Abstract
Tourism plays an increasingly important role in many developing countries’ financial and social advancement. There has been rapid development which translated to visitors for genuine and enjoyable holiday experiences in the last 10 years. In fact, there are a handful of studies that investigated tourism experiences, revisit intention, destination loyalty and destination personality. Nevertheless, limited research has been found to determine the factors influencing the destination image from a tourist’s perspective. Therefore, the current study attempts to explore whether carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility, accommodation quality, cultural, and destination attractiveness & resources are key factors in influencing destination image. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected from 159 tourists who visited Kuching Waterfront, Malaysia. The research employs PLS-SEM, and the results indicated that four of the direct hypotheses were supported, which are carrying capacity, perceived value, cultural and destination attractiveness & resources. The implications and limitations of the current study were further discussed.
Keywords: Carrying capacityperceived valueaccessibility & accommodation qualityculturaldestination attractiveness & resourcesdestination image
Introduction
Tourism is regarded as one of the largest industries in the world and the fastest growing economic activity that contributes to the economic wellbeing of a country. It assimilates a different kind of aspects such as natural resources, environmental, residents, culture, transportation, accommodation and restaurants (Horng et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2012; Sigala, 2008). Tourism is further viewed as the most effective way of promoting our internationally national culture, surroundings and social components (Lim et al., 2017). In the last 10 years, there has been rapid development which translated to visitors for genuine and enjoyable holiday experiences for relaxation (Buffa, 2015; Lim et al., 2017). Tourism is found to be able to generate jobs, encourages exports and incorporates considerable enormous cultural, environmental and heritage value. In fact, tourism is playing an increasingly important role in many developing countries’ financial and social advancement (Gomez-Vega & Picazo-Tadeo, 2019; Joshi et al., 2017). Statistics released by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Culture Sarawak show that Sarawak received 4.43 million visitors and with tourism receipts totalling of RM7.95 billion in 2018. The statistics implied that Sarawak is expected to welcome 5 million visitors by the end of year 2019, which is anticipated to contribute RM 8.18 billion in tourism receipt through the Visit Sarawak Campaign launched in 2019 in promoting “Sarawak, More to Discover”.
Tourism destinations with strong destination image are the prime concern by the Sarawak government in accomplishing the targeted tourist’s arrivals. The destination image is commonly recognized as a strong instrument to be used by the tourism industry to achieve market competitiveness. Previous studies have posited that destination image of the country plays significant part in the decision-making process of tourist (Chaulagain et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Moreover, researchers highlighted the role of destination image and provided empirical evidences that destination image is the catalyst in tourist preferences, procedures of choice, visit and revisit intentions (Kim & Lee, 2015; Souiden et al., 2017).
This study took place at Kuching Waterfront, in Sarawak, a tourist destination that is known as one of the most popular destination for relaxation and sightseeing. As aforementioned, the study attempts to investigate the attributes of the carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility quality, accommodation quality, cultural on the uniqueness of experiences as well as destination attractiveness and resources on the destination image in order to gain the competitiveness of Kuching Waterfront. The results of this research will provide useful insights into the positioning plans for future destination marketers.
Destination Image
Destination image is the significant influences that tourists will affect a destination's choices and defined as a tourist's general impression of a destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015). The perceived destination image of tourists plays an important role in their purchasing decisions and then stimulates their visiting and re-visiting intentions (Allameh et al., 2015; Oppermann, 2000; Pike, 2004). Tourist behaviour usually being influenced by destination image where tourist will be considered and designated the destination with optimistic images during the process of decision making on travel destination (Foroudi et al., 2018). On the other hand, image is a representation of the attitude of the visitor towards several attributes related to the destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 2003).
