The role destination image plays for international ...

The role destination image plays for international students in the city of Groningen

A quantitative analysis

Wageningen University Department of Environmental Sciences

Cultural Geography Chair Group

Thesis code: GEO-80436 Date: March 2014 Name student: Thomas Hartjes Registration number: 890304-308-010 Examiners: dr.ir. Karin Peters dr.ir. Maarten Jacobs

Wageningen University Cultural Geography

MSc thesis Thomas Hartjes 1

Table of contents

Overview of tables and figures ................................................................................................................ 3

Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Destination image ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Components of destination image ......................................................................................... 9

2.1.2 The process of image formation .......................................................................................... 10

2.1.3 Measuring destination image ............................................................................................... 12

2.2 Evaluative dispositions ................................................................................................................ 15

2.3 Educational tourism .................................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1 Motivations to study abroad ................................................................................................ 16

2.3.2 Decision making.................................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................................ 18

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................. 22

3.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.1 Hypotheses testing ............................................................................................................... 24

3.3.2 Analysis of open-ended items .............................................................................................. 25

4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Reliability analyses ...................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Descriptive statistics .................................................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination ..................................... 28

4.2.2 Perceived destination image of Groningen .......................................................................... 29

4.2.3 Evaluative dispositions ......................................................................................................... 33

4.2.4 The role of socio-demographic factors ................................................................................ 35

4.3 The found relationships ............................................................................................................... 36

4.3.1 Importance of factors for choosing a study destination predicting destination image ....... 37

4.3.2 Destination image predicting evaluative dispositions.......................................................... 38

4.3.3 Importance of factors for choosing a study destination predicting evaluative dispositions 39



5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 41

5.1 Role of destination image while choosing a study destination ................................................... 41

5.2 Destination image of Groningen ................................................................................................. 41

5.3 Evaluative dispositions ................................................................................................................ 43

5.4 Reflections on theory and methods ............................................................................................ 43

5.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 45

References ............................................................................................................................................. 47

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 50

Appendix I: Factors for choosing a study destination ....................................................................... 50

Appendix II: Destination image factors ............................................................................................. 52

Appendix III: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 54

Appendix IV: Reliability analyses ....................................................................................................... 59

Appendix V: Effect of socio-demographic variables .......................................................................... 61

Appendix VI: Results destination image ............................................................................................ 65



Overview of tables and figures

Tables Table 2.1: Dimensions/Attributes Determining the Perceived Destination Image (Beerli & Martin,

2004) ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 3.1: Operationalization of theoretical concepts .......................................................................... 22

Table 3.2: Profile respondents of the survey ........................................................................................ 23

Table 3.3: Interpretation of effect size indices used in this study (Based on Vaske, 2008) .................. 24

Table 4.1: Reliability analyses of factors for choosing study destination, destination image and

evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Table 4.2: Importance of factors for choosing a study destination: Mean per factor .......................... 28

Table 4.3: Top 10 images/characteristics describing the city of Groningen ......................................... 29

Table 4.4: Top 10 atmospheres/moods describing the city of Groningen ............................................ 30

Table 4.5: Top 10 unique/distinctive attractions in the city of Groningen .......................................... 30

Table 4.6: The mean of destination image and its components ........................................................... 30

Table 4.7: The mean of items on behavioral intentions and satisfaction ............................................. 33

Table 4.8: P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the

perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination¹ ..................................................... 35

Table 4.9: P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the

perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination¹ ..................................................... 36

Table 4.10: Regression model predicting destination image (dependent) on the basis of perceived

importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent) ............................................... 37

Table 4.11: Regression model predicting components of destination image (dependent) on the basis

of perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent) .......................... 38

Table 4.12: Correlation model predicting evaluative dispositions on the basis of destination image . 38

Table 4.13: Regression model predicting the evaluative dispositions (dependent) on the basis

components of destination image (independent) ................................................................................ 39

Table 4.14: Regression model predicting the evaluative dispositions (dependent) on the basis of

perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent) .............................. 39

Figures Figure 2.1: The Components of Destination Image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993) ....................................... 9

Figure 2.2: Interactive System of Image Components (Tasci et al, 2007) ............................................. 10

Figure 2.3: A General Framework of Destination Image Formation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999) ........ 11

