Destination image formation

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction.

The following section of the paper refers to the critical evaluation of the existing literature on the concept of destination image, its components, formation process and factors influencing this process. Further the author tries to show the link between destination image and mega-events, with the main focus on mega-sports events. The nature of events, their classification and the impact resulting from hosting mega-sports events are also taken under consideration in order to provide more in-depth information for readers.

2.2. Destination image.

When developing and implementing marketing strategies, destinations primarily aim to attract tourists by influencing their travel decision-making and choice (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). As indicated by a wide range of researchers, this influence has an immense potential to be achieved through destination image optimization ( Milman and Pizam, 1995; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999......). Images tourists have of destinations do not only influence their decision to travel to the place, but also affect their ‘after-decision making behaviour’ (Chen and Tsai, 2007).

During the last four decades, destination image was defined in different ways and from different perspectives. It may be simply described as "impressions of a place" or "perceptions of an area" (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Or it may get a broader definition as suggested by Um and Crompton (1992) to be ‘a holistic construct which is derived from attitudes toward a destination’s perceived tourism attributes’.

Image has a nature of an elusive and confusing construct, which is as strong as to significantly affect the tourist consumer behaviour (Tasci et al., 2007). Symbolic information generated by means of media or acquired from social groups lead to the formation of an image for alternative destinations, thus image appears to be a critical element in the destination choice process (Um and Crompton, 1992). Chon (1990) shares the same view about the image of a place, which has a crucial role in a traveller’s decision making when choosing the destination. He also underlines its significance for the post travel satisfaction level of the visitor, since it largely depends on his/her comparison of the expectations prior to visit, or a previously held destination image, and the perceived actual performance of the destination. This is explained by the fact that tourists base their images of a destination on their perceptions, and those perceptions are directly connected with their attitudes and motivation, hence affect the entire consumer behaviour (Blazevic and Stojic, 2006). Therefore, it may be argued that destination image along with affecting the decision-making process of a tourist to travel to a destination can also influence his/her post travel satisfaction, the factor with a direct connection to the favourable development of a destination (Mohan, 2010).

Tourism image is critical for other aspects of the industry as well. Marketers make decisions for planning, positioning and promoting a place by putting significant reliance on the results of the area’s image research, which subsequently helps them to carry out successful destination marketing (Tasci et al., 2007). Therefore, it is relevant to sum up that image emerges to be an effective tool directly influencing the time visitors spend at a destination, their positive evaluations of the destination or their satisfaction with the travel, their intention to revisit the destination, readiness and willingness to spread a word of mouth about it, desire to visit, the length of trip in the travel planning process and the budgeted finance to be spent at the destination (Tasci et al., 2007).

2.2.1. The meaning of destination image.

Numerous research works conducted previously to investigate the nature of tourism image and its functions noted the ‘heterogeneous, complex, and dynamic nature’ of the image concept which led to the emergence of multiple definitions of destination image and various ways of conceptualising the construct of destination image (Stepchenkova and Mills, 2010). Giving a general description, it may be stated that image is a set of meanings attached to an object, through which it becomes known, described, remembered and related to (Chon, 1990). That means ‘a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings, expectations and impressions about an object’ form an overall image of it as a result of interaction between these variables (ibid.).

In the context of travel and tourism industry, Crompton (1979) find it gives an analogous definition for destination image, describing it as ‘the aggregate sum of beliefs, ideas, impressions, and expectations that a tourist has about a tourist destination area’. The way tourists interpret or perceive the reality subjectively appears to be the basis in the destination image formation process (Bigne, Sanchez & Sanchez, 2001). Image has two closely interrelated components which affect its formation: cognitive evaluations based on the knowledge and the beliefs a person has about an object, and affective appraisals referring to a person’s feeling about the object (Beerli, Martin, 2004). Due to the fact that researchers give definitions to image focusing on its particular aspects, it is natural that they may vary (Tasci et al., 2007).  In this study particularly, image is defined as ‘a compilation of beliefs and impressions based on information processing from various sources over time resulting in internally accepted mental constructs’ (Sirakaya et al, 2001). !!!!!!!!pause

2.2.2. The components of destination image.

Baloglu and McCleary (1999) developed a model of destination image formation based on the previous research works investigating the subject. The authors found out that tourist form the images of destinations under the influence of both the stimulus factors and their personal characteristics. They suggest that stimulus factors such as variety and type of information sources have more impact on affect, whereas cognitive evaluations of tourists are influenced by socio-psychological motivations. Moreover, the authors found out that in the process of destination formation the affective components are more significant than cognitive ones, and serve as an intervening variable between cognitive and conative components of destination image.