Carrying Capacity
Carrying capacity is several-dimensional as an environmental, economic, psychological and sensory activity that needs to be considered depending on the stakeholders ' actual considerations (Muler Gonzalez et al., 2018; Simon et al., 2004). Two important components are recognized by carrying capacity, namely on the environmental quality and the quality of tourist’s experiences which can be defined as the amount of people who visit the tourist destination without destroying the quality, environment and recreational of the destination and decrease tourist satisfaction (Dioko & So, 2017; Wall, 1982). It can further be defined as the environmental quality and visitor satisfaction that could not be diminished by capacity of the environment to support the visitant activity (Dioko & So, 2017). Past studies (Buhalis, 2000; Chandran et al., 2012, Chin et al., 2016) postulated that the number of tourist arrivals to the destination must be controlled in order to maintain the sustainability of the destination Public and private sectors are concerned about the issue of carrying tourism destination capacity as tourist overcrowding will have a negative impact on the condition of the destination environment and diminish the satisfaction of tourists. The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
Perceived Value
Perceived value is a significant antecedent of satisfaction and has a direct positive relationship with customer satisfaction (Khuong & Phuong, 2017). It is a customer's overall assessment of a product or service provided (Allameh et al., 2015; Zeithaml, 1988). Through consideration of what they give and what they gain from products, the perceived value is identified as a general customer valuation and can be further defined as the individual benefits of products or services that can be seen or cannot be seen; and the benefits that an individual receives and all the costs or prices that they have to pay (Khuong & Duyen, 2017). In past literature review, there is a lack of studies examined on the relationship between perceived value and destination image. Past research by Allameh et al. (2015) revealed that there is a significant relationship between perceived value and destination image. Furthermore, Chen and Tsai (2007) has also reported that the tourists’ needs and satisfaction on core tourism product and services are the antecedence of destination image. Therefore, the discussion above leads to the formulated hypothesis:
Accessibility
Accessibility to the availability of tourists to reach their destination, such as traffic flow, parking facilities, local transport convenience (Chi & Qu, 2008; Law & Lo, 2016). Past studies elucidated that one of the key factors that influences tourists in making travel choices is the importance of quality of accessibility (Chin et al., 2018; Litman, 2003). Good accessibility of the destination is the ability of the destination to provide tourists with the appropriate or varied access to a geographical location and during their visit to a specific attraction within the particular tourism destination (Aguila & Ragot, 2014; Hall, 2004; Law & Lo, 2016). Past study by Kim et al. (2016) highlighted that accessibility has an impact on destination image which in turn affects the revisit intention of the tourist. Hence, accessibility which is considered as tangible service is found to affect destination image. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed based on the discussion above.
Accommodation Quality
Accommodation is referred as hotels, homestays, motels and village in the context of the hospitality tourism industry (Chin et al., 2018; Ebrahimpour & Haghkhah, 2010). This is vital to ensure that tourism destination with the best amenities meets the expectations and thus will satisfy customers and subsequently enable the destination to achieve a better image (Lo et al., 2019). The quality of the accommodation is based on different physical elements such as the design of the facility, the condition of the facility and the comfort of the equipment and the food supply. Previous research (Downward & Lumsdon, 2000; Lo et al., 2019; Mehmetoglu, 2007; Rauch et al., 2015) evidenced that tourists ' span of stay, their optimal choice of activities and their time they spend in the tourist destination seem to affect the value of their accommodation. On the other hand, various other studies have proposed that accommodation is an expansion of the tourism experience and that a healthy accommodation experience can increase the satisfaction of visitors with their general journey and the destination (Shi et al., 2019; Wight, 1998; Yang et al., 2019). The experience of accommodation is essential to the memorability of the general destination experience of visitors (Shi et al., 2019; Tukamushaba et al., 2016). The subsequent hypothesis is proposed on the discussion above:
Cultural
Culture has been defined as the main resource in the context of the tourism industry (Manrai et al., 2018; Ritchie & Crouch, 2010). A destination's cultural heritage is crucial to long-term prosperity and helps reinforce the sense of place and civic pride of the residents. In this context - Timothy and Boyd (2003) indicated that the supply of heritage as a combination of elements covering the heritage attractions offered to tourists, the environment and context in which the heritage occurs, and the support services given by tourism activities and flows. The uniqueness of cultural experiences allows tourists to have desired to experience new and different cultures. A destination has a competitive advantage simply by having a unique culture – with festivals, art, architecture, and cuisine are also influenced by culture (Manrai et al., 2018). Culture is a highly complex subject that covers all aspects of human life. Tourist destination becomes more attractive when there are more unique and varied cultural experiences where it directly will bring a positive image on the destination. Therefore, uniqueness of cultural experiences was found to have a significant relationship on destination image. As discussed above, the formalized hypothesis is developed.
