fundamental principles, and they
contain vital information about the organization and operation of an-
nual meetings. Thus, various official documents of international asso-
ciations had to be reviewed to reflect the destination-selection criteria
and process. In this study, 21 international associations were selected
based on three criteria: (1) the local members of international asso-
ciations have worked with national CVBs in Korea from the bidding
process to the actual event operation, (2) the associations’ annual
conventions meet the international meeting criteria established by the
UIA, and (3) the local members are still active buying-center members
of international associations. Once selected, the first author of this
study contacted the representatives of the international associations
and the local contact person in Korea (via email and website) to request
the relevant information.
Before a manual content analysis of all collected documents was
conducted, a coding scheme was developed based on the results of the
focus group interview and the in-depth individual interviews. One of
the authors and one native English speaker working for a regional CVB
in Korea coded all compiled legal documents. After the initial coding
process, the two coders discussed the applicability of the pre-estab-
lished codes and any issues emerging during the coding process, but
they did not discuss their coding results. They then individually fina-
lized their initial coding of the legal documents in the following week.
The initial coding agreement rate between two coders was calculated
based on the interrater agreement formula
Number of agreements
R = Number of agreements + number of disagreements × 100 , suggested by Posner,
Sampson, Caplan, Ward, and Cheney (1990). Of the 252 clauses in the
documents, the two coders agreed on 236 clauses in the first coding
analysis, resulting in a 94% interrater agreement rate. The two coders
then discussed the disagreed-upon clauses to reach a further agreement.
Table 4 presents the frequency of the coded attributes emerging from
the content analysis.
3.4. Findings from the qualitative research
The qualitative method provided several useful insights into inter-
national associations and their international meeting destination-se-
lection processes. This study newly identified 24 ‘nonconventional’
destination-selection attributes based on the focus group interview, the
in-depth individual interviews, and the content analysis. In this process,
destination-selection attributes identified through at least two research
methods were selected for further empirical analysis. We adopted this
approach to retain an affordable number of destination-selection attri-
butes confirmed by multiple qualitative methods, thus avoiding the
type of lengthy survey questionnaire that often causes fatigue among
survey participants and leads to less reliable responses. The attribute
naming the vision and mission of the host organization was also ex-
cluded, although it was the most frequently mentioned attribute in the
content analysis. The reflection of the vision and mission of the host
organization in the proposal was the most important factor to the host
organization for winning the bidding process. Nevertheless, this factor
was considered to focus more on preparing and writing a proposal,
rather than the host organization or destination per se: thus it was ex-
cluded further analysis. The 24 nonconventional attributes identified in
this study are associated more with the nonphysical dimensions of a
destination.
Additionally, this study confirmed the important antecedents of the
destination-selection process, which are consistent with Clark and
McCleary (1995), Comas and Moscardo (2005), and Crouch and Ritchie
(1997). Generally, all procedures (e.g. when and how the destination-
selection process starts, by whom the decision is made, and who par-
ticipates in the buying center) are clearly written in legal documents.

66
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Table 4
Findings of the content analysis of the legal documents.
Dimension Description of attributes and code Frequency %

Host organization (A) Administrational competence (A1) 8 19.05

Financial competence and support (A2) 4 9.52
Scientific/academic competence (A3) 2 4.76
Host member (B) Experience of host/committee members (B1) 10 23.81
Credibility of host/committee members (B2) 12 28.57
Marketing of the host society (B3) 2 4.76
Destination (C) Political/economic stability (C1) 4 9.52
Experience of hosting similar conventions (C2) 4 9.52
Cultural and tourist attractions (C3) 2 4.76
International access (C4) 16 38.10
Local transportation (C5) 8 19.05
Security (C6) 2 4.76
Scientific program (D) Organization of high-quality scientific programs (D1) 12 28.57
Level of scientific achievements in host destination (D2) 8 19.05
Extra conference/scientific-technical opportunities (D3) 2 4.76
Finance (E) Sponsorship from the host, destination, CVB (E1) 2 4.76
Sponsorship from the host organization (E2) 2 4.76
Profit sharing between the association and host (E3) 28 66.67
Financial support to developing countries (E4) 2 4.76
Overall financial consideration (E5) 6 14.29
Participants (F) Registration fee (F1) 4 9.52
Tour/social programs/Accompanying persons (F2) 16 38.10
Number of attendants (F3) 2 4.76
Size of members and potential for expansion (F4) 2 4.76
Meeting facilities (G) Availability and cost (G1) 34 80.95
Facilities for the handicapped (G2) 4 9.52
Accommodation (H) Accommodation level and cost (H1) 14 33.33
Service (I) Professional assistance/PCO (I1) 12 28.57
Logistics (J) Convenience of logistics (J1) 4 9.52
Date (K) Date of convention and duplication of events (K1) 4 9.52
Local support (L) Supports/endorsement from destination, CVBs (L1) 12 28.57
Regulation on visas, attendance, exhibition, tax (L2) 6 14.29
Site visit (L3) 2 4.76

Note: All 21 associations stated in general the importance of scientific programs and transfer of knowledge in the preamble, bylaws, constitution or statutes.