Hunt (1975, cited in Martin and Bosque, 2008) points out that beliefs and perceptions people have of a destination are prevailing over the objective reality due to their unfamiliarity with a destination before visiting it. Therefore, according to the author, both tangible factors such as tourist attractions and other tourism resources experienced by a tourist during actual visitation and their pre-visit images are equally influential for the tourism development of an area. One of the first studies investigating the involvement of both tangible and intangible factors in the formation of destination image was undertaken by Gartner (1993). As a result of his research, he came to conclusion that images are formed by three clearly different, though closely interrelated components known as cognitive, affective and conative elements, which determine the way any product or a destination is perceived by the consumers (Gartner, 1993). Pike and Ryan (2004) highlight the possibility of developing a competitive destination positioning strategy through a deep analysis of these three components of image formation. The researchers claim that “effective positioning requires a succinct, focused and consistent message. Positioning analysis requires an understanding of how a destination is perceived to perform on attributes deemed important to the target market, relative to the competition”. Martin and Bosque (2008) state that while the earlier studies focusing on destination image were mainly pointing at the significance of cognitive components, current researchers prefer to consider both cognitive and affective elements of destination image formation in conjunction.

With a reference to the study undertaken by Scott (1965), Gartner (1993) defines the cognitive image component as a consumer’s evaluation of the previously known attributes specific to a product or perceiving a product in an intellectual way. The cognitive image is formed under the influence of external stimulus factors, whereas the affective component is identified by the motivations of a traveller to choose the particular destination (ibid.). In their review of the image component related research, Baloglu and McCleary (1999) point out the tight interrelation between cognitive and affective components, placing more emphasis on cognition in influencing the emotions of a person.

Tasci et al. (2007) argue that affect may consist of both positive and negative feelings towards an object with fluctuating intensity. According to their research, affective components of image may be expressed through such high level emotions like love and anger, or feelings like satisfaction and frustration, people’s moods like boredom and relaxation, and their simple attitudes such as liking and disliking (ibid.). As for cognition, it is described as a ‘mental response’ which requires a person to think about, pay attention to details, remember, understand, interpret, evaluate and make decisions about the information received from the related environment’ (Tasci et al., 2007). Drawing conclusion on the components influencing the image formation, the authors suggest they involve prior knowledge, perception and interpretations of a person, his/her evaluations and decisions (ibid).

The mutual influence of two destination image components result in a behaviour, which is defined by Gartner (1993) as a conative image component. The auhor claims that this element becomes obvious after all internal and external information is received and processed, and when any decision is made. Hence, conative image component is directly influenced by the previously discussed image components, as a person makes a decision about the choice of a place after a careful consideration of images derived from cognitive stage and evaluations resulting from affective stage (ibid.).

Echtner and Ritchie (2003) suggest that destinations may be evaluated with regard to their attribute-based components or holistic components. Apart from these, they also bring forward some obvious characteristics, directly observed and measured by tourists (accommodation, tourist sites, nature, prices), as well as abstract, though highly influential components such as friendliness, general atmosphere and safety. The more tangible elements of a destination image are related to functional characteristics, while intangible components are described as psychological characteristics of a place (ibid.). In addition to that, the researchers state that destinations may have characteristics common to those of other countries, along with some distinctly unique features specific only to the destination or to a very limited number of places.

Through the analysis of interrelations among the image components mentioned in the previous paragraph, Tasci et al. (2007) highlight the rational knowledge of common and unique attributes and travellers’ emotional attitude towards them as a core of all the other elements of image formation. They argue that the mutual influence of cognitive and affective image components lead to the formation of a composite, in other words holistic or overall image of a destination, which helps a consumer to make a final decision about his/her travel destination choice. According to the researchers, the fact-based nature of the common and unique attributes allows a tourist to avoid stereotypical holistic perception of a destination. Taken together the results of the study undertaken by Tasci et al (2007) suggest that destination image formation is a system involving dynamic interaction of all the components which should not be considered separately. Each of the image components can influence the perception of a consumer in different ways, sometimes being a cause and the other times being an effect of a change. The exact nature of the components can be investigated through an integrated analysis of all the components Therefore, the authors describe the image as ‘an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings, visualizations, and intentions toward a destination’.

