2.1. Destination Attributes for Evalutating Destination
Destination attributes are a fundamental research concept in tourism because a destination consists of multiple destination attributes [
29]. Coltman [
13] defines a destination as “an area with different natural attributes, features, or attractions” (p. 4). It can be simply understood that destinations in many different levels—a micro attraction like a site to a macro attraction like a city and a country—in any areas with its unique attributes are destinations. More specifically, “a destination at a very local level” [
30], like a single attraction, is a destination that tourists can evaluate based on intangible and tangible attributes [
1]. It is important to remember that regardless of the size or locale of tourist destinations, all destinations are based on the destination attributes they offer.
As a fundamental research concept, destination attributes have been investigated in relation to many other focal research concepts in tourism. Most tourism researchers view destination attributes as a key element to the construct of destination image [
31,
32,
33,
34]. In that regard, Ritchie and Crouch [
35] explained destination image as a result of evaluations based mainly on the destination’s physical attributes. Thus, when investigating the destination image, scholars use multiple sets of destination attributes to measure the construct. However, depending on the scholars, there have been differences in how destination attributes have been classified ([
27,
33,
34]). Echtner and Ritchie [
29], in their most cited destination image research, classified destination attributes on a continuum of functional (physical) to psychological. Some may support the view that destination image is based on an evaluation of physical attributes [
35], which is a cognitive component of destination image [
36]. However, according to Baloglu and McCleary’s [
31] definition of the cognitive and affective image in relation to place attributes, attributes are a foundation for both images of destination attributes that are cognitively evaluated and then the affective response to the cognitive destination attribute evaluation. One other classification of destination attributes is based on functional (tangible), psychological (abstract), and conative components [
37]. This classification is consistent with Echtner and Ritchie’s [
29] classification, but also includes a conative component (i.e., tourists’ behavioral intention to visit and to recommend the destination to others).
The critical role of destination attributes is also evidenced in other popular research concepts in tourism. Destination attributes can also be a reason for tourists to decide to visit a destination. Scholars have researched this perspective in terms of destination motivation [
38,
39,
40]. This perspective is described in one of the most popular motivation theories—push and pull [
39,
41,
42]. The pull side of motivation, in particular, is closely related to destination attributes. The theory explains that tourists’ motivation to travel are based on a combination of pull factors, such as socio-psychological motivation (i.e., escaping, relaxation, relation, self-esteem, and others) [
17,
38], and push factors, which are related to destination attributes (i.e., natural and historical resources, tourism infrastructure and facilities, transportation, climate, and others) [
41,
43,
44]. According to Klenosky’s [
45] explanation of the push and pull theory, push factors answer “where to go” and pull factors answer “whether to go”. Destination attributes may not be a sole reason for people to travel; however, it is important to determine the role of destination attributes role in tourists’ decision to travel to a specific destination (i.e., destination choice).
Almost all destinations aim to achieve destination competitiveness by attracting potential tourists and increasing tourist visitation, which will consequently lead to tourist expenditures [
35]. While researchers agree that being a competitive destination is important, they have not agreed on determinants for measuring destination competitiveness [
46,
47]. The determinants used in destination competitiveness studies include attributes such as price competitiveness [
48], environmental competitiveness [
49], strategic destination marketing and management [
50,
51], and destination positioning [
52]. Utilizing these determinants, researchers have either diagnosed the destination competitiveness of a single destination [
19,
53,
54] or compared two or more destinations [
20,
55,
56,
57,
58]. While there are various ways to measure destination competitiveness, destination attributes have consistently been included as an integral factor in each measurement. Ritchie and Crouch [
35]’s competitive destination model includes physical destination attributes in their ‘supporting factors and resource’ and ‘core resources and attractors’ sections. The resources in their model are conceptualized to be a foundation of destination competitiveness. Similarly, Dwyer and Kim [
56] and Dwyer et al. [
37] included natural, heritage, created, and supporting resources as a primary factor of destination competitiveness. These two models also showed that destination management, policy, planning, and development are important factors as well. However, they indicated that these come after the existence of resources (i.e., destination attributes).
Another area of study in tourism that uses destination attributes as a foundation is the Important and Performance Analysis (hereafter, IPA) concept. The model has been favored by various public and private tourism service providers to determine their positioning and performance in the market [
59]. The IPA, based on the salient destination attributes that a destination offers to tourists, allows tourists to evaluate how important those destination attributes are and then judge how well the destination performed on the same destination attributes [
17,
60]. The difference between importance and performance helps destination managers identify destination attributes that they can enhance to achieve competitive advantage, as well as destination attributes that should be improved [
59]. Further, the result of IPA can be a useful tool for the marketing and management strategy [
61,
62,
63]. Like the competitive destination model, destination attributes have been found to be an essential element in determining the destination importance and performance.