However, the international association meeting-selection process in-
cluded a few noteworthy points. First, the past president and the chair
of the host organizing committee have implicit power beyond their
written responsibilities in the buying center with or without votes.
Second, an executive director or a secretary general of the association
plays an important role as a gatekeeper or a recommender by control-
ling information about the potential or candidate destinations. Third,
most associations analyzed in this study have dual decision-making
systems or buying centers, i.e. an initial recommendation and a final
selection. It is therefore postulated that the association buying center is
highly dynamic and influenced by many internal and external situa-
tional factors.
4. Quantitative research
4.1. Study design
This study employed a quantitative research method to confirm and
empirically validate the destination-selection attributes of international
association meetings identified based on qualitative research and a
literature review. The study listed 21 conventional destination-selection
attributes from previous research (e.g. Baloglu & Love, 2005; Crouch &
Louviere, 2004; Crouch & Ritchie, 1997; DiPeitro et al., 2008; Fortin &
Ritchie, 1997; Go & Zhang, 1997; Nelson & Rys, 2000; Oppermann,
1998; Upchurch et al., 2000) and 24 nonconventional destination-se-
lection attributes from the qualitative research. For the conventional
destination-selection attributes, attributes appearing in only one paper
were excluded from the list for further empirical study to avoid bur-
dening survey respondents by retaining a sizable number of attributes
in the survey. A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all
important (1) to extremely important (7) was used to examine the
importance of each destination-selection attribute. A pretest was
administered to 25 experts among the international association mem-
bers and local representatives to identify potential problems with the
survey questionnaire and to confirm the acceptability of the identified
destination-selection attributes. The survey questionnaire was then
further modified based on their comments to improve the readability
and/or clarity of the developed items.
The target population of this empirical study is the buying centers
(e.g. board members, selection committee) of international associations
and suppliers (e.g. local DMOs, managers and meeting planners) to
uncover the important destination attributes affecting the destination-
selection process. A list of the potential survey population was created
consisting of 1943 international association buying-center members,
international and domestic meeting planners, and international and
regional CVB officers. In this process, this study utilized the same cri-
teria with the selection of international associations for content analysis
(i.e. working experience between the local members and the national
CVBs, the size of the annual convention, and the activeness of local
members within the organization) to ensure the consistency of the re-
search design used in this study. A survey link was then sent to those
potential survey participants three times within a month after the first
invitation. These efforts resulted in 453 useable responses for further
analyses (i.e. 226 buying centers and 227 suppliers), yielding a final
response rate of 23.3%.
4.2. Study participants
Of the 453 respondents, slightly less than two-thirds (61.6%) were
male, and the majority (67.5%) had more than six years of working
experience in either hosting or organizing international meetings.
Similarly, approximately two-thirds of the respondents (67.4%) had
participated in more than six international association meetings. The
respondents were relatively evenly distributed among Asia, North and

67
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Table 5
Importance of destination selection attributes.
Rank Category Attributes Mean SD

