How to Effectively Build the Image of an Emerging Destination

Every journey is inspired by the desire to achieve the aim, which is an important factor in the tourist motive. Abdellatif et al. (2015) note, however, that for someone to travel to a given place or region, it has to have something to offer to potential visitors – something that intrigues them, attracts their attention and makes them decide to take this journey. Brezovec et al. (2004) suggest that this ‘something’ is the destination image. The term is often defined in the literature (Della Corte et al. 2010) as impressions that a person or persons hold about a state in which they do not reside (Hunt 1975); the sum of the beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination (Crompton 1979; Kotler et al. 1993); the mental construct developed by a potential tourist based on a few selected impressions among the total impressions (Fakeye, Crompton 1991); or multidimensional with cognitive and affective spheres, and as an amalgam of the knowledge, feelings, beliefs, opinions, ideas, expectation and impressions that people have about a named location (Henderson 2007).

Moreover, it is generally believed that the destination image is a key element in attracting tourists and influences tourism-related behaviours, such as making the decision to travel, attitudes towards a given destination, the level of satisfaction with the stay, willingness to revisit the place or readiness to recommend it after the visit (e.g. Hunt 1975; Goodrich 1978; Pearce 1982; Woodside, Lysonski 1989; Echtner, Ritchi 1993; Baloglu, McClearly 1999; Bigné et al. 2001; Beerli, Martin 2004; Chen, Tsai 2007; Chi, Qu 2008; Baloglu et al. 2014; de Nisco et al. 2015; Chiu et al. 2016; Prayag et al. 2017). A properly constructed destination image is an effective tool for predicting tourists’ behaviour and, at the same time, creating good offers to respond to their needs (Marques et al. 2021).

Destinations, just like products, are in competition with one another because consumers often choose to travel to destinations of the same type, e.g. with similar climates, hotels, sports infrastructure and safety levels (Marques et al. 2021). Thus, the destination image is also important from the point of view of competition and maintaining a high position in the tourism market. This aspect is also noted by many authors who emphasise that for a place to attract visitors, its image should be stable and strong (Echtner, Ritchie 2003; Bonn et al. 2005; Tasci, Kozak 2006; Souiden et al. 2017). A vital factor is the tourist attractiveness of an area, which has an impact on the way its image is perceived. The more the destination can satisfy a tourist’s needs, the more attractive it becomes as a travel target (Middleton 1989; Lue et al. 1996; Dimitrov et al. 2017).

Furthermore, Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Baglou et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2018) and Szubert et al. (2022) note that a significant factor influencing the image and tourist attractiveness of a destination is a tourist’s knowledge of it. At this point, it should be emphasised that researchers analysing the destination image usually distinguish between two or three of its components: cognitive and affective (e.g. Baloglu, McCleary 1999; Hosany et al. 2007; Lopes 2011; Baloglu et al. 2014), as well as unique (Echtner, Ritchie 1993; Qu et al. 2011; Marques et al. 2021).

Baloglu and McCleary (1999) and Baloglu et al. (2014) claim that the cognitive factor is predominant among people who have not visited a given area, while the affective factor is most noticeable among tourists and visitors. Kim et al. (2009) believe that the cognitive component is more stable because it is based on earlier acquired knowledge, while the affective factor is more changeable because it is based on subjective emotion.

The third component of the destination image – uniqueness – seems particularly important for emerging destinations – “those which have not yet been able to successfully create an identity or market strategy, that allows for a unique tourist destination positioning in what is a cut-throat global tourism market” (Marques et al. 2021: 1). According to Butler (1980), when referring to such a destination, tourists do not have a complete or clear picture of it. Therefore, destinations of this kind need to have their unique features and products promoted in a way that will attract tourists (Qu et al. 2011). This was also noted by Gunn (1972), who claimed that tourists perceive the image of an emerging destination differently than the image of a mature destination. The findings of other studies also show that in the case of well-developed destinations, the destination decision is generally determined by socio-economic features (e.g. infrastructure, services and social capital) (Ćulić et al. 2021), while emerging destinations are mainly chosen for their natural and cultural resources, as well as accessibility, tourist infrastructure and tourist entities/enterprises (Kowalczyk 2001; Bonn et al. 2005; Szubert et al. 2022).

