【正文】 別橫跨幾個(gè)文化。研究者結(jié)合的形象概念，與其他層面。其他一些研究調(diào)查,有關(guān)系的形象、態(tài)度或行為變量( Milman 和 Pizam 1995。很明顯，從以往的研究認(rèn)為彼此關(guān)系的建議方面存在的。下列假設(shè)為指導(dǎo)這項(xiàng)研究。 Kapferer 1998) and brand equity concept (Aaker 1991。 Morgan and Pritchard 2002), the topic has been partly covered under the alternative label of destination image studies (Ritchie and Ritchie 1998), which have been investigated for more than 30 years (Baloglu and McCleary 1999。 Echtner and Ritchie 1993。 Gartner 1986, 1989, 1993。 Phelps 1986). However, as Ritchie and Ritchie (1998) stated, the development of a coherent and monly accepted framework is essential for using branding theory for destinations. According to Cai (2002), a major disadvantage of previous image studies is their inability to distinguish between the image and branding functions. Cai highlights the difference: ‘‘image formation is not branding, albeit the former constitutes the core of the latter. Image building is one step closer, but there still remains a critical missing link: the brand identity’’ (2002:722).As destination branding bees a fairly active area of research, the question remains as to whether already accepted branding principles can be transferred to destinations. A similar debate is also ongoing about the extent to which principles traditionally developed for product brands, can apply to service and corporate ones. In paring products and services, de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1999) concluded that the concept of a brand is similar for both, although different dimensions of branding strategy may be emphasized. Therefore, destination characteristics should be investigated before applying branding principles.This paper is concerned with exploring the dimensions of the customer based brand equity of a destination. Four proposed dimensions—awareness, image, quality, and loyalty—were identified, measured, and tested. While some may argue that the concepts of awareness, quality, and loyalty are inherent in the image dimension, statistically isolating them calls for a refinement of image research. Although dimensions are arguably contained within image, if the fullconcept of equity for destinations is operational, image is only part of something more inclusive.The main purpose of this paper is to present the concept from the tourist’s point of view. The question is whether a customerbased brand equity methodology traditionally developed for product (and partly for services and organizations) brands can be transferred to destinations. Excluding the numerous analyses on image as a whole, the other three dimensions have rarely been studied. Thus, it is relevant to ask whether a destination’s image as a single measure brand equity represents the most vital element in destination evaluation. Alternatively, the question is whether the image concept studied in the last three decades also enpasses other branding dimensions which can be identified and measured.Slovenia is a relatively new country, having declared its independence in 1991 from the former Yugoslavia. Since then, it has worked to establish itself within the European Union network and in 2004 attained membership in the EU. Prior to independence, Slovenia was popular with foreign tourists, primarily from Germany and Austria. It is today again popular with Germans, who prised its largest foreign tourist market in 2003. From the country’s independence to date, only two studies have been pleted investigating its value as a destination for foreign markets. One, providing some image perceptions from German and Croatian markets, was used to help identify the dimension variables in this study (Koneik 2006).Slovenia is now in an enviable position. Being a relatively new country, it has not had time to build or erode much brand value. It could eventually exemplify how systematic development can enhance brand value. For developing the brand Slovenia, some performance measures for different dimensions are needed. In bination with a clear identity, these would provide the basis for marketing strategies for foreign markets. It would then be possible to more effectively allocate the limited annual budget for promoting it to outsiders.2 CUSTOMERBASED BRAND EQUITYThe initial interest in brand equity, analyzed from the standpoint of valuation in the financial arena, emerged in the 90s as an important research area in marketing (Barwise 1993). Considerable interest has been channeled into conceptualizing and understanding it. Accordingly, the concept and meaning of brand equity have occasioned much debate (Chaudhuri 1995), although several authors still recognize a lack of a general theoretical framework around the issue (Vazquez, del Rio and Iglesias 2002).Currently, academics discuss both theoretical conceptualization and the development of a proper measurement instrument (Yoo and Donthu 2001). A number of these have been proposed at either theoretical or empirical levels. Yet Yoo and Donthu (2001) argued that there has been no mon agreement on how brand equity should bemeasured. Some efforts leading toward consensus on measurement are recognized. These are evident in analyses (Faircloth, Capella and Alford 2001。 Yoo and Donthu 2001) who claim a customer’s evaluation of a brand includes awareness, image, quality, and loyalty dimensions.The four proposed dimensions with respect to destinations are elaborated below. However, one overriding model used extensively in image research guided this study. It is generally accepted that three main ponents of image are termed cognitive, affective, and conative (Gartner 1993). The cognitive ponent constitutes awareness: what someone knows