1 C Safety and security of destination 6.22 0.87

2 C Availability of meetings facilities 6.04 0.87
3 N Political and economic stability of the destination 5.95 1.06
4 C Ease of international air access to the destination 5.83 0.88
5 N Administrative competence of the local organization 5.80 1.01
6 N Capability of organizing high-quality scientific programs 5.73 1.19
7 C Cost of meetings facilities 5.68 1.08
8 N Financial competence of the local organization 5.65 1.08
9 N Credibility of the chair or members of the local organization 5.63 1.06
10 C Ease of local access and transportation 5.63 1.00
11 N Registration fee for the meetings and conventions 5.61 1.11
12 N Experience for their successful hosting of similar events 5.57 1.13
13 C Hospitality and friendliness of the locals 5.54 1.05
14 C Overall affordability of the host convention destination 5.54 1.15
15 C Quality of accommodations 5.53 0.99
16 C Rates of hotel rooms 5.50 1.14
17 C The image of destination 5.47 0.98
18 N Experience of the local members in the international organization 5.44 1.12
19 C Friendliness of hotel and convention center service staff 5.42 1.13
20 C Cultural, tourist attractions and scenery of host destination 5.41 0.99
21 C Number of hotel rooms 5.39 1.14
22 N Active participation at international association's board and committee 5.38 1.25
23 C Choice of the level of hotels 5.37 1.08
24 C Availability of exhibition facilities 5.33 1.14
25 N Accomplishment of vision and mission of the international association 5.32 1.15
26 N Sponsorship opportunities from the public sectors 5.25 1.26
27 N Number of potential attendants from the destination 5.19 1.18
28 N Opportunities for extra scientific or technical programs 5.18 1.12
29 N Sponsorship opportunities from the private sectors 5.15 1.26
30 C Cost of exhibition facilities 5.10 1.20
31 N Opportunity for promotion of international associations 5.09 1.12
32 N Level of scientific achievements 5.08 1.20
33 C Quality of foods and beverages 5.07 1.17
34 N Financial incentives to the potential participants from developing countries 5.06 1.38
35 N Favorable relationships with international members 4.98 1.27
36 N Favorable relationships with elected officers, board members 4.98 1.31
37 N Influence of local organization on international associations 4.97 1.28
38 C Climate and weather of destination 4.84 1.15
39 N Profitability of the meeting and convention 4.75 1.31
40 N Previous visit experience to the destination 4.69 1.52
41 N Profit sharing between the international association and the local organization 4.59 1.38
42 C Variety of restaurants 4.48 1.35
43 C Availability of shopping and entertainment programs 4.03 1.40
44 N Incentives offered to the officers of the international associations 3.80 1.73
45 C Availability of nightlife 3.68 1.47

Note: C (Conventional destination selection attribute), and N (Nonconventional destination selection attribute).

South America, and Europe, accounting for 32.7%, 31.3%, and 29.6%,
respectively.
4.3. Descriptive statistics of the destination-selection attributes
The collected data included two different sets of international as-
sociation meeting destination-selection attributes: 21 attributes identi-
fied from the literature review and 24 attributes identified from the
qualitative research employed in this study. These 45 factors cover both
the destination and the origination and facilities at the destination.
Table 5 presents the average importance and the rank of each desti-
nation-selection attribute. Among the conventional destination-selec-
tion attributes, “safety and security of the destination” was rated as the
most important attribute, followed by “availability of meeting facil-
ities”, “ease of international air access to the destination”, and “cost of
meeting facilities”. These results clearly reflect the importance of per-
sonal security and safety and the cost structure of international asso-
ciation meetings, which are closely related to both the attractiveness of
a destination and the potential demand for the event from the inter-
national associations' perspective. Of the 24 nonconventional attri-
butes, “political and economic stability of the destination” was the most
important. This finding is consistent with earlier findings that security
and safety are of primary concern for international associations. The
attribute “administrative competence of the local organization” was the
second most important destination attribute, followed by “capacity of
organizing high-quality scientific programs”, “financial competence of
the local organization”, and “credibility of the chair or members of the
local organization”. The least important destination attributes were
related to nightlife, shopping and entertainment, restaurants, and in-
centives offered to officers, which supports earlier research (Elston &
Draper, 2012).
4.4. Factor structure of the destination-selection attributes
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed to evaluate the
dimensionality and reliability of the existing and newly identified
destination-selection attributes. In this process, a principal axis fac-
toring method with oblimin rotation was performed for the 45 desti-
nation-selection attributes. Common practices (i.e. scree plots, eigen-
values, item-total correlations, factor loadings, and reliability
coefficients) were applied. The results delineated the six unique di-
mensions of international association meeting destination-selection at-
tributes – which had factor loadings over 0.4, eigenvalues over 1, and a
Cronbach's α of 0.66–0.92 – and which explained 60.22% of the total

68
D. Jo, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72

Table 6
Results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Category Factor name and destination selection attributes EFA CFA

