【導(dǎo)讀】本論文介紹顧客的品牌資產(chǎn)的概念，并運(yùn)用它的目的地。理論上提出和實(shí)證模型，從旅游的角度，補(bǔ)充了以前的研究結(jié)果對目的地的評(píng)價(jià)。除了無數(shù)的研究，所強(qiáng)調(diào)的形象，這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果暗示形象起著至關(guān)重要的作用評(píng)價(jià)，但不是唯一品牌層面，應(yīng)該加以考慮。一個(gè)更加完整的評(píng)價(jià)，其規(guī)模意識(shí)，質(zhì)量和忠誠度也應(yīng)加以審查。品牌資產(chǎn)的概念被測試斯洛文尼亞兩個(gè)市場。結(jié)果顯示,在品牌資產(chǎn)的差異，根據(jù)市場來評(píng)價(jià)自己的品牌層面。因此，目的地的特性，應(yīng)進(jìn)行調(diào)查，然后采用品牌原則。獨(dú)立以前，斯洛文尼亞深受外國游客主要來自德國和奧地利。但是，一個(gè)大模型廣泛使用在圖像研究指導(dǎo)這項(xiàng)研究。這是大家普遍認(rèn)同的三個(gè)主要組成部分的形象被稱為認(rèn)知、情感和意識(shí)。認(rèn)知成分構(gòu)成意識(shí)：什么有人知道或認(rèn)為自己知道的目的地。在這樣的消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品，但多數(shù)有形屬性，使圖像可以基于真實(shí)的，可衡量的信息。但同樣不能說是體驗(yàn)產(chǎn)品，例如旅游，是生產(chǎn)和消

　　

【正文】 ality of a destination’s attributes’’ (2000:788). Also, in the image concept work of Baloglu and McCleary (1999:881), the ‘‘quality of experience’’ is one of the factors in conceptualizing the image construct.Destination Loyalty. Although the loyalty concept has been extensively investigated in the marketing literature, destination loyalty has rarely been studied. Oppermann (2000) argued that loyalty should not be neglected when examining destination brands, and some studies partly introduce it (Bigne, Sanchez and Sanchez 2001。 Fakeye and Crompton 1991). However, these incorporate only a few measures that indirectly illuminate loyalty. It has been suggested that repeat visitation (Fakeye and Crompton 1991。 Gitelson and Crompton 1984) and intention to return (Ostrowski, O’Brien and Gordon 1993) are indicators of place loyalty.Behavioral loyalty implies that previous experiential familiarity influences today’s and tomorrow’s tourism decisions, especially destination choice. Gitelson and Crompton (1984) argued that many destinations rely heavily on repeat tourists. Opperman (2000) suggested that destination loyalty should be investigated longitudinally, looking at lifelong visitation behavior. In this way behavioral loyalty can be used as a reasonable or good predictor of future destination choice.Attitudinal loyalty considers a person’s attitude (affective image ponent) of a destination’s attributes, which can further influence their intention to visit or remend a place to others (Bigne et al 2001). Anyone with a positive attitude toward a destination, even though they may not be visiting it again, may still provide a positive wordofmouth review. Due to the important role of such remendations (Gartner 1993。 Gitelson and Crompton 1983), this aspect of loyalty appears extremely important. Both aspects of loyalty could be incorporated into a posite measurement.In short, it is arguable that image is the sole dimension for understanding destination brand equity. But since researchers have failed for years to find a unifying theory of destination image, it is probably best to disaggregate image rather than merging its ponents to explain the tourism decision process. In this paper it is argued, and then shown empirically, that image is only one dimension of consumerbased brand equity for a destination. Other dimensions can be isolated and acted upon independently. Those revealed here as operational for a particular place may not be inclusive, but they do help explain how different markets view destinations, and with this knowledge specific brand equity building and reinforcement measures can be undertaken by marketers. Study MethodologyThe conceptual model for this study is based on theoretical contributions from the brand equity area, mostly Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). Because their contributions primarily addressed product brands, the transfer to destination branding was considered carefully. Numerous previous findings in the destination image area (Echtner and Ritchie 1993。 Gallarza et al 2002。 Hunt 1975) provided valuable background. Drawing on the findings, a conceptual model consisting of four dimensions (awareness, image, perceived quality, and loyalty) is proposed. In it, these represent lowerorder factors, whereas the whole concept is higherorder. Even with four constituents, image still probably involves additional ones that may be teased out by creating other dimension scales. For example, awareness includes differentlevels of a destination’s recognition: top of mind, unaided brand recall, and brand recognition. The aim of this study was to identify and focus on specific dimensions that probably form the brand equity of a particular destination and not to identify all the possible dimensions (or subdimensions) that may be contained in image, loyalty, awareness, or any other. Those chosen here are not the only or even the most revealing across all markets. But they are ones that seemed most suitable for this study considering markets of origin and the destination under study. The criticism that the operational variables should have been different is more an argument for future research than for now. The process as outlined in Figure 2 was followed, and the variables identified for each dimension emerged from it. The conceptual model proposed here leads one to conclude that relationships among dimensions exist and that the importance of each varies.Hypotheses. Following Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) brand equity categorization, Yoo and Donthu (2001) investigated the relationship between the awareness, image, quality, and loyalty dimensions of different product categories across several cultures. Recent studies have not employed all these dimensions, although all have been subjects of some (awareness, loyalty) or numerous (image) previous investigations. Researchers have bined the image concept with other dimensions. Accordingly, Milman and Pizam (1995) bined the concept of destination image with the awareness dimension, while Bigne et al (2001) upgraded it with a quality dimension and variables related to the attitudinal loyalty concept. Some other studies have investigated the relationship between image and attitudinal or behavioral variables (Milman and Pizam 1995。 Woodside and Dubelaar 2002). It is clear from previous studies that a relationship among the proposed dimensions does exist. Therefore, those isolated for study in this paper should show some relationship to the whole concept of consumerbased brand equity for a destination (CBBETD). The following hypotheses guided this study.