2.2.3. Destination image formation process.

Gallarza et al. (2002) described the nature of tourism destination image as complex, multiple, relativistic and dynamic.  According to the authors, the first description is based on the idea that destination images are formed under the influence of different components (cognitive, evaluative and conative) which adds complexity to the conceptual, as well as methodological delineation of the image construct. The interrelation of these components is described as a reason leading to different interpretations and a lack of unique or collective image of a destination. Similarly, the existence of various factors and image formation stages is considered to be the base for multiple nature of the identity of destination image. Another feature of destination image described as subjectivity, along with its being comparative is suggested to lead to a relativistic nature of destination image, which means that image related perceptions of people vary from person to person and they are formed by comparing the images of other destinations. The researchers suggest that the dynamic nature of tourism destination image is conditioned by time and space, which means that images change depending on the time passed and the physical distance of travellers from the destination itself.

Destination marketing organisations (DMOs) should not only concentrate on creating awareness in the process of image formation, but they also need to take into account the match of every projected image with the expectations and demands of the targeted audience, which should be able to receive the message in the form it was initially aimed to be rendered (Gartner, 1997). Similarly, the image formation process becomes more effective if the target segment is exposed to its dynamic nature and the interaction of various image influencing factors such as communication mix and the implementation of various promotional efforts undertaken to have a positive impact on the image perception of travellers (McCartney et al., 2008).

The researchers of the field agree that image formation may be defined as creation of a logical representation of a destination in the minds of the tourists who rely on the information messages sent by image formation agents and accepted by a person (Gartner,1993; Young, 1999; Bramwell and Rawding, 1996).

Despite the general tendency to use image, perception and attitude as substitutional factors in the literature of destination image, Sussmann and Unel (1999) express their disagreement with it, even though they are extremely similar. According to them, attitudes influence the perceptions, which in their own turn affect the image.

Destination image is initially formed as a consequence of a “flood of information” which may have its source from promotional literature, recommendations and opinions of others and the general media (Echtner and Ritchie, 2003). Travellers’ actual visit experience, as first-hand information, adds up to the further modification of a destination image (ibid.). Tasci and Gartner (2007) point out that their review of the literature on destination image formation process found out that the image agents may derive from three sources: the destination itself (supply-side), independent or autonomous sources and the visitors (demand-side).

DMOs put a significant amount of emphasis on the promoting the place, aiming to create positive image or modify an existing image by means of advertising and spreading a word around to create familiarity (Bramwell and Rawding 1996; Young 1999). However, they cannot fully control the way the messages are delivered to the recipients. The projected image may result in a completely different interpretation of the travellers (Court and Lupton, 1997) or may be altered by the sender of the image creating messages (ibid.) or it may be overshadowed by the other messages and fail to reach the recipient (Tasci and Gartner, 2007).

According to Gunn (1989) destination images are formed at two levels: an organic image and an induced image. Organic images do not include any efforts put by a destination to promote the place; they derive as a consequence of historical-geographical events and a communication with no tourism implications (ibid.). The researcher states that the information creating associations in the minds of tourists come from written and broadcasted material such as news reports of world events in mass-media, geography books, fiction and non-fiction. With regards to an induced image, the author describes it as an image deriving under the influence of deliberate efforts of a DMO to promote, advertise and create awareness about the place.

The environment of any destination is capable to provide innumerable information cues for tourists, which affect the way they perceive the destination (Sirgy and Su, 2000). The cues may be reflected in the accommodation facilities, general atmosphere, location, climate, service and prices (ibid). Destination marketers have to be able to determine the cues used by visitors in forming their perceptions about a certain destination (ibid.). Sirgy and Su (2000) argue that while some of the cues can be manipulated by DMOs, the others are uncontrollable. The destination (product), prices, location (place) and the promotion are the cues likely to be under control of destination marketers, whereas such cues as tourists’ personal characteristics and the climate are uncontrollable (ibid.).