SL Eigenvalue (% Explained) SL

Factor 1: Facilities (Cronbach's α = .92; AVE = .56; CR = .92; MSV = .21; ASV = .13) 9.05
C Quality of accommodations .86 (33.53) .77
C Choice of the level of hotels .84 .79
C Rates of hotel rooms .80 .79
C Availability of meetings facilities .72 .70
C Number of hotel rooms .72 .75
C Overall affordability of the host convention destination .68 .72
C Cost of meetings facilities .67 .75
C Availability of exhibition facilities .66 .72
C Cost of exhibition facilities .62 .74
Factor 2: Personal influence and reputation (Cronbach's α = .90; AVE = .58; CR = .89; MSV = .30; ASV = .22) 2.90
N Favorable relationships with elected officers, board members of the association .97 (10.75) .91
N Favorable relationships with international members .89 .88
N Influence of local organization on the international associations .79 .80
N Active participation at international association's board and committee .67 .67
N Credibility of the chair or members of the local organization .56 .66
N Experience of the chair or members of the local organization .47 .61
Factor 3: Extra activities (Cronbach's α = .89; AVE = .74; CR = .90; MSV = .29; ASV = .19) 1.60
C Availability of shopping and entertainment .94 (5.91) .93
C Availability of nightlife .87 .87
C Variety of restaurants .67 .79
Factor 4: Scientific achievement (Cronbach's α = .86; AVE = .67; CR = .86; MSV = .30; ASV = .11) 1.20
N Level of scientific achievements of the local hosting organization .81 (4.43) .88
N Capability of organizing high-quality scientific programs .80 .78
N Opportunities for extra scientific or technical programs .76 .79
Factor 5: Destination image (Cronbach's α = .66; AVE = .42; CR = .68; MSV = .29; ASV = .15) .86
N Political and economic stability .56 (3.18) –
C Image of destination .50 .63
N Experience and reputation for their successful hosting events .45 .55
N Previous visit experience to the destination .41 .75
Factor 6: Financial resources (Cronbach's α = .88; AVE = .61; CR = .82; MSV = .28; ASV = .18) .65
N Sponsorship opportunities from the private sectors .82 (2.42) .91
N Sponsorship opportunities from the public sectors .79 .86

Note: SL (Standardized loading), AVE (Average Variance Extracted), CR (Construct Reliability), C (Conventional), N (Nonconventional), MSV (Maximum Shared
Square Variance), and ASV (Average Shared Square Variance).
EFA: Total variance explained: 60.22%, KMO: 0.90 (Bartlett's Test: p < 0.0001), Principal Axis Factoring using Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
CFA: Robust χ2 = 741.31, df = 284, p < 0.05, χ2/df = 2.61, CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.071 (90% CI = 0.066 - 0.075), SRMR = 0.055 All standardized
factor loadings are significant at the 0.05 significant level.

variance, indicating an acceptable level (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010).
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted to ex-
amine the validity of the developed destination-selection attributes of
international associations. The CFA results showed an adequate level of
model fit indices (MLR χ 2 (284) = 741.31, p < 0.001; χ 2 / df = 2.61,
CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.071, SRMR = 0.055). Convergent
validity was confirmed because 1) the average variance extracted (AVE)
for all constructs was greater than or very close to 0.5; 2) all standar-
dized factor loadings, except for a few attributes, were greater than or
close to 0.7; and 3) construct reliability was greater than or very close
to 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity
was confirmed because the AVE for all constructs was higher than the
maximum shared variance (MSV) and the average shared squared
variance (ASV) (Hair et al., 2010).
The detailed factor structure and destination-selection attributes are
presented in Table 6. The first factor (labeled “Facilities – Accom-
modation, Meetings, and Exhibitions”) contained nine destination-se-
lection attributes, including quality of accommodations, choice of tiers
of hotels, hotel room rates, availability of meeting facilities, and the
number of hotel rooms. These attributes focus mainly on the physical
dimensions of the destination derived from previous research. This
factor is a primary and dominant destination-selection attribute within
the study sample, as it explains the largest proportion of the total
variance. The second factor was “Personal influence and reputation”,
which consisted of six items: relationships with officers, board members
or international members; the influence of the local organization on the
international association; active participation; and the credibility or
experience of the local organization. The destination attributes included
in this factor were identified by the qualitative research in this study.
The third factor was “Extra activities”, which included three survey
items regarding the availability of shopping and entertainment, night-
life, and restaurants. These attributes were derived from previous lit-
erature. The fourth factor was “Scientific achievement”, which included
the level of achievement, the capability of the local organization, op-
portunities for extra programs and the scientific achievement of the
local host organization. This factor, which was identified through
qualitative research, is particularly important for information associa-
tions or academic associations. The fifth factor was labeled “Destination
image”, and it consisted of three destination-selection attributes: the
image of the destination, experience with successfully hosting events,
and previous visits to the destination. While political and economic
stability was excluded from the CFA stage, further study might be
needed to test the validity of this item in different contexts. Compared
with the other factors, this factor was a mix of both conventional and
nonconventional destination-selection attributes. The sixth factor was
‘Financial resources’, and it consisted of possible sponsorship opportu-
nities from either the private or the public sectors at the destination.
These two attributes were derived from two separate interviews and a
content analysis of the legal documents.

