【正文】 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。 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。 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。 Crompton 1979。 Murphy, Prichard and Smith 2000。 Hunt 1975), even though what is perceived is not always truly representative of what a place has to offer (Um and Crompton 1990).Destination Quality. The majority of image investigations include an empirical measurement of the concept (Pike 2002), usually presented as a bination of many attributebased variables. None of the recent overviews of the literature explicitly mention the existence of a quality dimension. Further, in reviewing previous studies dealing with destination development, only a few were found covering the topic of perceived quality (Fick and Ritchie 1991。 Hunt 1975) and today remains a prolific area of study (Pike 2002). In reviewing previous work, Pike (2002) found 142 papers in the last three decades that have directly or indirectly investigated destination image topics.Despite wide interest in a unifying theory of destination image, no single approach is monly accepted. Although mostly studied with roots in marketing (Gardner and Levy 1955), the concept has also been connected and analyzed within other disciplines, such as anthropology, geography, sociology, and semiotics (Gallarza et al 2002). The main criticism of these numerous studies was the lack of a theoretical and conceptual framework for what constitutes a destination’s image (Fakeye and Crompton 1991), its formation process (Gartner 1993), and its operationalization (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Although all three areas still require improvement, many steps have been taken within the last few years (Gallarza et al 2002). Among numerous opinions, probably the most universally acknowledged is the acceptance of image’s important role in tourists’ destination behavior, specifically regarding the evaluation and selection process (Echtner and Ritchie 1993。 Woodside and Lysonski 1989), firmly rooted in consumer behavior studies (Howard and Sheth 1969). All mo