Table N... Image Formation Agents (adopted from Gartner(1993))

The study of image formation process and the components involved in it are of paramount importance for the tourism development of destinations, since the detection of different image formation agents’ affect on the perceptions of tourists can give valuable hints to the destination marketing strategy (Gartner, 1993). Destinations pay attention to the amount and the content of the image formation agents they use, and by excluding or including certain components they can be tracked of the image they pursue to create in the minds of the target market (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Depending on their credibility level and uniqueness, autonomous agents have different effects. If the information is highly credible and considerably different from the previously held images of tourists, it can effectively and quickly alter the perception. While, on the contrary, the information reaching the target audience gradually and with less originality form the former image formation agents has a slow effect (ibid.). Gartner and Shen (1992) state that autonomous image agents can have a prompt effect on the image of a destination depending on the level of control by the destination and the size, as well as the media coverage of the events which cause the emergence of such information. Phelps (1986, cited in Beerli and Martin, 2004) classifies organic, induced and autonomous image formation agents as a secondary image, while naming the image created as a consequence of actual visitation a primary one.

Communication process is the determiner of the image formation according to Blazevic and Stojic (2006). The researchers point out that if a potential traveller finds his/her desirable and close to real image while communicating with a destination under consideration, it can convince him/her to choose the destination. If a marketing strategy can not attract the potential tourists and do not identify the images desirable for them, it may face a failure.

2.2.4. Factors influencing destination image formation process.

It is crucial for destination marketers to understand the reasons leading people to choose particular destinations, to identify the factors influencing them and to explore the way they perceive and create images in their minds (Blazevic and Stojic, 2006). Due to the link between a country’s tourist image and national image (Kotler, 1987), tourists are exposed to a wide range of information spectrum. Any information delivered through non-commercial sources reflecting the history, economy, policy or social system of a country may serve as a factor of image formation (ibid.).

Beerli and Martin (2004) conducted a review of the instruments measuring the images attached to the areas with the aim of developing a model of destination image measurement. However, ‘the lack of universally accepted, valid and reliable scale’ of image measurement led the authors to consider every element of destination which could be used to measure its image. Thus, taking into account all factors influencing people’s evaluation of the places and considering all the image measuring attributes described in the existing scales, the researchers suggest to assess the destination images according to the following dimensions: natural resources, general infrastructure, tourist infrastructure, tourist leisure and recreation, culture, history and art, political and economical factors, natural environment, social environment, atmosphere of the place (ibid.). Similar to this, Therkelson (2003) emphasised the importance of societal, cultural and geographical factors of a destination, since they are the components which affect the overall holiday experience of travellers resulting in either positive or negative assessment.

Stimulus factors and personal factors are suggested by Baloglu and McCleary (1999) to composite the destination image formation model.

A range of researchers agree that personal characteristics of people affect their perception of a destination. Therefore, it is fair to note that images are formed through the images projected by destinations and internal factors of people such as motivations, needs, pre-visit knowledge, preferences and other personal factors (Beerli and Martin, 2004).  Personal factors include socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education level, place of residence, etc.) and psychological factors (motivations, values, personality, etc) of a person (ibid.). The influence these personal factors have on the cognitive thinking of a person modifies his/her perception and result in the image he/she forms in his/her mind (Beerli and Martin, 2004). Socio-demographic and cultural factors affect the needs, motivations and interests of people according to which they choose what to see, hear, read and pay attention to (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Consequently all of these factors affect people’s interpretations of the attributes specific to a destination, thus form its image (ibid.).

Distance variable, which refers to socio-demographic characteristics reflected by the country of residence, is also believed to be an influencing factor of the image formation process (Joppe et. al. 2002, Gallerza et. al 2001). According to Erfurt and Johnsen (2003), the closer people live to a destination, the more critical they are. Martin and Bosque (2008) have found out and people from different countries have different perception of the same destination resulting from their dissimilar cultural values. Similarly, Beerli and Martin (2004) argue that cognitive and affective components of images people hold about destinations are influenced by their countries of origin.