69
D. Jo, et al.
Fig. 2. Refined model of the site selection process.
Note: Shaded areas in the figure represent newly added/revised components compared to the original model proposed by Crouch and Ritchie (1997).
5. Conclusions and implications
5.1. Conclusions
This study provides important results that shed light on the inter-
national association meeting destination-selection process and decision
criteria, and it refines earlier works by utilizing a mixed-methods ap-
proach. Using a series of qualitative and quantitative research methods,
this study revealed the complex structure of association buying centers
and identified 24 important but less emphasized attributes affecting
international association meeting destination selection. This study ca-
tegorized destination attributes from both previous research and the
current study into six broad factors. Those six factors with 26 destina-
tion-selection criteria cover facilities at the destination, personal in-
fluence, available activities at the destination, professional and educa-
tion programs, destination image, and financial resources. The findings
from this study ultimately serve as a foundation for the formulation of
better marketing strategies for DMOs.
5.2. Theoretical implications
This study builds on Crouch and Ritchie's (1997) model of the
destination selection process. Their model explained the general pro-
cess of destination selection but did not fully reflect the complexities
and dynamics of buying centers. The qualitative methodologies (e.g.
interviews, content analysis of the legal documents) used in this study
revealed several important characteristics of buying centers in inter-
national associations. The decision-making process of international
associations is the result of a series of decision-making processes by the
individual members of the buying center, who are often influenced by
their interpersonal relationships with other members (Johnston &
Lewin, 1996; Webster & Wind, 1972). Members' evaluations and deci-
sions are subject to their perceptions or expectations of a particular
destination and their weightings of the destination decision criteria
70
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72
(Clark, Price, & Murrmann, 1996; DiPietro et al., 2008; Johnston &
Lewin, 1996). The majority of international associations analyzed in
this study had two buying centers choosing the international meeting
destination in sequential stages. The initial buying center played a
symbolic and enforcing role in recommending either a single destina-
tion or multiple candidate destinations with its initial evaluation report,
whereas the second buying center, which had more participants (i.e. 24
participants on average in this study), chose and approved the final
destination selection. Usually, the final selection committee included
diverse stakeholders representing different regions or backgrounds (e.g.
presidents, elected officers, past presidents, executive directors), which
creates a highly complex and dynamic decision environment. For ex-
ample, during the interviews, it was found that the power or role of past
presidents in the destination-selection process is very important, re-
gardless of their ability to cast votes. Finally, this study found the role of
meeting planners in the destination-selection process is very limited,
which is consistent with the findings of past research (e.g. Clark et al.,
1996; Jones, 2000).
The refined model of the international association meeting desti-
nation-selection process thus emphasizes the complexity of buying
centers and their roles throughout the process, and it incorporates the
newly identified destination-selection attributes. The refined model is
based on Crouch and Ritchie's (1997) model of convention site selec-
tion, Fawzy and Samra's (2008) model of the convention site-selection
process, and the findings from both the qualitative and quantitative
research conducted in the current study. The buying process of inter-
national associations is set in motion automatically in accordance with
their written rules and internal regulations. These rules and guidelines
allow a content analysis of the legal documents of international asso-
ciations and contain many important antecedent conditions, which
serve as a basic guideline for the selection process of international
meeting destinations. The notable distinction of the refined model is the
existence of dual buying centers, the absence of evoked sets, and the
identification of new destination-selection attributes. The refined model
D. Jo, et al.
of the international association meeting destination-selection process is
illustrated in Fig. 2.
The findings of this study have some similarities and dissimilarities
compared to earlier studies. Six categories and 26 destination-selection
attributes are consistent with the earlier seminal work by Crouch and
Ritchie (1997). First, accommodation and meeting facilities were two
separate categories in Crouch and Ritchie's (1997) study, while the
present study combines them into a single category. The detail di-
mensions were similar across two studies (i.e. quality, price, and
availability). As this factor showed the largest variance explained
among six factors in the study, it can be concluded that facility (or the
physical attributes of the destination) should be the most important
factor impacting destination-selection criteria in this study, which is
consistent with earlier ones (Choi, 2005; Crouch & Louviere, 2004).
Second, the present study has two separate activities-related factors:
extra activities and scientific achievement. In Crouch and Ritchie's