Regardless of the degree of the destination’s development, proper identification of its tourist attractiveness attributes is considered vital for tourism development, as well as building a positive and coherent image and performing promotional activities (Foret, Klusáček 2011; Ćulić et al. 2021). However, studies regarding the effective creation of an emerging destination’s image are rare, and it is not known whether, how strongly, or in what aspects it differs from the image of an ‘old’, well-established destination. This article attempts to address this gap in the research.

The article identifies the tourist attractiveness features, which should be considered while creating the image of an emerging destination. The authors used the example of Lublin Province situated in central-eastern Poland. The aim of the study is to evaluate the attractiveness attributes of the region by the respondents, depending on the purpose of the visit. To achieve this aim, two research tasks were implemented: the main one – assessing the respondents’ opinions about the attributes of the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province, and the supporting one – analysing the effectiveness of the campaigns.

To achieve the main task, the researchers considered the opinions of people from outside the region who were staying there for tourist and other purposes. This is a new research approach because before this, the tourist attractiveness of a province had been analysed based on the answers of people who had or had not visited Lublin Province, as well as those who worked or did not work in the tourism industry (Kula 2013, 2014). The necessary data were obtained during tourism fairs held in Warsaw (2018) and Łódź (2019), just before the COVID-19 pandemic.

In completing the supporting task, from the numerous models used for measuring the effectiveness of promotional campaigns run for tourist destinations, such as the conversion, econometric or tracking models, the researchers chose the last of the types. In tracking studies, it is assumed that potential visitors may be transformed into actual visitors by sensitising and building an image. Through advertising, potential visitors become aware of the destination and create a positive image of this area in their minds. Spreading awareness and constructing an image of the destination motivate people to turn into real visitors (Butterfield et al. 1998; Kim et al. 2005; Pratt et al. 2010; Stienmetz et al. 2015; de Souza et al. 2020).

It was assumed that regardless of the purpose of the journey, having stayed in Lublin Province, both groups of respondents were aware of its tourist attractiveness attributes, which was significant from the point of view of building the destination image (H1).

Lublin Province is situated in central-eastern Poland. It borders Ukraine and Belarus, and it is one of the most eastern regions of the European Union. It is also one of its poorest areas. In 2019, it was an administrative unit with the lowest gross national product (GNP) per inhabitant in the country (40,741 PLN, 64% – GUS/Statistics Poland, 2020), achieving only 50% of the EU average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (Eurostat, 2022). The region’s economy is based on extensive agricultural production and poorly developed industry. As a result, opportunities for improving the economic situation have been sought in tourism (Strategia rozwoju …, 2014).

Currently, Lublin Province, compared to the whole of Poland, is considered to be an area of a large but underused tourist potential (Cerić 2014), with barriers to tourism development resulting from poor tourist infrastructure, insufficient recognition of tourists’ expectations, a stereotypical approach to promotion and lack of a tourist image (Tucki 2009; Kula 2013, 2014; Lemanowicz 2016).

The findings from research on the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province show that its space is rich in unique natural and cultural resources (Tucki 2009; Fig. 1). The most precious ones include two transborder International Biosphere Reserves (Man and Biosphere/MAB programme): ‘Polesie Zachodnie’ and ‘Roztocze’, two national parks: Poleski and Roztoczański, as well as the Old Town in Zamość, which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List, and six historic monuments (Janów Podlaski, Kozłówka, Kazimierz Dolny, Lublin, Puławy and Zamość) (Skowronek et al. 2019, 2020).

Fig. 1.

However, as Cerić (2014) points out, the tourist potential of Lublin Province is underused, and tourism is developing slower than in other provinces. This has been confirmed by the indexes recently published by GUS (Table 1).