Word of mouth

The familiarity degree of a person with a destination is described by Fakeye and Crompton (1991) as an important affecting factor of a destination image. The authors state that future, first-time and repeat visitors do not always share the same views on a place they choose as a travel destination.

Even though the majority of the elements affecting the image formation can be manipulated by DMOs, there are still those which are out of their control (Erfurt and Johnsen, 2003). The weather, attacks and accidents cannot be influenced by destination managers and may have a negative impact on the image of the country (ibid.). But destinations can face the consequences of any image distortion through implementing proper destination marketing strategies paying attention to both traditional promotional efforts and the use of Internet technologies (Erfurt and Johnsen, 2003). McCartney (2008) urges destination managers to pay attention to the virtual representation of destinations, since the website contents can directly influence the images of potential visitors. The Internet is not only a source of information anymore, it is now a platform for consumers to interact and share their experiences (Dwivedi, 2009). By the growing popularity of the Internet among customers, word of mouth has acquired another form known as “a word of mouse”, allowing people to exchange information easier and quicker than before and marking consumer-generated data as an additional powerful information source of destination image (Govers and Go, 2003; Choi et al., 2007).

Ritchie and Crouch (2003) identify ‘core resources’ and ‘attractors’ that are fundamental in motivating a person to choose a certain destination. Taking into account that the tourist decisions are also known to be dependent on images (Bowen and Clarke, 2009), it may be suggested that these factors have an influence on the overall perception of the destination (destination image) as well. These ‘key motivators’ are presented under seven categories in the Table 1 (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003).

Table N.... Key elements contributing to the destination appeal.

Source: Ritchie and Crouch, 2003.

2.2.5. Destination image measurement.

Destinations can be effectively marketed if people taking this responsibility are able to identify the images tourists associate with them (Chon, 1990). Being a significant element of understanding tourist travel behaviour and playing an important role in the design of destination marketing strategies, the concept of destination image needs to be thoroughly measured by a specially designed methodology (Echtner, Ritchie, 2003). Due to the fact image consists of various aspects, complicated conceptualisation of the phenomenon leads to the implementation of various measuring tools (Stepchenkova and Mills, 2010).

Structured and unstructured measurement techniques are the ones most commonly used by destination image researchers (Pike, 2002). The studies based on structured measurement techniques measure the cognitive and affective components of a destination image by implementing semantic differentials and/or Likert scale formats (Gartner, 1989; Milman & Pizam, 1995; Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997). Echtner and Ritchie (1991) revealed that researchers mostly prefer to employ quantitative techniques.

Tasci et al. (2007) state that people’s attitudes and images of a place may change over time under an influence of affective components. In connection to this, destination image researchers need to monitor and evaluate the images of a place periodically through longitudinal studies in order to identify the factors leading to the modification of people’s perceptions (ibid.). Choi et al. (1999) explain the lack of such studies by a one-off nature of the majority of destination image studies.

Researchers focusing their works on destination image formation more frequently apply quantitative research methods, due to the fact of qualitative methods being more time consuming and costly (Jenkins, 1999; Pike, 2002). That may be the reason of greater attention paid to cognitive component of destination image rather than to affective images (Stepchenkova and Mills, 2010). The review of literature related to destination image, undertaken by Pike (2002), prove that Likert-type scales are the most commonly used measuring instrument of cognitive elements. Some authors, eg. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997), adopt semantic differential scales to measure affective image components.

2.3. The relationship between mega-events and destination image.

Gunn (1989) argues that although organic image of a destination can rarely be changed, its induced image may be altered extensively through promotions and via media. Showing his solidarity with this, Getz (2005) points out the significance of events on shaping the image of the host country which result in its favourable reception by the potential tourists. Despite the voluminous investments usually made for attracting visitors, the publicity value of events, even with short duration, is completely justifiable (ibid).

Figure 1. Economic and tourism roles of events

Source: Getz, 2005

Mega sports events are treated by destinations as a stage for building a global status of a country or city hosting them (Kapareliotis, 2010). Such mega events like Olympic Games can attract a flood of foreign tourists, as well as domestic visitors to a place if they are well-organised (L’Etang, 2006). Even if the main motivation of tourists is to participate in the event, they also spend money to see the destination, and frequently decide to spend more time there than the event requires (Bauer et al., 2005). Ritchie and Smith (1991) investigated the impact a mega-event can have on the host country. They conclude that they attract global attention and hence lead to an increased awareness and can positively affect the image of the place, which will strengthen its competitiveness in the future.