(1997) study, professional opportunities were included in extra-con-
ference opportunities. This separation may reflect the importance of
scientific programs, education/professional experience, and network
opportunities to attract more international association meeting atten-
dees (Lee & Min, 2013; Mair & Thompson, 2009). Third, the present
study includes a relatively large number of criteria related to personal
influence and reputation, in addition to the reputation of and prior
experience with the destination. Personal influence and reputation
factor emphasize the importance of long-term relationships with the
international association to host an event. Fourth, the factor found in
the present study focused explicitly on the support of financial re-
sources from either private or public sectors at the destination, which is
a subset of local support proposed in Crouch and Ritchie's (1997) study.
Nevertheless, it should not be concluded that the other type of local
support (e.g. local chapter assistance, and logistical and promotional
support) is less important. This factor is possibly caused by the design of
this study. The survey data were collected from international associa-
tion members and focused on the importance of each factor during the
destination-selection process, in which the extent of local support was
already guaranteed in the proposal submitted by the destination. This
research design can also provide a plausible reason why accessibility to
the destination was excluded from the final result, unlike previous
studies (Crouch & Louviere, 2004; Nelson & Rys, 2000).
5.3. Practical implications
Many destinations worldwide attempt to host international events
(e.g. international association meetings or mega-events) to attract more
tourists, increase awareness of the destination, and have both financial
and nonfinancial impacts (e.g. Getz & Page, 2016). To be successful in
the bidding process, potential candidate destinations should not only
invest heavily in their physical attributes (e.g. facilities, accessibility)
but also consider various nonphysical attributes simultaneously (e.g.
experience, reputation, credibility, professional opportunity, and local
support). In addition, meeting planners and CVB officers are required to
carefully understand both the detailed bidding process written in the
legal documents and the political dynamics within buying centers. A
long-term relationship with international members and/or elected of-
ficers (including past presidents) may be highly beneficial for local
CVBs and DMOs to collect relevant information (both formal and in-
formal information) and knowledge about how to host international
meetings. In the long term, evaluations associated with nonphysical
attributes or decision-makers’ perceptions of nonphysical attributes
must be improved to continuously host meetings of other international
associations and ensure the economic sustainability of the meeting in-
dustry at the destination. Nationwide CVBs or national tourism orga-
nizations must endeavor to address and educate local representatives
and members in the region on the importance of nonphysical attributes
such as experience, competence, and reputation. For example, edu-
cating industry practitioners and even policy-makers or politicians
71
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72
about the importance of balancing physical and nonphysical destination
attributes is an easy and simple method of sharing facts and knowledge
about how to improve the competitiveness of a potential international
association meeting destination and create a consensus among the
public while allocating available funds to development projects related
to the meeting industry.
5.4. Future research and limitations
This study has limitations offering several future research oppor-
tunities. First, despite the authors' efforts, the response rate for this
study was relatively low, and future research must implement better
strategies to boost the response rate. Furthermore, because of the lim-
ited accessibility of buying-center members across the world, this study
largely relied on a few international associations and one national CVB
to identify potential participants. This approach resulted in potentially
geographically biased responses, although the collected data showed a
relatively equal distribution across the world. Second, the newly iden-
tified destination-selection attributes may be revised and further vali-
dated with different samples. More importantly, this study was not
designed to identify the importance of newly identified destination-
selection attributes in the decision-making process relative to the im-
portance of destination attributes identified in earlier studies. A com-
parison of the influence between two sets of destination attributes in
future studies would be much more interesting. Third, the subjective
judgment of the authors in this study may overlook an important des-
tination decision factor. For example, the study has only included those
factors mentioned from two or more qualitative methods or those de-
rived from more than two papers. Furthermore, one attribute was ex-
cluded: the vision and mission of the association. As such, a future study
could carefully reevaluate those missing factors to understand the
complete picture of the destination selection process. Fourth, the results
of this study allowed for a discussion of the internal political dynamics
of buying centers in the process of destination selection, which should
be based on their personal background, positions, and interrelation-
ships with other members. Thus, understanding the differences in the