Destination Attractiveness & Resources
We live in an era of information overflow and in travel industry - positioning and promoting of tourism destination is central in order to attract and motivate potential tourists to visit a destination (Ma et al., 2018). Destination attractiveness has become a core stream of tourism literature. The attractiveness of destination is regarded as to a location's ability to attract tourist flows and is determined by different elements such as natural and historical attractions, facilities and services, infrastructure, hospitality and expenses (Fadda & Sorensen, 2017; Kozak & Rimmington, 1998). It is the perception of combined individual benefits and the ability of the destination to deliver those benefits. This infers that the more a destination is able to meet the needs of a tourist, the more attractive it will be (Ma et al., 2018). Tourism attractions have become an important element in creating a destination attractiveness (Dean et al., 2019; Hung et al., 2016) and past studies indicated that developing a positive destination image is dependent on providing good quality and environmental of destination attractiveness (Dean et al., 2019; Stylidis et al., 2017). In turn, a destination's attractiveness has been proven to significantly affect the profitability in hospitality industry (Fadda & Sorensen, 2017). Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed based on the discussion above.
Problem Statement
Tourism's sustainable growth in a destination is dependent on tourist’s arrival and t is highly depending on tourist’s perception of the destination in order to increase the number of tourists to a destination and increase their experience (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). The importance of the image of the destination is widely recognized as building and marketing the images of the destination. The creation of a memorable attractive destination image is therefore one of the biggest challenges facing today's tourism markets (Sulaiman & Wilson, 2019). All these adverse effects, such as deterioration of natural resources, overcrowding, inadequate development of infrastructure and decreasing environmental quality, will affect the sustainable development of tourism in the tourist destination and indirectly affect the tourist perception of the destination image (Chin et al., 2016). In fact, tourism destinations with a strong image of destination are primarily concerned with the Government of Sarawak in order to achieve the goal of the arrivals of tourists. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the destination image is crucial in shaping tourist travel behaviour, where the destination image has not been deeply influenced in terms of tourist perception (Kock et al., 2016). There are studies (Alrawadieh et al., 2019; Souiden et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018) that have focused on tourism experiences, revisit intention, destination loyalty and destination personality. However, limited studies have empirically examined on factors influencing the destination image in Sarawak’s popular destinations. Therefore, it is crucial for tourism stakeholders to focus on specific destination setting to comprehend a relevant and valid understanding of the destination image.
Research Questions
In this study, the research questions are framed based on the tourists’ perspective:
Is carrying capacity having positive relationship with destination image?
Is perceived value having positive relationship with destination image?
Is accessibility having positive relationship with destination image?
Is accommodation having positive relationship with destination image?
Is cultural having positive relationship with destination image?
Is destination attractiveness & resources having positive relationship with destination image?
Purpose of the Study
Specific Objective
To explore the factors (e.g. carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility, accommodation, cultural and destination attractiveness & resources) influencing on destination image of Kuching Waterfront, Sarawak under tourist’s perspectives.