2.4. The identity of events

As an aftermath of events different impacts are known to emerge: they may form or change the image of the hosting destination, motivate travellers to visit it, contribute to the infrastructure and communications development, create new job places, and adding to the gross domestic product they influence the economic sector of the host nation as well (De Groote, 2005). "Event tourism must, therefore, seek to enhance the attractiveness of individual events and festivals and to use them to enhance destination attractiveness,[he also states] Successful events can enhance the image of the destination, generating an important but often unmeasurable increase in general-purpose tourism." (Getz 1991).

2.4.1. Defining events

2.4.2. Classification of events

Events are more often used as off-season tourism facilitators and countries are now increasingly engaging in hosting all kinds of events and festivals for the benefit of their tourism industry and as part of tourism marketing (Erfurt and Johnsen, 2003).  Potential repeat visitors become more familiar with the destinations through conventions they organise. Satisfied tourists are likely not only to spread a word about an area hosting an event, but also to repeatedly visit it afterwards (Erfurt and Johnsen, 2003).

Events may have different categories depending on their size and scale (Bodwin et al., 2001). According to their size, events are categorised into mega-events, hallmark events and major events (ibid.). Mega-events can be distinguished from other types of events by visitation, cost and psychological criteria (Getz, 2005). The volume of visitors should not be less than 1 million people, with the capital cost of $500 million and they need to be considered as a ‘must see’ occurrence (Getz, 2005)

2.5. Mega-sports events

Mega-events are mainly described as major happenings generating high levels of tourism and profitability for residents or a destination (Getz, 1997, Gratton et al., 2000).Jago et al. (2010) define mega events as ‘large-scale events marked by global publicity, attracting substantial international visitation and associated with large-scale economic, social or environmental impacts’. Similarly, Roche (2001) emphasises ‘mass popular appeal and international significance’ of mega-events, as well as their culture-related nature and dramatic character in creating awareness. Countries involve in severe competitions to bid for hosting mega-events with the aim of enhancing awareness and to create interest using their ability to acquire prestige in limited duration (Ritchie, 1984). Thus it can be suggested that a mega-event has a certain distinctive nature and it should match the following criteria (Mintel, 2010):

1. It should run during a fixed and short period of time
2. It should ne high-profile and attracting the worldwide interest
3. It must have a sustainable and measurable economic outcome
4. It must leave a long-lusting legacy for the host nation
5. It requires the political and governmental involvement
6. It needs to be a part of a host country’s strategic policies

and Higham (2005) stress the important role of mega-events stating that they have the most direct links with sport which can be evidenced from national or regional championship competitions (American Football’s Superbowl) and international mega-sports events (Olympic Games). Sporting events give an opportunity for the host country to attract potential tourists by presenting an appealing image (Mohan, 2009).

2.5.1. Concept of definitions

"Major one-time or recurring events of limited duration, developed primarily to enhance the awareness, appeal and profitability of a tourism destination in the short and/or long term. Such events rely for their success on uniqueness, status, or timely significance to create interest and attract attention." (Ritchie 1984). Mega-events, by way of their size or significance, are those that yield extraordinarily high levels of tourism, media coverage, prestige, or economic impact for the host community or destination." (Getz, 1997 cited in  Beritelli et al., 2004).

2.5.2. The possible impacts of mega-sports events

Barghchi, Omar and Aman (2009) have identified short-term and long-term impacts of hosting mega-sports events from an entrepreneurial perspective; consequently, they were concentrating on the economic impacts of events mainly. They argue that events can have both costs and benefits for the economy of the hosting destination. According to the authors, mega-sports events result in expenses related to the operational costs, direct investment (facilities), indirect investment (general infrastructure of the area), and intangible costs (crowding, disruption). Nevertheless, benefits brought by them are prevailing and include income from event-related investment, income from event-related consumption and intangible benefits such as the development of local environment, a spirit of healthy life among the local population, and social benefits such as national pride, urban transformation and a sense of inclusion in the event (ibid.). Describing the long-term economic impacts of mega-sports events on the hosting destination, Barghchi et al. (2009) mainly focus on the lasting legacy left for cities and countries. They suggest that in order to have a long-lusting effect of facilities and infrastructure built especially for a sporting event, they need to be included into the marketing strategy of the destination. The researchers conclude that hosting mega-sports events and investing in them may have numerous economic, as well as social impacts, such as enhanced community image, transformed national or local identities, better infrastructure and facilities, improved social welfare, and a development of tourism. However, as stated by Coates and Humphreys (2008), the literature does not always agree with the positive economic impacts of hosting mega-sports events due to the lack of considerable evidence of increasing job supply, tax revenues or growing incomes for communities.