Consequently, the attractions in the region have not yet been sufficiently acknowledged by tourists, and the existing tourist infrastructure is not satisfactory (an insufficient number and poor diversity of the types of accommodation and catering facilities as well as their uneven distribution). As a result, tourists who may potentially visit Lublin Province choose other regions in Poland.

This situation is reflected by very large spatial differences as regards tourist attractiveness in Lublin Province. Research conducted by Tucki (2009) shows that nearly half of its space (44.1%) is classified as quite attractive, 29.9% as attractive, 13.8% as very attractive and 12.2% as rather unattractive areas (Tucki 2009). Among the already developed centres and tourist areas (Lublin, Zamość, Kazimierz Dolny, Zwierzyniec, Nałęczów Plateau, Roztocze Hills, Łęczna-Włodawa Lakeland), those of potential character prevail (Tucki 2009; Kula 2013, 2014; Brzezińska-Wójcik et al. 2016).

This state of affairs is confirmed by other published indicators, e.g. the penultimate (15th) position in the country regarding tourist attractiveness, the penultimate (7th) position on the list as one of the most attractive provinces (very attractive provinces rank first and the least attractive ones rank eighth) (Potencjał turystyczny…, 2017) and a low percentage (only 2.9%) of areas, destinations and sites that are important for tourism in Poland, identified by Lijewski et al. (2008) and Cerić (2014).

The results of the research conducted so far show that despite many attractions, Lublin Province is not recognisable as an attractive region for tourism (Lemanowicz 2016).

The literature analysis revealed that the authorities of Lublin Province started the promotional activity as early as 2008. Its main objective was to build the image of the province and make it more recognisable in Poland (Zdon-Korzeniowska 2012). The promotion of the Lublin region as an attractive tourist destination was also part of this aim (Table 2).

The overall sum spent on promotional campaigns (TV, internet and outdoor) during the period in question amounted to over 2.5 million EUR, coming mostly from EU funds. The promotional messages were distributed throughout all the provinces and the largest cities in Poland, as well as selected countries (Skowronek et al. 2019; Lubelskie. Kampanie promocyjne 2022).

The effect of the promotional activities described above was verified in several works (Kula 2013, 2014; Mazurek-Kusiak, Wojciechowska-Solis 2014; Lemanowicz 2016; Skowronek et al. 2020). The areas, products and ideas most often associated with Lublin Province included the following: the cities of Lublin, Kazimierz Dolny and Zamość; eastern Poland; and products such as beer (‘Perła’) and pasta (‘Lubella’); as well as hop plantations, agritourism and universities (including the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin). Thus, it was confirmed that Lublin Province as a destination still does not have a tourist image.

Given the current understanding of low-level tourist images for Lublin Province’s recognition, this study attempts to verify its present state and identify the most common associations with this region. This aim was achieved by distinguishing features that determine its tourist attractiveness. The research assumed (H1) that such attributes are clearly associated with the image of the province as a destination, regardless of the purpose of the visitors’ journeys.

To achieve the stated objectives, the authors used primary and secondary sources. The results of the meta-analysis proved useful in defining correlations between the following concepts: the destination image, tourist attractiveness and an emerging destination. The analysis of studies on the tourist attractiveness, promotional campaigns (2008–2018) and recognisability of Lublin Province allowed the authors to identify the problems and challenges connected with building the image of this emerging destination.

Primary materials were collected using the diagnostic survey method. Based on Echtner and Ritchie’s suggestions (1993), a questionnaire was devised, which included closed- and open-ended questions, as well as a respondent’s particulars.

The preliminary research was followed by the proper study conducted during the tourism fairs held in Warsaw in November 2018 and in Łódź in March 2019. The respondents gave their opinions regarding the attributes of the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province. According to the adopted assumption, the researchers considered the answers provided by people who were staying in Lublin Province and were not its residents, so the selection of the research sample was purposeful. Opinions from the participants were obtained throughout the entire area of the fair halls.