Research Methods
The research site of this study is Kuching Waterfront as a major destination. Kuching Waterfront is a good place to start for tourists to explore the beauty of Kuching, as it is located at the city centre. Located along the river bank of Sarawak River, Kuching Waterfront is geographically and strategically located as it is a short distance away from an abundance surrounding attractions, such as the Chinese History Museum, Square Tower, Darul Hana Bridge, Astana, Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN), Fort Margherita, and the must-visit Mira Cake House in a nearby old-time Malay kampung (village): Kampung Boyan, a traditional Malay kampung (village).
The sample of this study were selected based on purposive sampling and the targeted sample are those who have visited Kuching Waterfront between October 2018 and March 2019. In determining the sample size, a G*power analysis was performed with the effect size set as 0.15 (medium), power needed as 0.8, and a maximum of 6 predictors. Based on the power analysis, the minimum sample size required for this study is 98. Using a survey methodology, 500 questionnaires have been distributed, and 173 responses have been returned, indicating a 35% response rate. After data screening, 159 were used for further statistical analyses. This sample consisted of 55 males (34.6%) and 104 females (65.4%). The majority of respondents were aged between 21-30 years old (69.8%), followed by those were aged between 31-40 years old (10.1%) and those were aged between 41-50 years old (7.5%) while the remaining were aged between 18-20 years old and more than 50 years old (6.9% and 5.7% respectively). The majority, or 88% of respondents were earning less than RM4, 500 per month while 12% of respondents were earning more than RM4, 500 per month.
In this study, a total of 29 measures was used and all of them were revised from previous studies (Artuğer, 2015; Canny & Hidayat, 2012; Chi & Qu, 2008; Collins, 2005; Herstanti et al., 2014; Yusof & Rahman, 2011). All the measurement items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). A pre-test was performed prior to the survey to ensure that the respondents clearly understood the questions and instructions. The proposed model was tested using SmartPLS 3.0 as shown in Figure

Findings
Assessment of the measurement model
Convergent validity and discriminant validity were examined in order to assess the measurement model. First, convergent validity was examined by assessing the factor loadings, average variances extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR). As can be perceived in Table
Next, the discriminant validity was tested following Fornell and Larcker (1981) Criterion and heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) proposed by Henseler et al. (2015). According to Fornell-Larcker Criterion, the AVE should be greater than the square correlation of each construct between two constructs. As can be seen in Table
Assessment of the structural model
Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was employed using PLS-SEM analysis with the SmartPLS 3.0 software to assess the proposed hypotheses. According to Hair et al. (2017), the structural model was examined based on the corresponding t-values. Table
As can be seen, most of the paths were significant at or above p < 0.05 and had a small effect size (0.024 – 0.065). Specifically, the results of the statistical analysis reported significant effects of carrying capacity (β = 0.144, p < 0.05), perceived value (β = 0.263, p < 0.01), cultural (β = 0.189, p < 0.05), and destination attractiveness & resources (β = 0.169, p < 0.05) on destination image. Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, H5, and H6 were found to be supported. However, hypotheses H3 and H4, which linked accessibility (β = 0.091, p > 0.05) and accommodation quality (β = 0.189, p > 0.05) with destination image, were not supported in this study.
To detect multicollinearity, variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined. As shown in Table

Conclusion
To summarize, this study sets out mainly to analyse the image of Kuching Waterfront as tourist destination. It shows that influencing factors such as carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility quality, accommodation quality, cultural, destination attractiveness & resources on destination image from tourists’ perspective. This research asserts to determine the significance of carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility quality, accommodation quality, cultural, and destination attractiveness & resources on destination in tourism destination in Sarawak. From the review of literature, there are six independent variables in this study namely carrying capacity, perceived value, accommodation quality, accessibility quality and cultural as well as destination attractiveness and resources. No proven model of empirical research has been found to analyse these factors from a tourist perspective as described above on the destination image. In summary, a total of six hypotheses were tested, only four hypotheses were found to be supported.