According to De Groote (2005), who undertook a study devoted to the investigation of economic and tourism impacts of such a mega-event as Olympic Games, even though the economic impacts of hosting sporting events may appear obvious through improved infrastructure and building new facilities, yet they need to be ‘offset against’ other impacts of the Games. Moreover, as indicated by Baade and Matheson (2004), mega-sports events’ success in attracting tourists does not necessarily result in an economic boost for a nation, often leaving negative impact on the host destination economy. This statement is supported by Burton (2003), who claims that despite the common justification of hosting mega-sports events by financial benefits, they rarely achieve break-even position. If countries bid for mega-sports events for economic reasons only, ignoring other aspects, the true cost of hosting an event may exceed its economic value, whereas the consideration of socio-cultural and environmental impacts of events adds up the potential to reach success (De Groote, 2005). The results of the research conducted by Saayman, Saayman and du Plessis (2005) suggest that countries hosting mega-sports events for economic benefits need to target foreign visitors, as they spend more than domestic participants of events. They also advise to consider such factors that affect tourists spending patterns as their age, nationality, income, visit numbers and others.

Hosting-mega-sports event can have substantial impact on the social life of the hosting community. Thus, Preuss (2006) states that sporting events is beneficial for raising the knowledge and skills of the local people. The training programmes for volunteers providing basic skills of hospitality, knowledge and skills acquired during preparation for an event or in the process of bidding for it, and the skills gained by citizens for creating a safe environment while hosting an event have a positive impact on the tourism development of a destination (ibid). Examining social impacts of the Sydney Olympics, Waitt (2003) suggest that mega-sports events can be a powerful instrument of generating patriotism among the local residents and giving them a sense of community. However, the researchers also remind of the negative social impacts of such events which may be reflected in the residents’ opinions that mega-sport events are followed by the increase of taxation and living costs, and it is regarded as an ‘economic burden’ by them. A number of researchers (Kim and Petrick, 2005; Fredline and Faulkner, 1999) agree that overcrowding, noise, traffic congestion, disruption of the local community’s lifestyle may be considered as additional negative impacts of hosting mega events.

2.6. The function of events in the process of destination image formation.

Kim and Morrison (2005) explored the image changes characteristic for three nationalities as a consequence of the World Cup held in South Korea in 2002. The results of their study show that the images of tourists before and after the event were different, with the latter being more favourable. The mega-sports event improved the image of the country by lessening the threat associated with safety in the area, and brought forward more positive images of the country than prior to the World Cup. The authors also have found that the perceptions of foreign tourists were different depending on their education level, age, occupation and familiarity degree with the host destination. Another study based on the same case of the World Cup in Korea undertaken by Lee,C., Lee, Y. and Lee, B. (2005) support the positive impact of the mega-sports event on the image of the country. The researchers observed the following favourable country-related image dimensions of the tourists who attended the World Cup in Korea: relaxing atmosphere, beautiful nature, personal security, friendly local people, good shopping facilities, green environment, improved accommodation facilities, exciting night life, favourable climate, ease of communication with locals, convenient public transports, delicious food, informative events and festivals, and fair travel costs.

Chalip and Costa (2005) suggest that sporting events need to be considered as an image building part of the marketing plan of a host destination. In terms of branding policy, mega-sport events may be successful if destination marketers base their plans of events portfolio on a mix of sporting and cultural events appropriate for a destination and projecting a desired image of the host community (ibid.). The authors emphasise the importance of identifying the perceptions of different target markets to assure that the image messages promoted by means of sporting events are interpreted in a desired way.