Figure 2.4: Model of the Formation of Destination Image (Beerli & Martin, 2004) ............................. 11

Figure 2.5: List of attributes for developing scales (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993) ...................................... 13

Figure 2.6: The Learning/Travel Continuum (Echtner, 2003) ................................................................ 16

Figure 2.7: Model of International Students Preferences (Cubillo et al., 2006) ................................... 17

Figure 2.8: Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4.1: Results survey items on city image ..................................................................................... 28

Figure 4.2: Martini Tower (Ilikegroningen, 2012) ................................................................................. 30

Figure 4.3: Nightlife at Grote Markt (Modelprofile, 2013).................................................................... 30

Figure 4.4: Bikes in front of Academy Building (CIEE, 2014) ................................................................. 30

Figure 4.5: Results items on comfort and security ................................................................................ 31

Figure 4.6: Results items on interest and adventure ............................................................................ 32



Figure 4.7: Results items on guest facilitation ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 4.8: Results items on atmosphere .............................................................................................. 32

Figure 4.9: Results items on cultural distance ....................................................................................... 33

Figure 4.10: Results items on student life ............................................................................................. 33

Figure 4.11: Results likeliness to revisit Groningen ............................................................................... 34

Figure 4.12: Results willingness to recommend Groningen .................................................................. 34

Figure 4.13: Results satisfaction about stay in Groningen .................................................................... 34

Figure 5.1: Components of destination image of Groningen received by international students ....... 42



Summary This research provides a quantitative analysis of the role destination image plays for international student in the city of Groningen. The European Parliament has the goal to create an European higher education area and their aim is that at least 20% of all graduate students should have had an internship or studied abroad by the year 2020 (Fombona et al, 2013). Groningen is one of the top student cities in the Netherlands offering education to over 50,000 students including 5,000 students. The aim of this study is to understand the destination image international students have of Groningen, to explore how this image is effected by the destination choice process and to examine how image plays a role regarding evaluative dispositions. First of all, the theoretical framework is described regarding these concepts. Destination image is a concept that has gained much attention since the 1970’s. In 1993 Echtner & Ritchie presented a model of three continuums of destination image: The attribute-holistic functional-psychological and common-unique. Later, in 2007, Tasci et al. combined this model with cognitive, affective and conative components. The formation of destination image is affected by both information sources and personal factors. Regarding the measurement of destination image Echtner & Ritchie provide a list of 35 items and three open-ended questions. In this research, this set of items is used, although adjusted a bit for the purpose of the study. Students studying abroad are theoretically within the scope of educational tourism. Existing research regarding this specific population and its destination choice had been merely of qualitative nature. Cubillo et al. (2006) present a list of 47 items that might affect the study destination choice. Also this set of items has just been applied in qualitative research. In this study, the model is used in quantitative matter. Derived from Bigne et al. (2001), a set of three items on behavioral intentions and satisfaction is used to measure students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen. The above mentioned concepts are operationalized in a quantitative survey. This survey thus covers the three major components of this study: Factors affecting the study destination choice, the perceived destination image and evaluative dispositions. Online and on-site data collection took place in November and December 2013. A total of 161 international students in Groningen have participated in the research. Overall, students have a positive image of Groningen, especially regarding the city’s atmosphere and student life. This research also covers the effect of socio-demographic values like age, gender, nationality and study phase. The evaluative dispositions of international students in Groningen are also positive: The vast majority of the students has the intention to come back within five years and is willing to recommend to the city to others. Furthermore, students are quite satisfied about their stay in Groningen. An important finding of the study is that whether city image is considered as being more important when choosing a study destination, the perceived image of the city is more favorable. Next to that, destination image appears to have a positive effect on evaluative dispositions, including behavioral intentions and satisfaction. The results emphasize the significance for a study destination’s institutions to know the image of that specific destination as it affects student’s choice and evaluation.



Preface About six months ago I started with my thesis project on destination image as part of the Master program Leisure, Tourism & Environment. In this period the time has flown by. Almost every day I was working at in the Forum library which was an inspiring working environment. Before introducing the research further in chapter 1, I would like to thank a few people who have supported me and have made a contribution to this thesis:

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors Karin Peters and Maarten Jacobs who have supported me during the whole thesis process. They were always very helpful and available for some good advice.