Carrying capacity was found to have significant impact on destination image, and thus supporting H1. Past studies (Chandran et al., 2012; Chin et al., 2016) found that controllable numbers of tourist to a destination is capable maintaining the best relaxation conditions in the environment. It is imperative that there is a limit on the number of tourists visiting a tourist destination as this will result in a proper environmental management practices as this will have an impact on residents’ living conditions as well as in maintaining tourists’ experiences (Dioko & So, 2017). Moreover, the results of the study specified that perceived value has positively impact on destination image, indicating that H2 was supported. The outcome provides a better insight into destination image from tourist perspective as this enhances the probability that this destination will be revisited and recommended. As posited by Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. (2015), environment quality, attraction and good facilities will improve the perceived value of the destination and tourists’ satisfaction. This can be further explained that good products and services provided to the tourist will highly increase tourist satisfaction and image of destination.
The present study also devoted that the uniqueness of cultural experiences had a significant impact on the destination image under tourist’s perspective, and therefore, supporting H5. By having a unique culture, tourist will be able to experience new and different culture from the destination. Unique cultural experiences can be in terms of festival, cultural performances, architectures and historical story of the destination which can bring positive image of the destination. By engaging with cultural tourism, tourist will level up their curiosity in our cultural destination. A positive cultural tourism experiences may result in the tourist loyalty towards the destination which may lead to the high possibility in influencing tourists’ revisit intention and recommending the destination to others (Chen & Rahman, 2018). On the other hand, the result showed that destination attractiveness and resources was positively related to destination image, and H6 was supported. A study by Reitsamer et al. (2016) revealed that the destination attractiveness is essential for both the creation of images and the memorability of the experience of the destination. Tourists are increasingly looking for distinctive experiences that go beyond mere product or service consumption. Destination attractiveness and resources can be in the form of natural resources, scenery and the local community which can simply define as the most fundamental component in attracting visitors to the destination, the natural structure of the landscape of the destination (Kim et al., 2012).
On the other hand, the statistical results have reported that accessibility is not positively effects on destination image, indicating H3 is not supported. This result of this analysis does not match any previous studies as most of the past recent studies were studied on the accommodation and accessibility quality on destination competitiveness (Chong et al., 2018) and either on tourist’s satisfaction and revisit intention to tourism destination (Chin et al., 2018). The reason for the findings was found to be not supported could be due tourist may assume that good accessibility to a destination is essential for making a travel choice. In fact, a tourist who stays far from the travel destination may not have the convenience of local transport to reach off the destination. Furthermore, tardiness of buses or other forms of public transportation could also have a negative effect on tourist satisfaction towards the service quality on accessibility to reach the destination. Other than that, the findings also reveal of non-supportive for H4 as accommodation quality is not positively related to the destination image. One plausible reason could be due to the accommodation experiences of tourist was not satisfied either on the staff's behaviours, friendliness and cleanliness of the accommodation that did not meet tourist’s expectations.
Based on our findings, we found significant theoretical and practical implications, particularly in the field of destination image. This study proved a comprehensive investigation into whether each dimension such as carrying capacity, perceived value, cultural, accessibility quality, accommodation quality and destination attractiveness & resources impact on destination from tourist perspective from the view of theoretical implications. Furthermore, this study has been carried out in proven the relationship between the influencing factors and destination image. From a practical perspective, the research findings provide important and useful information to destination marketers and the stakeholders in tourism industry about the value of influencing factors (carrying capacity, perceived value, accessibility quality, accommodation quality, cultural, destination attractiveness & resources) in the development of popular destinations for tourism industry. Hence, tourism stakeholders or destination marketers can focus emphasise on these factors for an effective implementation and development on the popular tourism destination.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged. The research model may highlight other characteristics that could assist in building a stronger quantitative measure for destination image such as tourist’s experiences, personality traits and demographic variables. In addition, it is possible to examine both direct and indirect measures such as profitability and other indicators of economic performance to further enhance this survey. It is suggested that the analysis of both the first and the returning tourist's perceived destination image can also be observed for future studies in examining how first and past travel experiences can affect the understanding of the tourist's destination image and its effect on satisfaction and destination loyalty would be important. Researchers may also consider the inclusion of a moderating variable in the framework for future studies.