At the tourism fair in Warsaw, 87 correctly filled-in questionnaires were obtained, and in Łódź – 104. Thus, the opinions of 191 people were used for detailed analysis (Table 3). The responses provided by 191 respondents were analysed in detail. When eferring to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this size of the sample was considered sufficient (150 or more).

The authors focused on an in-depth analysis of the interviewees’ responses, including those concerning the motive for travel. The analysis followed the adopted hypothesis and aimed to identify the attributes of destination attractiveness, which were mentioned by both sub-groups of the respondents. The whole group of the interviewees consisted of 101 people who were visiting the region for purely tourist purposes and 90 who arrived for a different reason (Table 4).

The empirical data were processed using selected statistical methods and tools. To verify the hypothesis (H1), the authors used the chi-square test, measuring statistical significance. They examined the correlation between two variables – the answers from two groups of the respondents: (1) those who were in Lublin Province for tourist purposes and (2) those who were there for a different reason. For a very small diversity of responses and a small number of answers, the chi-square test with Yates’ continuity correction (Y) was applied (Yates 1934).

The responses regarding the features of the tourist attractiveness of the province highly varied and exhibited a high level of generalisation without reference to specific attractions (i.e. ‘many historical monuments’, ‘nature’, ‘beautiful landscapes’, ‘cycling routes’, ‘friendly inhabitants’ and ‘location’). The names of attractions were mentioned very rarely (most often: ‘Lublin Castle’, which was mentioned in 3.8% of the total number of responses in the group of tourists and 4.5% in the other group; Roztoczański National Park – 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively).

To organise the responses, the classification of tourist attractiveness destination attributes proposed by Vengesayi et al. (2009) and slightly modified by the authors by adding one group of answers that had not been included before was used. Thus, four groups were distinguished: (1) attractions; (2) support services and facilities; (3) people-related factors; (4) others. Next, owing to a substantial dispersion of answers regarding attractions, and based on the adopted classification, they were divided into five types: historical-cultural attractions, natural attractions, recreation facilities, created attractions and unique attractions. In all the groups and types, attractiveness attributes were sorted out according to the number of responses and their percentages.

The methods that were used helped to identify the main attributes of the tourist attractiveness of the region, which (regardless of the purpose of travel) were important to both groups and which, following the adopted assumptions, may be used in the future for building the image of Lublin Province as a tourist destination.

Having the assumed objective in mind, the authors collected the following information from both groups of the respondents: (1) travel destinations, (2) perception of the tourist attractiveness of the province and (3) attributes determining the attractiveness of the area.

The question about the places visited by the respondents in Lublin Province was answered by 191 persons, giving a total of 329 answers, including 187 (56.8%) provided by those who were visiting the area for tourist purposes and 142 (43.2%) from those who arrived there for a different reason.

Regardless of the group, the respondents mentioned towns and cities of various sizes as their travel destinations in Lublin Province. An exception among these answers was the only geographical region, Roztocze Hills (Table 5).

Most respondents stayed in Lublin, Kazimierz Dolny and Zamość, while those who arrived for other purposes mostly mentioned Lublin and Zamość (Table 5). In Roztocze, most visitors were tourists. To conclude, the majority of respondents, regardless of their purpose of travel, visited the two largest cities in the province: Lublin and Zamość.

The statistical analysis shows that the correlations between the answers provided by both groups of the respondents were not significant (Table 5); however, it was not true for answers regarding Kazimierz Dolny (p = 0.018), which was more frequently chosen as the reason for travelling to Lublin Province by tourists.

Most answers to the question: Is Lublin Province touristically attractive? were affirmative (75.39%); however, 19.90% of the respondents did not have an opinion (Table 6).

The analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the purpose of visit and the perception of the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province (Table 6, p < 0.001). Among the people who were staying for tourist purposes, 87.13% agreed that the province was attractive, and only 10.89% were unable to decide. The people arriving for different purposes were more conservative with their answers. Overall, 62.22% considered the province to be attractive, 30% did not have any opinion about the matter and nearly 8% thought the opposite (Table 6). The tourists’ answers show that more of them were convinced about the attractiveness of the province after staying there. This points to the cognitive and affective components merging together in the image of the travel destination.