Second, a big thank to my classmates, the MLE family. The (many) coffee breaks in the Forum building were not only for fun, yet also to discuss our theses, regain motivation and get new insights.

Third, I would like to thank the international student community of Groningen for being so enthusiastic about my study and willing to fill out the questionnaire.

Thomas Hartjes March 2014



1. Introduction Groningen is a city in the northern part of the Netherlands and the capital of the eponymous province. Groningen has the reputation of being a vibrant student city (Lonely Planet, 2013). The city’s two major higher education institutions – Hanzehogeschool Groningen and Rijksuniversiteit Groningen – offer education to over 50,000 students of which over 30,000 actually live in the city itself (GroningenLife!, 2013). In 2013, the city has over 196,000 inhabitants, around 2,000 more than the year before. According to the municipality this increase is mainly due to the influx of international students (Gemeente Groningen, 2013). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG) is the academic university of the city. 4,000 out of its 27,000 are international students who come from over 120 different countries. The university aims at 5,000 international students in 2015 (DvhN, 2013). Recently the university got voted for as the Dutch university with the highest international student satisfaction in the Netherlands (Studyportals, 2013). The main university of applied sciences in the city, Hanzehogeschool Groningen (HG), got a certificate for very good international student satisfaction (Studyportals, 2013). This shows international students are at least satisfied with the universities in the city. Yet which image do they have of the city where these universities are located? How important in this image when choosing a destination to study abroad? And how does image affect the evaluation of the stay? As explained above, Groningen aims at a growth in the number of incoming international students. Gartner (1993) argues that destination image plays a fundamental role in the success of travel destinations as the image influences the destination choice process. Until now it is not yet well researched if and how destination image is relevant for better understanding the choice for certain destinations to study abroad, yet the key variable and relationships could be defined in the research questions. Therefore this study consists of explanatory research. The researcher aims to apply existing measurement instruments of destination image to the field of international students. The overall objective of this research is to understand the destination image international students have of Groningen, to explore how this image is affected by the destination choice process and to examine how image plays a role regarding the students’ evaluation of the stay. Globally the demand for international higher education continues to rise. On the other hand the UK is, like other European countries, foresees a decrease in its home student market (Rudd et al., 2012). Therefore international student recruitment has a major importance to universities (Turner, 2008, in Rudd et al., 2012). Although many academics might find it hard to accept, universities see international students more and more as consumers; universities became sellers offering programs, degrees and often an rich alumni life (Bejou, 2005, in Rudd et al., 2012). Regarding these developments, Cubillo et al. (2006) recognize the need for understanding the behavior of international students. As explained above, the city of Groningen aims at a growth in the number of incoming international students. The European Ministerial Conference of the Process of Leuven set in 2009 the goal that at least 20% of European graduate students should have had an internship or studied abroad by the year 2020 (Fombona et al, 2013). Yearly over 200,000 European students follow the Erasmus program which is launched in the late 1980’s as part of the European Parliament’s Lifelong Learning Program. Its goal is to create an European higher education area and foster innovation in Europe (European Parliament, 2013). This information shows the potential of focusing on the attraction of more international students. Although there is research about the internationalization of higher education, educational tourism only has been discussed by very few tourism researchers (Lam et al., 2011). There is hardly any



research done about destination image regarding international students. It is argued that existing studies mainly focused on adult study tours and cultural educational tourism (Lam et al., 2011). Therefore, this study adds to current research by exploring the destination image of a successful student city among international students, its importance, and its effect on the students’ evaluation of the stay. Two of the main findings of Pike’s (2002) reputable study on previous destination image research is that only 23 out of the 142 investigated existing studies focus on a specific travel context (e.g. backpacking or medical tourism) and that only 26 out of 142 cities focus on cities. As this study focuses both on a specific travel context (educational tourism) and on a city (Groningen), the relevance of the study is evident. The next chapter, Theoretical Framework, provides an overview of how the topics of this research are treated in existing literature. In gives a theoretical framework for destination image, evaluative dispositions and educational tourism. Next to that, the conceptual framework used in this research is presented. Chapter 3, Methodology, is about how the research is conducted. Here is zoomed in on the used methods and data analysis techniques. In Chapter 4, Results, the results of the research are presented. This report ends with Chapter 5, Discussion, in which the results are discussed and interpreted. Here the empirical findings are linked to the theoretical framework and discusses the similarities and differences with earlier studies. Both theoretical and practical implications of the study are given. The chapter ends with the final conclusions.