Acknowledgments
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from Sarawak Multimedia Authority and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
References
- Aguila, G. M., & Ragot, R. (2014). Ecotourism industry in Ilijan Batangas City, Philippines: Assessing its effects as a basis of proposed tourism development plan. Quarterly Journal of Business Studies, 1(1), 24-35.
- Allameh, S. M., Khazaei Pool, J., Jaberi, A., Salehzadeh, R., & Asadi, H. (2015). Factors influencing sport tourists’ revisit intentions: The role and effect of destination image, perceived quality, perceived value and satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(2), 191-207.
- Alrawadieh, Z., Alrawadieh, Z., & Kozak, M. (2019). Exploring the impact of tourist harassment on destination image, tourist expenditure, and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 73, 13-20.
- Artuğer, S. (2015). The effect of risk perceptions on tourists’ revisit intentions. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), 36-43.
- Bagozzi, R. R., Yi, Y., & Philipps, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
- Buffa, F. (2015). Young tourists and sustainability. Profiles, attitudes, and implications for destination strategies. Sustainability, 7, 14042-14062.
- Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00095-3
- Canny, I., & Hidayat, N. (2012). The influence of service quality and tourist satisfaction on future behavioral intentions: The case study of Borobudur Temple as a UNESCO world culture heritage destination. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research, 50(19), 89-97.
- Chandran, A., Bhaduri, R., & Swamy, A. (2012). The role of doomsday tourism in setting new paradigms towards addressing climate change issues – A qualitative study on the Indian. Cultur – Revista de Cultura e Turismo, 6(3), 99-110.
- Chaulagain, S., Wiitala, J., & Fu, X. (2019). The impact of country image and destination image on US tourists’ travel intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 12, 1-11.
- Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115-1122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007
- Chen, H., & Rahman, I. (2018). Cultural tourism: An analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives, 26, 153-163.
- Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationship of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management 29(4), 624–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007
- Chin, C. H., Law, F. Y., Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2018). The Impact of Accessibility Quality and Accommodation Quality on Tourists' Satisfaction and Revisit Intention to Rural Tourism Destination in Sarawak: The Moderating Role of Local Communities' Attitude. Global Business and Management Research, 10(2), 115-127.
- Chin, C. H., Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2016). Rural tourism sustainable management and destination marketing efforts: key factors from communities’ perspective. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(4), 179-197.
- Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Chong, K. M., Mohamad, A. A., Tan, T. H., Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2018). Semenggoh Wildlife Centre, Sarawak: Tourists' Perceptions towards Its Rural Destination Competitiveness. Global Business & Management Research, 10(2), 207-217.
- Collins, M. J. (2005). Spectator satisfaction in professional sport: A test of a hierarchical model (Doctoral Dissertation). Lincoln University.
- Dean, D., Suhartanto, D., & Kusdibyo, L. (2019). Predicting Destination Image in Creative Tourism: A Comparative between Tourists and Residents. International Journal of Applied Business Research, 1(1), 1-15.
- Dioko, L. D. A., & So, A. S. (2017). Residents’ quality of life and visitors’ quality of experience. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 9(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2017-0006
- Downward, P., & Lumsdon, L. (2000). The demand for day-visits: An analysis of visitor spending. Tourism Economics, 6(3), 251–261.
- Ebrahimpour, A., & Haghkhah, A. (2010). The role of service quality in development of tourism industry. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Azam_Haghkhah/publication/206721726_of_Service_Quality_in_Development_of_Tourism_Industry/links/09e41505aa0f4063dc000000.pdf
- Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37–48.