The review of the aforementioned concepts in tourism research has evidenced the critical role of destination attributes in assessing tourists’ perceptions of a destination. In summary, tourists’ evaluation of destination attributes has been used in determining destination image, destination choice motivations, destination competitiveness, and destination importance and performance. Thus, destination attributes have served to be an excellent indicator for better managing a destination. Specifically, destination managers can identify which attributes contribute to the current destination attractiveness and to negative tourist experiences. Regardless of the context, investigations of destination attributes can provide meaningful implications for the industry by providing strategic direction, as well as to the destination literature by utilizing theoretically driven destination attributes.
2.2. Tourists’ Experiences and Destination Attributes on Social Media
The evolution of web 2.0, which enables users to process digital content, changed tourists’ travel patterns. As a result, tourists can now share their travel experiences by writing reviews and posting photos and videos on a social media site instantly and frequently. This can be done during two phases of the travel experience- while they are the destination and after they return home. Consequently, the role of the tourist has shifted from the tourist as an information receiver to the tourist as an active player that creates and generates information about the destination [
64]. A major implication of this shift is that the destination content that is generated by the actual visitor can reach the ‘tourist-to-be’ [
23], who may view the content and may decide to go to the destination featured in the content. While destination management organizations’ (DMOs) primary task is to provide information and promote the destination to the ‘tourist-to-be,’ tourists validate and trust the tourist’s review more than service providers’ content. Traditionally, word of mouth (WOM) was found to be influential in potential tourists’ decisions. As a result of web 2.0, the tourist review served to be the new word of mouth, which is referred as e-WOM because it is shared electronically. In the age of e-WOM, tourists have started to plan their own trips and customize it, rather than relying on travel agents [
65]. The tourist-to-be pays attention to the other tourists’ description of the destination attributes and expressions about their experience with those attributes. In this digital age, tourists have become their own tour agency, content provider, receiver, and reviewer. The phenomenal change, has had a significant influence on DMOs and tourism businesses. Both product and service providers are challenged with promotional and quality issues. The immeasurable amount of information that tourists provide on the Internet and social media cannot be controlled by tourism suppliers [
66]. Thus, the DMO and tourism businesses do not have much room for “place-myths” [
67,
68] to make a destination more favorable. Examples of this include slight exaggerations and photo editing images [
69].
The aforementioned challenge has been examined in some tourism studies by investigating the content generated by tourists and DMOs. For example, a study conducted by Svetlana and Zhan [
70] compared the content generated by both tourists and the DMO to identify the difference in destination image, using pre-identified destination attributes. The study findings indicated that DMOs acknowledged that what tourists may see as attractive in a destination may be different from what the DMO promotes on the Internet. The researchers concluded that while DMOs may attempt to promote the destination as well-rounded, by featuring various destination attributes, tourists exhibit strong interest in specific characteristics of the destination. Additionally, a recent study illustrating the important role of tourist-generated content in destination marketing and promotion suggests that tourism providers acknowledge that tourists are opinion makers and include their opinions when shaping their destination promotional strategy [
66]. In this case, tourists are viewed as co-creators. Inclusion of tourists’ opinions in business and business strategy is encouraged by the mainstream consumer research [
71]. This notion is called co-creation. The core concept of co-creation is to take consumers’ opinions and use them to improve a product, service, and quality control [
72].
Furthermore, in the digital age, the consumer has a strong voice and it is inevitable that user generated content (UGC) will be shared by other people in the world [
2]. In tourism, the tourist can shape a strong opinion and voice their opinion via online reviews on TripAdvisor, a photo shared on Instagram and Facebook, and posts made on a personal blog [
73]. In each of these examples, tourism businesses have no control over the dissemination of information related to their destination, which can influence others’ perceptions of the destination. Thus, tourism product and service providers should also utilize tourists’ opinion on the Internet and social media to analyze their current business status. The results should then be utilized to enhance and improve their product or service. This type of analysis is a great tool for tourism business to diagnose their product competitiveness and attractiveness from the important perspective of the tourist. In particular, a small tourism business or local DMO with limited resources to hire an expert to diagnose their management and marketing strategy can benefit from the freely available data on the Internet and social media, if they know what and how it should be analyzed and interpreted.
Use of digital data generated by tourists in research can serve as a substitute for the structured survey, which is completed based on pre-established dimensions [
74]. Survey methodology has received a fair share of criticism because it limits the tourists’ response about their perceptions of and experiences in destination within the provided structure [
23,
24]. Survey methodology has also been criticized because the respondent can become exhausted [
75]. This, in turn, can result in poor response rates [
75,
76]. On the other hand, examination of UGC has been favored by researchers because of its ability to capture tourists’ real opinions about and perceptions of the destination experience (c.f. [
74,
77]). Accordingly, UGC may be a better tool to observe the fundamental source of tourists’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their trip and the destination. In this sense, identifying the destination attributes that tourists discuss in their review of a destination can help both researchers and practitioners better understand tourists’ experience in the destination. More specifically, researchers and practitioners may better understand the source of tourists’ negative and positive experiences.