importance and actual impact of destination section attributes between
different groups may be interesting for practitioners to further develop
an effective bidding strategy. Finally, although not the focus of the
study, operational issues related to universal access in event manage-
ment are worth further attention. As the UNWTO suggested with the
phrase “accessible tourism for all” (UNWTO, 2016), hosting organiza-
tions and event facilities should focus more on the means of accom-
modating all conference attendees, including disabled attendees and
other diverse populations such as those who are old, have food aller-
gies, intolerances, or different religious beliefs. As such, further re-
search is needed to connect event management and universal access.
References
Astroff, M. T., & Abbey, J. R. (2006). Convention management and service (5th ed.). Lansing,
MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Motel Association.
Baloglu, S., & Love, C. (2005). Association meeting planners' perceptions and intentions
for five major US convention cities: The structured and unstructured images. Tourism
Management, 26(5), 743–752.
Byers, P. Y., & Wilcox, J. R. (1991). Focus groups: A qualitative opportunity for re-
searchers. Journal of Business Communication, 28(1), 63–78.
Chen, C.-F. (2006). Applying the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to con-
vention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 167–174.
Choe, Y., Lee, S. M., & Kim, D. K. (2014). Understanding the exhibition attendees' eva-
luation of their experiences: A comparison between high versus low mindful visitors.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(7), 899–914.
Choi, J.-J. (2005). Factors influencing state association planners' overall satisfaction with
a convention experience. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 6(4), 65–80.
Choi, J.-J., & Boger, C. A., Jr. (2000). Association planners' satisfaction: An application of
importance-performance analysis. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management,
2(2–3), 113–129.
Clark, J. D., & McCleary, K. W. (1995). Influencing associations' site-selection process.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 61–68.
Clark, J. D., Price, C. H., & Murrmann, S. K. (1996). Buying center: Who chooses
D. Jo, et al.
convention sites? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 72–76.
Comas, M., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding associations and their conference
decision-making processes. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 7(3–4), 117–138.
Cró, S., & Martins, A. M. (2018). International association meetings: Importance of des-
tination attributes. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 24(3), 218–233.
Crouch, G. I., Del Chiappa, G., & Perdue, R. R. (2019). International convention tourism:
A choice modelling experiment of host city competition. Tourism Management, 71,
530–542.
Crouch, G. I., & Louviere, J. J. (2004). The determinants of convention site selection: A
logistic choice model from experimental data. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2),
118–130.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1997). Convention site selection research: A review,
conceptual model, and propositional framework. Journal of Convention & Exhibition
Management, 1(1), 49–69.
Dioko, L. D. A., & Whitfield, J. (2015). Price competitiveness and government incentives
for simulating the meetings industry: A critical look at the case of Macau.
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 6(1), 39–53.
DiPietro, R. B., Breiter, D., Rompf, P., & Godlewska, M. (2008). An exploratory study of
differences among meeting and exhibition planners in their destination selection
criteria. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 9(4), 258–276.
Elston, K., & Draper, J. (2012). A review of meeting planner site selection criteria re-
search. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 13(3), 203–220.
Fawzy, A., & Samra, Y. A. (2008). A conceptual model for understanding associations' site
selection processes: An organizational buyer behavior perspective. Journal of
Convention & Event Tourism, 9(2), 119–136.
Fenich, G. (2015). Planning and management of meetings, expositions, events and conventions.
New York, NY: Pearson.
Fenich, G. (2016). Meetings, expositions, events, and conventions: An introduction to the in-
dustry (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Fortin, P. A., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1977). An empirical study of association decision pro-
cesses in convention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 15(4), 13–20.
Getz, D., & Page, S. (2016). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Go, F. M., & Govers, R. (1999). The Asian perspective: Which international conference
destinations in Asia are the most competitive? Journal of Convention & Exhibition
Management, 1(4), 37–50.
Go, F. M., & Zhang, W. (1997). Applying importance-performance analysis to Beijing as
an international meeting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 42–49.
Hahm, J. J., Breiter, D., Severt, K., Wang, Y., & Fjelstul, J. (2016). The relationship be-
tween sense of community and satisfaction on future intentions to attend an asso-
ciation's annual meeting. Tourism Management, 52, 151–160.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jin, X., Weber, K., & Bauer, T. (2013). Dimensions and perceptional differences of ex-
hibition destination attractiveness: The case of China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 37(4), 447–469.