- Fadda, N., & Sorensen, J. F. L. (2017). The importance of destination attractiveness and entrepreneurial orientation in explaining firm performance in the Sardinian accommodation sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1684-1702.
- Fakeye, P.C. & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10-16.
- Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),39-50.
- Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Ageeva, E., Foroudi, M. M., Dennis, C., & Melewar, T. C. (2018). Promising The Dream: Changing destination image of London through the effect of website place. Journal of Business Research, 83, 97-110.
- Gold, A., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. (2001) Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
- Gomez-Vega, M., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2019). Ranking world tourist destinations with a composite indicator of competitiveness: To weigh or not to weigh?. Tourism Management, 72, 281-291.
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T.M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publication.
- Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
- Hall, C. M. (2004). Space-time accessibility and the tourist area cycle of evolution: The role of geographies of spatial interaction and mobility in contributing to an improved understanding of tourism. The Tourism Area Life-Cycle. Clevedon: Channel View. Conceptualizations, Institutions, 19, 83–100.
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
- Herstanti, G., Suhud, U., & Wibowo, S. F. (2014). Three modified models to predict intention of Indonesian tourists to revisit Sydney. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(25), 184-195.
- Horng, J. S., Hsu, H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2017). The conceptual framework for ethics and corporate social responsibility in Taiwanese tourism industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(12), 1274-1294.
- Hung, W. L., Lee, Y. J., & Huang, P. H. (2016). Creative experiences, memorability and revisit intention in creative tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(8), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.877422
- Joshi, O., Poudyal, N. C., & Larson, L. C. (2017). The influence of sociopolitical, natural, and cultural factors on international tourism growth: A cross-country panel analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 825-838.
- Khuong, M. N., & Duyen, H. T. M. (2017). The Effects of Destination Image, Perceived Value and Service Quality on Tourist Return Intention through Destination Satisfaction. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.18178/ijimt.2017.8.5.761
- Khuong, M. N., & Phuong, N. T. (2017). The effects of destination image, perceived value, and service quality on tourist satisfaction and word-of-mouth—A study in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 8(5), 217-224.
- Kim, H. B., & Lee, S. (2015). Impacts of city personality and image on revisit intention. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 1(1), 50-69.
- Kim, J., Ritchie, J. R. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25.
- Kim, S. K., Park, J. A., & Kim, W. (2016). The mediating effect of destination image on the relationship between spectator satisfaction and behavioral intentions at an international sporting event. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(3), 273-292.
- Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
- Kock, F., Josiassen, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2016). Advancing destination image: The destination content model. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 28-44.
- Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1998). Benchmarking: destination attractiveness and small hospitality business performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10, 184-188.
- Law, F. Y., & Lo, M. C. (2016). Rural tourism destination competitiveness of Kubah National Park in Sarawak: Tourist perspective. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 127-148.
- Lee, Y. K., Kim, Y. S., Lee, K. H., & Li, D. X. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 745–756.
- Lim, J., Lo, M. C., Mohamad, A. A., Chin, C. H., & Ramayah, T. (2017). The moderating impact of the community support on tri-dimensional impacts of tourism (Economic, socio-cultural, & environmental) towards rural tourism competitive advantage. International Journal of Business & Society, 18(4), 869-880.
- Litman, T. (2003). Accessibility: Defining, evaluating and improving accessibility: Measuring people’s ability to reach desired goods and activities. Victoria transport policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf (Accessed on: 12 JUNE 2014)
- Lo, M. C., Chin, C. H., & Law, F. Y. (2019). Tourists’ perspectives on hard and soft services toward rural tourism destination competitiveness: Community support as a moderator. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(2), 139-157.
- Ma, E., Hsiao, A., & Gao, J. (2018). Destination attractiveness and travel intention: the case of Chinese and Indian students in Queensland, Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2), 200-215.