2. Theoretical framework Before able to draft research questions and hypotheses, the available literature of the three main concepts are described and discussed. The first is destination image, which is about how visitors perceive the destination they visit. This is the central concept of this research. The second is the students’ evaluative dispositions, which includes behavioral intentions and satisfaction. The third is educational tourism. The chapter ends with the conceptual framework, which is developed on the basis of the theoretical framework and includes the specific concepts that will be used further in the research. The research questions and hypotheses are presented here.

2.1 Destination image Destination image research gained interest from tourism researchers since the early 1970’s. In the 1990’s the attention increased. Destination marketing organizations use the results of this form of image research to conduct intelligent destination marketing, meaning that important decisions related to planning, development, positioning and promotion might be influenced by these results (Tasci et al, 2007). The term destination image is frequently used by tourism researchers, yet a precise definition of the term is often not given. Echtner & Ritchie (2003) provide an overview of the many definitions, which also indicates that many tourism researchers do not even try to come up with a definition of image. Jenkins (1999) argues that image is a term that has been used in so many disciplines and contexts, that different meanings are created. Tasci et al. (2007) argue that destination image is still not clearly defined in the contemporary literature. When looking more specifically to the used definitions, the most commonly cited definition is given by Crompton (1977, in Echtner & Ritchie, 2003, p41): ‘The sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination.’ Jenkins (1999) argues, however, that this definition does not acknowledge that images can be shared by a group, which is important for marketing purposes. For that reason she proposes the definition by Lawson & Baud Bovy (1977, in Jenkins, 1999, p2): ‘The expression of all objective knowledge, impressions, prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual or group might have of a particular place.’ This is also the definition adopted in the present research as the results cover information about specific groups (e.g. Bachelor students, Master students).

2.1.1 Components of destination image

In the literature there is a discussion about which components a destination image consists of. Tasci et al. (2007, p199) state that ‘after synthesizing all the components proposed by destination image researchers, it is clear that three main components exist: cognitive, affective and conative.’ Cognitive is what we know about an object, affective is how we feel about what we know, and conative is how we act on this information (Boulding, 1956, in Tasci et al., 2007). One of the most commonly cited research on destination image is the study from Echtner & Ritchie (1993). They recognized that in most studies, image is conceptualized as a list of destination attributes, measuring just the cognitive component. Therefore they come up with a conceptual framework for destination image measurement by introducing a model of three continuums (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: The Components of Destination Image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993)



MacInnis & Prince (1987, in Echtner & Richtie, 1993) argue that a product is perceived both in thoughts on individual features (attributes) and in more gestalt (holistic) impressions. This is translated into the attribute-holistic continuum which involves individual attributes (such as tourist facilities, price level) on the one side and holistic impressions (imagery or mental pictures) on the other side. The second is the functional-psychological continuum which derives from Martineau’s (1958, in Echtner & Ritchie, 1993) distinction between observable or measurable characteristics of image on the one side and less tangible, psychological characteristics on the other side. Functional characteristics are for example public transportation and nightlife. Examples of psychological characteristics are friendliness of the locals and atmosphere. Unique elements are important in the formation of destination image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). This can be unique functional attributes such as the Sydney Opera House or the Eiffel Tower. This can also be unique psychological attributes such as places of religious pilgrimage (Jenkins, 1999). Therefore the third is the common-unique continuum with common functional characteristics as climate and educational system on the one side and unique events, features and auras on the other side. Tasci et al. (2007) introduce a model which is somewhat similar to Echtner & Ritchie (1993). The common-unique and attributes-holistic continuums are combined with cognitive, affective and conative components (see Figure 2.2). The cognitive knowledge about both the common and unique attributes of a destination and the affective response towards those attributes are the core of what they call the interactive system of components. A holistic image is formed and used by the tourist through the interaction between the knowledge about attributes and the feelings towards them. The more detailed and fact based, the less stereotypical the holistic, overall image is. They argue that ‘every item could be both a cause and an effect of a change at any time, and factors cannot be comprehended in isolation; therefore, they should be studied in an integrated manner.’ (Tasci et al., 2007, p200) This statements supports Echtner & Ritchie’s (1999) model of destination image which shows that destination image is an interactive system divided over three dimensions. Therefore in the present research these different dimensions will be covered when investigating the destination image international students have of Groningen.