To sum up, it should be stressed that large percentages of opinions in both groups of the respondents clearly indicate that Lublin Province is perceived as touristically attractive, regardless of the travel purpose.

The analysis regarding the attributes that determine the tourist attractiveness of Lublin Province demonstrated that for all the visitors to the province, as well as for two individual groups of the respondents, the tourist attractiveness of an area depended on historical-cultural, natural and recreational attractions, which were quoted most often (Tables 7 and 8).

The study revealed a statistically significant correlation between historical-cultural attractions (p = 0.006) and natural attractions (p = 0.009) as the purpose of travel (Table 7). The types of attractions mentioned by both groups of the respondents most frequently were recreational attractions. It can be concluded that in accordance with the assumed hypothesis, they are important from the point of view of building the tourist image of the province.

The results of the in-depth analysis (Table 8) indicate that the most important attractions mentioned by the respondents from both groups included historical sites (attractions of the first type), natural areas (attractions of the second type) and beautiful landscapes or views (attractions of the third type).

To sum up, regardless of their purpose of travel, all the people who visited Lublin Province mentioned the same types of attractions and the same attributes. The respondents’ opinions differed only in percentages, which were higher in the case of the tourists (Table 8).

Statistically speaking, the two groups of the respondents display significant correlations in the statements regarding historical sites (p = 0.040) and attractive natural areas (p = 0.004). They were mentioned more frequently by people who visited the province for tourist purposes; however, the groups did not differ in their opinions regarding the landscape as a tourist attractiveness attribute (p = 0.112) (Table 8).

It can be concluded that based on their knowledge and experience gained during their stay, tourists appreciated the cultural and natural attributes of the tourist attractiveness of the region more (the cognitive and affective elements merged together). The attractiveness attribute, which did not depend on the purpose of travel, was the landscape. Thus, referring to Marques et al. (2021), the landscape can be treated as a unique element that seriously influences the perception of the attractiveness of this emerging destination.

The topic of this article fits into research dedicated to the destination image. Despite the passage of time and owing to their interdisciplinary character, the studies continue to be fragmentary and scattered. Those representing a holistic approach to the issue of the destination image are still scarce. Moreover, the results of our research represent only a fragment of the new knowledge about the problems of emerging destinations.

An example of a destination at this stage of development is Lublin Province. Gierczak-Korzeniowska et al. (2022) note that it is relatively rare for the administrative boundaries to be included in the research on a destination image; however, such an approach is justified because in Poland (and likely in other EU countries because of the necessary official actions and budgets), the strategies of tourism development, as well as related activities, are implemented within administrative units.

After conducting an in-depth analysis of the problem, we should agree with the statements by Qu et al. (2011) and Marques et al. (2021), as both claim that emerging destinations require positioning and promoting their unique/major attributes and products more than mature destinations to attract tourists. This confirms the suggestions from Litvin and Mouri (2009), as well as Hummelbrunner and Miglbauer (1994) about creating advertising messages about such destinations. Their natural and cultural environment should be presented in promotional campaigns in a sophisticated, attractive and didactic way, and the focus should be on well-known iconic places. Decrop (2007) indicates that to maximise the effectiveness of such messages, the images and the text of a commercial should be skilfully combined as images effectively attract the consumer’s attention and provoke certain behaviours, while the text is most powerful in terms of information transfer.

It is not easy to construct a proper and effective promotional campaign. As shown by the analysis of earlier study results (Zdon-Korzeniowska 2012; Kruszyńska, Bojarska 2014; Mazurek-Kusiak, Wojciechowska-Solis 2014; Lemanowicz 2016), despite considerable financial expenses, the high incidence and a wide thematic range of promotional campaigns, Lublin Province was mainly associated with economic resources, and not with tourism. Thus, we agree with Foret and Klusáček (2011), Ćulić et al. (2021) and Marques et al. (2021) in that to build an emerging destination image, it is necessary to properly identify the attributes of its tourist attractiveness, including unique components and then to expose and solidify them in thematic campaigns.