Johnston, W. J., & Lewin, J. E. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Toward an in-
tegrative framework. Journal of Business Research, 35(1), 1–15.
Jones, D. L. (2000). Determining the corporate meeting planner's role in the convention
and meeting site decision: A cross-cultural perspective for sales training. Journal of
Convention & Exhibition Management, 2(2–3), 27–38.
Kozak, M. A., Aksoz, E. O., & Özel, Ç. H. (2015). An analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
model for understanding convention planners' prior factors of convention hotel se-
lection. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 7(2), 256–272.
Lee, M. J., & Back, K.-J. (2005). A review of economic value drivers in convention and
meeting management research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 17(5), 409–420.
Lee, M. J., & Back, K.-J. (2008). Association meeting participation: A test of competing
models. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 300–310.
Lee, J., Choi, Y., & Breiter, D. (2016). An exploratory study of convention destination
72
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 13 (2019) 61–72
competitiveness from the attendees' perspective: Importance-performance analysis
and repeated measures of MANOVA. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(5),
589–610.
Lee, H., & Lee, J. S. (2017). An exploratory study of factors that exhibition organizers look
for when selecting convention and exhibition centers. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 34(8), 1001–1017.
Lee, J. S., & Min, C. K. (2013). Examining the role of multidimensional value in con-
vention attendee behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 402–425.
Lichy, J., & McLeay, F. (2018). Bleisure: Motivations and typologies. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 517–530.
Mair, J. (2010). Profiling conference delegates using attendance motivations. Journal of
Convention & Event Tourism, 11(3), 176–194.
Mair, J. (2013). Conferences and conventions: A research perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mair, J., & Thompson, K. (2009). The UK association conference attendance decision-
making process. Tourism Management, 30(3), 400–409.
Nelson, R., & Rys, S. (2000). Convention site selection criteria relevant to secondary
convention destinations. Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 2(2–3),
71–82.
Oppermann, M. (1998). Association involvement and convention participation. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(3), 17–30.
Oppermann, M., & Chon, K.-S. (1997). Convention participation decision-making process.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 178–191.
Para, A., & Kachniewska, M. (2014). Determinants of convention & conference site se-
lection: The Polish event planners' perspective. New Trends in Tourism Research: A
Polish Perspective, 1, 150–162.
Park, J., Wu, B., Shen, Y., Morrison, A. M., & Kong, Y. (2014). The great halls of China?
Meeting planners' perceptions of Beijing as an international convention destination.
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 15(4), 244–270.
Posner, K. L., Sampson, P. D., Caplan, R. A., Ward, R. J., & Cheney, F. W. (1990).
Measuring interrater reliability among multiple raters: An example of methods for
nominal data. Statistics in Medicine, 9(9), 1103–1115.
Rompf, P. D., Breiter, D., & Severt, K. (2008). Destination selection criteria: Key success
factors evolve and dominate. Event Management, 12(1), 27–38.
Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P. J., & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation, per-
ceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees: Evidence
from a regional conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399–408.
Shone, A. (1998). The business of conferences: A hospitality sector overview for the UK and
Ireland. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Reed Educational and Professional
Publishing.
Tanford, S., Montgomery, R., & Nelson, K. B. (2012). Factors that influence attendance,
satisfaction, and loyalty for conventions. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 13(4),
290–318.
UIA (Union of International Associations) (2018). International meetings statistics report
(59th ed.). Retrieved 15.07.18. from www.uia.org/sites/uia.org/files/misc_pdfs/
pubs/UIA_stats_PR17.pdf.
UNWTO (2016). Manual on accessible tourism for all: Principles, tools and best practices:
Module I: Accessible tourism: Definition and context. Retrieved 24.03.19. from: <
https://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/doc.pdf/moduleieng13022017.pdf.
Upchurch, R. S., Jeong, G.-H., Clements, C., & Jung, I. (2000). Meeting planners' per-
ceptions of site selection characteristics: The case of Seoul, Korea. Journal of
Convention & Exhibition Management, 2(1), 15–35.
Var, T., Cesario, F., & Mauser, G. (1985). Convention tourism modelling. Tourism
Management, 6(3), 194–204.
Webster, F. E., Jr., & Wind, Y. P. (1972). A general model for understanding organiza-
tional buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 12–19.
Whitfield, J., Dioko, L. D. A., Webber, D., & Zhang, L. (2014). Attracting convention and
exhibition attendance to complex MICE venues: Emerging data from Macao.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 169–179.
Yoo, J. E. J., & Chon, K. (2010). Temporal changes in factors affecting convention par-
ticipation decision. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(1), 103–120.
Zhang, H. Q., Leung, V., & Qu, H. (2007). A refined model of factors affecting convention
participation decision-making. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1123–1127.