2.1.2 The process of image formation

Beerli & Martin (2004) state that the process of image formation is one of the least studied areas in destination image research. Yet, across several fields and disciplines, there is consensus that image is mainly caused or formed by two major factors: personal factors and stimulus factors (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). The former are the social and psychological characteristics of the tourist. The latter, on the other hand, are those based on external stimulus and physical objects as well as previous experience (see Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.2: Interactive System of Image Components (Tasci et al, 2007)



Figure 2.3: A General Framework of Destination Image Formation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999)

The above model by Baloglu & McCleary (1999) is based on a literature review and on the assumption the tourist has not yet visited the destination. Without such previous experience they state there are three major determinants for destination image: information sources, socio-psychological motivations and demographic variables. Beerli & Martin (2004) present another model (Figure 2.4) of the formation of destination image with minor differences. They differentiate between first-time and repeat tourists and their study consist of on-site research as they took a random sample at the Lanzarote Airport among leaving tourists.

Figure 2.4: Model of the Formation of Destination Image (Beerli & Martin, 2004)

The above model follows more or less the division proposed by Baloglu & McCleary (1999), yet they call the two major categories information sources and personal factors. According to Beerli & Martin (2004), the information sources to which persons are exposed determine whether a destination is considered as a possible choice. In other words, if a student does not know about Groningen as a study destination, he or she will not consider the city as a possible option for studying abroad. Gartner (1993 in Beerli & Martin, 2004) provide a continuum of different information sources: First, overt induced, traditional advertising in mass media, often delivered by a DMO or tour operator; second, covert induced, using celebrities in promotion activities; third, autonomous, mass-media documentaries, travel TV-shows, etc., about the destination; fourth, organic, involving friend or relatives about their experiences with the place; fifth, a visit to the destination. The first four types of information sources are basically perceived before visiting the



destination, which Phelps (1986, in Beerli & Martin) calls secondary image. On the other side, primary image is formed by actually visiting the destination. This indicates that the secondary sources have, in most cases, an essential role in forming images of a potential destination. The primary image, may differ from the secondary image. Echtner & Ritchie (1993) argue that tourists who are more familiar with the destination have more holistic, psychological and unique based images, while less familiar tourists tends to base their image more on attributes, functional and common features. People go abroad for different reasons. Motivation is considered as the central concept in understanding tourism behavior and the destination choice process as they are the driving force behind actions (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). In other words, motivations are part of the image forming process, which is also supported by the above models. It is suggested that motivation influences especially the affective component of image, the feelings aroused by a place (Beerli & Martin, 2004). Besides motivational aspects, socio-demographic variables influence destination image. As Beerli & Martin (2004, p663) state ‘an individual’s personal characteristics, or internal factors, also affect the formation of an image since beliefs about the attributes of a destination are formed by individuals being exposed to external stimuli, but the nature of those beliefs will vary depending on the internal factors of the individuals.’ Examples of such internal factors are age, gender, income, education, and place of residence. In existing studies age was the most significant socio-demographic variable that influences image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). However, due to the population of the present study (international students in Groningen), this variable is less influential as the vast majority is between 18 and 27 years old (Gemeente Groningen, 2011).