Despite this simple and clear recommendation, the task is complicated to carry out in practice, as demonstrated by the research conducted by Kula (2013, 2014), as well as in the present study. The analyses show that respondents perceive Lublin Province as touristically attractive, but they find it difficult to identify the attributes of its attractiveness. The elements mentioned earlier (e.g. historical sites and attractive natural areas) were strongly generalised, which shows that the knowledge about them is insufficient, and the respondents still do not have a clear image of the destination. Such a state of affairs was discussed by Butler (1980) regarding emerging destinations.

We may also agree with Echtner and Ritchie (1993), Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Liu et al. (2018) and Szubert et al. (2022), who all claim that an important factor influencing the perception of tourist attractiveness and creation of a destination’s image is the knowledge surrounding it. As shown by the study, regardless of the purpose of travel, all respondents quoted the same attractiveness attributes. The differences regarded only the stronger conviction about the attractiveness of the area among the people who visited it for tourist purposes. Thus, we must agree with Baloglu and McCleary (1999) that the cognitive component has a significant impact on the affective component. We also agree with the opinion of Szubert et al. (2022) in that the more tourists that know about the destination, the better their perception of the image is.

Moreover, Marques et al.’s (2021) suggestions seem reasonable. They claim that in the case of an emerging destination, where the knowledge of and attachment to it are relatively limited, the key factor in building the destination’s image may be the identification of unique features found, discovered and experienced during the trip.

In accordance with the adopted assumption, examples of such an attribute of tourist attractiveness in Lublin Province are recreational attractions, especially the region’s landscape, which has been noticed by all the visitors. This, however, requires verification via further indepth studies.

The research results prove that Lublin Province is still at the stage of developing an offer and an image as a destination.

It has been confirmed that the region is considered touristically attractive, but it is not clearly associated with tourism. Thus, the components of its tourist attractiveness are poorly recognisable, which is the reason why its distinctive, coherent image (destination image) cannot be built. It can be seen in the insignificant differences between the answers provided by tourists and the people who visited Lublin Province for non-tourist purposes.

The effective construction of an image of the destination in question should be preceded by popularising knowledge about a large number of attractions and brand tourist products available within its space. The consolidation of such knowledge may be aided by elements directly associated with it: names, symbols and images. In other cases, the respondents’ statements regarding the directions of travel will continue to refer directly to chosen cities and regions (Lublin, Zamość, Kazimierz Dolny, Roztocze Hills), and the quoted attributes of the tourist attractiveness of the province will be strongly scattered and very general - they can be assigned to any area (e.g. ‘historical sites’ and not Lublin Castle, ‘attractive natural areas’ and not Roztoczański National Park, ‘forests’ and not Janowskie Forests, ‘waters’ and not Białe Lake, ‘entertainment places’ and not Magic Gardens). Therefore, they cannot form the basis for building a recognisable image of this destination.

The study results confirm the need to build a tourist image of this emerging destination by promotion based on popularising and making its various tourist attractions more permanent. The findings suggest that at the present stage, the attributes that should be used in the promotion of the region should be recreational attractions, including unique landscapes. This is because they turned out to be important and recognisable, both for tourists and for the people visiting the region for purposes other than tourism.

To sum up, in the case of an emerging destination, activities aimed at building its strong destination image should combine continuous, theme-based promotional campaigns with the results of research that identifies the attributes of its tourist attractiveness.

Owing to the relatively small number of publications regarding emerging destinations, the limited area of our task and a limited choice of the respondents, our research still has an exploratory character and leads to preliminary conclusions.

The authors hope that their findings may be the basis for more in-depth, comprehensive and holistic research, as well as a start of a broader discussion about the topics in question.