- Manrai, L. A., Manrai, A. K., & Friedeborn, S. (2018). Environmental determinants of destination competitiveness and its Tourism Attractions-Basics-Context, ABC, indicators: A review, conceptual model and propositions. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-01-2018-0010
- Mehmetoglu, M. (2007) Nature-based tourists: The relationship between their trip expenditures and activities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 200–215.
- Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L., & Galí, N. (2018). Overtourism: residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity-case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tourism Review, 73(3), 277-296.
- Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 78 - 84.
- Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organizations. Elsevier.
- Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V. N., & Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 252-259.
- Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Marzuki, A., & Abdullah, S. (2017). Tourist’s perceptions of crowding at recreational sites: the case of the Perhentian Islands. Anatolia, 28(1), 41-51.
- Rauch, D. A., Collins, M. D., Nale, R. D., & Barr, P. B. (2015). Measuring service quality in mid-scale hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 87-106.
- Reitsamer, B. F., Brunner-Sperdin, A., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2016). Destination attractiveness and destination attachment: The mediating role of tourists' attitude. Tourism Management Perspectives, 19, 93-101.
- Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Becker, J. (2015). SmartPLS 3 (Version 3.2.8). SmartPLS GmbH.
- Ritchie, J. R., & Crouch, G. I. (2010). A model of destination competitiveness/sustainability: Brazilian perspectives. Revista de Administracao Publica, 44(5), 1049–1066. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122010000500003
- Shi, S., Gursoy, D., & Chen, L. (2019). Conceptualizing home-sharing lodging experience and its impact on destination image perception: A mixed method approach. Tourism Management, 75, 245-256.
- Sigala, M. (2008). A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators on sustainable tourism: The case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1589-1599.
- Simon, F. J. G., Narangajavana, Y., & Marqués, D.P. (2004). Carrying capacity in the tourism industry: a case study of hengistbury head. Tourism Management, 25(2), 275-283.
- Souiden, N., Ladhari, R., & Chiadmi, N. E. (2017). Destination personality and destination image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 32, 54-70.
- Stylidis, D., Shani, A., & Belhassen, Y. (2017). Testing an integrated destination image model across residents and tourists. Tourism Management, 58, 184-195. https://doi/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.014
- Sulaiman, M. Z., & Wilson, R. (2019). Tackling the Tourism Translation Challenge: A Cultural-Conceptual Approach. In Translation and Tourism (pp. 49-66). Springer.
- Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2003). Heritage tourism. Pearson Education.
- Tukamushaba, E. K., Xiao, H. G., & Ladkin, A. (2016). The effect of tourists' perceptions of a tourism product on memorable travel experience: Implications for destination branding. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 7(1), 2–12.
- Wall, G. (1982). Cycles and capacity: incipient theory or conceptual contradiction? Tourism Management, 3(3), 188-192.
- Wight, P. A. (1998). Opening the door on market trends in ecotourism accommodation. In B. Weir, S. McArthur, & A. Crabtree (Eds.), Proceedings of the ecotourism association of Australia. Ecotourism Association of Australia.
- Yang, Y., Karen, P. S., & Xiang, L. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of home-sharing stays: Evidence from a nationwide household tourism survey. Tourism Management, 70, 15–28.
- Yusof, N. A., & Rahman, F. A. (2011). Tourists’ perceptions of service quality in a Lake-based tourism area. Proceedings in International Conference on Business and Economics Research (IPEDR), 16, 84-89.
- Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
- Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2018). A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 326–336.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
06 October 2020
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-087-7
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
88
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1099
Subjects
Finance, business, innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability, environment, green business, environmental issues
Cite this article as:
Chin, Y., Lo, M., Mohamad, A. A., & Ha, S. (2020). Factors Influencing The Destination Image Of Kuching Waterfront: A Tourist Perspective. In Z. Ahmad (Ed.), Progressing Beyond and Better: Leading Businesses for a Sustainable Future, vol 88. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 614-628). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.54