2.1.3 Measuring destination image

Most previous studies have used structured methodologies to measure destination image mainly by using a questionnaire consisting of a certain amount of attributes to rate a destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). This is argued to be an effective method for measuring the common and attribute components of destination image. Yet these studies fail to address the holistic components of destination image (Jenkins, 1999). Reilly (1990) was the first researcher to include open-ended questions in destination image measurement. Echtner & Ritchie (1993, p5) state that ‘to fully capture the components of destination image – attribute, holistic, functional , psychological, common, and unique – a combination of structured and unstructured methodologies must be used.’ To measure the common, attribute-based components of destination image (both functional and psychological) a reliable and valid set of attributes is necessary while to measure the (unique) holistic components open-ended questions are needed. Echtner & Ritchie (1993) therefore suggest to combine these two aspects when measuring destination image. Also Jenkins (1999) proposes a combination of both structured and unstructured methods to fully capture all aspects of destination image. However, she presents a model with a qualitative phase followed by a quantitative phase where the first uses unstructured methods (e.g. content analysis, photo elicitation) to find the attributes relevant for the rest of the study, while the latter measures the image quantitatively according to the attributes found before. When it comes to actually using these attributes Jenkins (1999) presents two important aspects of the rating process. The first is the evaluated perception, where the respondent can evaluate the place according to a specific attribute on a 7-point scale. The second is the construct preference where the respondent rates the importance of the same attributes. Since the importance of aspects of destination image is measured separately in the present research this model is not used. However, it indicates the relevance of measuring importance of destination image, something that is used in this research and will be elaborated later in this chapter.



As said above, for the quantitative part of the research, a set of attributes is needed for measuring destination image. Although this set is partly based on the specific context of the research, the existing literature provides much input. Echtner & Ritchie (1993) provide a list of 35 attributes (Figure 2.5), ranging from functional (e.g. historic sites/museums, shopping facilities) to more psychological ones (e.g. atmosphere, fame/reputation). This list is based on 14 previous studies and on the results of several focus groups and empirically tested on reliability. Obviously not all attributes are convertible to a city like Groningen and to the context of international students (e.g. beaches, cities), yet the vast majority of this list is useful. Six years later, Jenkins (1999) elaborate more on the attributes used in previous research by including Australian studies to her overview which makes a total of 28 analyzed studies. She orders the attributes by the number of studies that measures that particular attribute. This ranges from scenery/natural attractions with 25 listings to theme parks with 1 listing. Also this list is just partly helpful in the present research as not all attributes are applicable to the context of the research. Beerli & Martin (2004, p658) analyzed – among others – the studies mentioned above. They state that ‘an analysis of the principle scales reveals a lack of homogeneity with respect to the attributes which define an individual’s perceptions.’ Therefore they propose a model that incorporates every attribute of a destination which could potentially be used as an instrument of measurement. These attributes are classified into nine components (Table 2.1).

Figure 2.5: List of attributes for developing scales (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993)



Table 2.1: Dimensions/Attributes Determining the Perceived Destination Image (Beerli & Martin, 2004)

Again, by far not all attributes mentioned are suitable in the present research. In addition, just as when using the other presented overviews, the aspect of education is missing. At least an supplementary dimension covering student infrastructure aspects (e.g. student housing, quality of university) is necessary regarding the purpose of this research. This is supported by Beerli & Martin’s (2004) statement that the actual design will depend largely on the aspects of the destination, on its positioning, and on the objectives of the study. While Beerli and Martin (2004) divide the attributes among nine dimensions, Echtner and Ritchie (1993) defined – after factor analysis – eight factors determining destination image: Comfort/Security, Interest/Adventure, Natural state, Tourist facilitation, Resort atmosphere/Climate, Cultural distance, Inexpensiveness, and Lack of language barrier. In the present research is chosen to adopt the model of Echtner & Richtie (1993) as this set of attributes has proven its reliability and has been implemented successfully by multiple scholars (e.g. Andreu et al., 2000, Bigne et al., 2001, Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008). See the methodology section for detailed information on the operationalization of these concepts.



