| Literature DB >> 35457408 |
Jiwon Lee1, Eunjoo Yoon2.
Abstract
This study aims to examine the relationship among tourism destination brand equity (as parent brand), perceived fit, and customer behavior intention toward the extended MICE destination brand. It also identifies the moderating effect of place attachment between brand equity and customer behavior by adopting the brand extension concept in tourism and MICE destinations. The analysis of data collected from 381 respondents revealed that perceived fit is the most important factor influencing customer behavior, even though tourism brand equity and place attachment both had a positive effect on customer behavior, supporting all hypotheses. The theoretical implication of broadening the brand extension concept in MICE destinations and DMO marketing strategies is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: MICE destination; brand extension; customer behavior intention; parent brand equity; perceived fit; place attachment
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457408 PMCID: PMC9029109 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084540
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model.
Result of exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
| Construct | Factors | Measures | Factor Loading | Variance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | Perceived Quality | Consistent service providing | 0.815 | 53.238 |
| High service quality | 0.810 | |||
| Excellent tourism infrastructure providing | 0.732 | |||
| Reliable as tourism destination | 0.729 | |||
| Brand | Brand Image | Differentiated personality | 0.835 | 10.082 |
| Associated unique image | 0.772 | |||
| Familiar image as tourism destination | 0.612 | |||
| Reliable image | 0.605 | |||
| Associated as something refreshing | 0.547 | |||
| Equity | Awareness | Popular as tourism destination | 0.851 | 6.732 |
| Easily occurred as tourism destination | 0.791 | |||
| Easily distinguishable from other cities | 0.709 | |||
| KMO = 0.922, Bartlett’s test = 2557.084 ( | ||||
| Place | Identity | This place means a lot to me | 0.815 | 59.286 |
| I am very attached to this place | 0.798 | |||
| Place tells who I am | 0.760 | |||
| Able to tell many things to others | 0.743 | |||
| Attachment | Dependence | Feel special things that cannot be felt in another place | 0.817 | 10.181 |
| Impossible to be replaced by another place | 0.771 | |||
| Optimum place as tourism venue | 0.704 | |||
| Satisfied with the visit to place | 0.696 | |||
| KMO = 0.902, Bartlett’s test = 1608.934 ( | ||||
| Perceived Fit | MICE event held represented the city brand as tourism destination | 0.796 | 77.697 | |
| Tourism is complementary to MICE | 0.774 | |||
| Tourism can be used as resource for MICE | 0.761 | |||
| KMO = 0.733, Bartlett’s test = 510.560 ( | ||||
| Customer Behavior Intention | Visiting intention | 0.911 | 80.693 | |
| Able to visit the place | 0.902 | |||
| Recommendation | 0.882 | |||
| KMO = 0.739, Bartlett’s test = 610.563 ( | ||||
Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
| Constructs | Measures | Std. β | C.R | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism Destination Brand Equity | Perceived quality | 0.761 | - | 0.92 | 0.79 |
| Image | 0.866 | 17.220 *** | |||
| Awareness | 0.759 | 15.748 *** | |||
| Place Attachment | Identity | 0.772 | - | 0.90 | 0.81 |
| Dependence | 0.916 | 17.459 *** | |||
| Perceived Fit of Extended Brand | Substitute | 0.823 | 17.590 *** | 0.88 | 0.71 |
| Complementary | 0.825 | 17.648 *** | |||
| Transferability | 0.800 | - | |||
| Customer Behavior Intention | Intent to visit | 0.855 | 19.647 *** | 0.91 | 0.78 |
| Able to visit | 0.848 | 19.426 *** | |||
| Intent to recommendation | 0.827 | - | |||
| Model fit: ꭓ2 (35) = 77.453 ( | |||||
*** p < 0.001.
Discriminant validity.
| Constructs | TDBE | PA | PF | CBI | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TDBE | 1 | 0.79 | |||
| PA | 0.77 | 1 | 0.81 | ||
| PF | 0.57 | 0.52 | 1 | 0.71 | |
| CBI | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.78 |
Note: TDBE: tourism destination of brand equity, PA: place attachment, PF: perceived fit, CBI: customer behavior intention.
Result of SEM.
| Hypothesis | Path | Path Estimate | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | TDBE → PF | 0.736 | 11.729 *** | Supported |
| H2 | TDBE → CBI | 0.153 | 2.388 ** | Supported |
| H3 | PF → CBI | 0.781 | 10.105 *** | Supported |
| Indirect Effect | TDBE → PF → CBI | 0.122 | ||
| Model Fit: ꭓ2 (24) = 77.156 ( | ||||
** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; Note: TDBE: tourism destination of brand equity, PA: place attachment, PF: perceived fit, CBI: customer behavior intention.
Result of moderating effect.
| Hypothesis | Path | Path Estimate | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H4 | TDBE → CBI | 0.532 | 3.130 ** | Supported |
| PA → CBI | 0.269 | 1.762 * | Supported | |
| TBDE x PA → CBI | 0.0122 | 2.450 ** | Supported |
* p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, Note: TDBE: tourism destination of brand equity, PA: place attachment, CBI: customer behavior intention.