2.2 Evaluative dispositions One of the objectives of this research is to identify the evaluation of the stay of international students in Groningen and the effect of image on this evaluation. There is broad agreement among authors regarding the influence of destination image on the evaluation and the behavior of tourists (Bigne et al., 2001). Image does not only influences the decision making process, yet also the so called after-purchase evaluation and future behavioral intentions (Chen & Tsai, 2007). Future behavioral intentions are sometimes referred to as loyalty and can be split up into two categories: Attitudinal loyalty, which includes the willingness to recommend the destination to others, and behavioral loyalty, which includes the likeliness to visit or revisit the destination, depending on whether an actual visit already took place or not (Zhang et al., 2014). According to Chen & Tsai (2007), this aspect of behavioral intentions is often neglected in previous studies on tourist evaluation. Therefore it is relevant to include this aspect in the present research. The definition of behavioral intentions as used in this study is: The international student’s judgment about the likeliness to revisit Groningen or the willingness to recommend Groningen to others. Next to this, satisfaction is part of the evaluation of the stay (Gnoth, 1994). Satisfaction has received much attention especially in the field of marketing literature and is often conceptualized as overall satisfaction. Also in tourism literature, satisfaction is recognized as part of evaluation (Bigne, 2001). In the present research, behavioral intentions and satisfaction will be referred to as evaluative dispositions. Empirical research on the influence of image on behavioral intentions and satisfaction in relation to the topic of the present study is not available, yet there are a few studies on this in regular tourism research. Court & Lupton (1997, in Bigne et al., 2001) found in their New Mexican study that the image of a destination positively affects an intention to revisit in the future. The Spanish study of Bigne et al. (2001) also shows that destination image directly determines the behavioral variables likeliness to return and willingness to recommend as well as satisfaction. Research of Chen & Tsai (2007) supports this finding. Both studies use the two items to measure future behavioral intentions mentioned before: Willingness to recommend and likeliness to revisit. Satisfaction is measured on both studies using one scale-item labeled overall satisfaction. This operationalization is also used in the present research. The image concept in Bigne et al. (2001) is operationalized in a single-item question while Chen & Tsai (2007) use 20 attributes extracted from previous studies including Echtner & Ritchie (1993) and Beerli & Martin (2004). As described earlier, in this study the image concept is operationalized following Echtner & Ritchie (1993).

2.3 Educational tourism American higher education students have been studying abroad for over 75 years. Professor Kirkbride, University of Delaware, was the first to initiate a study abroad program. He called this the “Foreign Study Plan” (Gertner, 2010). International students are argued to be a good source of revenue in the tourism sector of a host destination (Shanka et al., 2002, in Gertner, 2010). Since many countries and regions apply international marketing strategies for education, the focus of research should not only be on universities but also on national, regional and local governments promoting their areas as study abroad destination. Or, as Cubillo et al. (2006, p112) conclude: ‘Further analysis of determining factors in the decision making process of the international student would allow educational institutions, as well as national, regional and local governments interested in attracting international students, to strengthen their image, try to eliminate weaknesses and thus increase their possibilities of being chosen as a destination of consumption of higher research.’ Only one clear definition of educational tourism can be found in academic literature. In his book “Managing Educational Tourism” Ritchie (2003, p18) defines educational tourism as ‘activity undertaken by those who are undertaking an overnight vacation and those who are undertaking an excursion for whom education and learning is a primary or secondary part of their trip. This can



include general educational tourism and adult study tours, international and domestic university and school students’ travel, including language schools, school excursions and exchange programs.’ This definition is supported by Lam et al. (2011) who explored the push and pull factors in selecting a university abroad. When looking at the definition, it becomes clear that the context of the present study covers just a minor part of the spectrum of educational tourism as this research merely focuses on university students studying abroad for at least one semester. Gertner (2010) argues that although destination image is widely researched in relation to its impact on tourism, little research has been done regarding its impact on study abroad programs. Even now this is an growing and competitive industry. She investigated whether destination images differ if a place is considered as a holiday destination as opposed to a destination to study abroad; with the use of the set of attributes proposed by Echtner & Ritchie (2003). The results of Gertner (2010) show that there are only minor differences in the images when the destinations are considered as holiday and study abroad destinations. She argues for future research that includes both graduate and undergraduate students, something that is adopted in this research. Bourke (2000, in Gertner, 2010) states that especially undergraduate students often choose a destination first, and then select an university when considering studying abroad.

2.3.1 Motivations to study abroad

As described earlier, motivation is one of the personal factors that influences image formation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). As Figure 2.6 shows, educational tourism can be seen as a continuum ranging from general interest learning while travelling (e.g. guided tours through a historic site) to purposeful learning and travel (e.g. studying abroad) (Echtner, 2003).

Figure 2.6: The Learning/Travel Continuum (Echtner, 2003)

At the left end of the continuum, which is also called “tourism first”, some form of education or learning is an important or motivating part of the tourist experience. At the right end, also called “education first”, tourist experiences may be secondary to the educational aspect or intentions (Echtner, 2003). It is clear that the subject of the present study is part of the right end of the continuum in this model as the students initial purpose of the trip is to participate in higher education at the destination. Yet going to lectures and taking exams may not be the only reason why students choose to leave their own university and study abroad. This statement is supported by Fombona et al. (2013) who researched the motivational factors of Erasmus students studying at the university of Oviedo in Spain: 55% of the respondents defined European experience as a motivational factor, 52% had academic motivations, 50% had cultural motivations, 45% was looking for a new environment, 27% mentioned career planning and 10% came to find new friendships. This kind of factors is what Lam et al. (2011) define as push-factors; motivations students have to leave their own university. In their research on students in Malaysia the most important push-factors are “it can help enhance my future job prospects” and “have a better environment to study”. Motivations in the present research are measured following the model by Cubillo et al. (2006) where motivations are included in the personal reasons section.



2.3.2 Decision making

One of the objectives of this study is to understand the perceived role image plays in international students’ decision making process of choosing an study destination abroad. Rudd et al. (2012) argue there is limited theory focused on international student decision making. Most existing literature focuses on the aspects related to the university itself, ignoring the influence of the country and city image, while the decision to study abroad is a major life decision. Cubillo et al. (2006) state that until now, research on the choice to study abroad has centered just on partial aspects of the process. Therefore they present a model (Figure 2.7) that aims to explain the aspects influencing the destination choice of international students. The five identified factors are: Personal reasons, country image, city image, institution image and program evaluation. Next to this model they provide a list with 47 variables divided over the five factors. Moreover, they call for more study on the effect destination image has on the decision making process of international students. This call has party been answered by Rudd et al. (2012), who used the model to investigate how well it fits with the choice Chinese students coming to an UK business university. Their findings made clear that while country image had a high influence on the students’ decision, institution image and city image had a relatively low influence. Also Bourke (2000, in Cubillo et al., 2006) state the prospective international students tend to choose first the country and then the university. For this study especially the role of city image is important. The city represents the environment in which the educational service is produced and consumed as it houses both the university and the student. The students’ city image will influence the decision process yet also the country image (Cubillo et al., 2006). Salamanca in Spain, for example, has developed a cultural image closely linked with the learning of the Spanish language and culture. This makes that many international students visit the city in order to study Spanish. As Cubillo et al. (2006) describe, the city’s beauty , its monuments, and historic background contribute to an exceptional environment for learning Spanish. Location and social facilities are identified as the most important aspects which influence the students’ choice in relation to cities (Mori 2001, in Cubillo et al., 2006). Almost half of the respondents in the study by Rudd et al. (2012) stated that the city their university was located influenced their decision making. Reasons mainly tie to experiences of friends and family, and costs of living. Mazzarol & Soutar (2002, in Rudd et al., 2012) argue that the cost of living is in general a key influence for international students. In the Netherlands there are in particular differences between cities regarding housing; students in Enschede pay on average 210 Euro per month while their peers in Amsterdam pay 346. In Groningen students pay on average 270 Euro per month (Sum, 2011). Last, city size does not seem to influence the student but safety of the city does (Rudd et al., 2012). In the present research the model of Cubillo et al. (2006) is used in a quantitative way to measure the perceived importance of image during the decision making process of choosing a study destination abroad.

Figure 2.7: Model of International Students Preferences (Cubillo et al., 2006)



2.4 Conceptual framework The theories and models discussed above are translated to the conceptual framework used in the present study. This framework includes the specific concepts that are used further in the research and shows the relation between the different concepts that are researched.

Figure 2.8: Conceptual Framework

Destination image is the central concept of this study as its goal is to investigate the image of Groningen held by international students and the role image plays when selecting a university abroad and in the students’ evaluative dispositions. As can be seen in Figure 2.8 there are three main conceptualizations: The role destination image has in the decision making process of international students in selecting their study destination, the components of destination image and evaluative dispositions. The three main conceptualizations are translated into the following research questions: 1. What is the perceived role of destination image in the decision making process of international

students studying in Groningen? 2. How are different attributes of destination image regarding Groningen perceived by international

students studying in Groningen? 3. What are the evaluative dispositions students have regarding their stay in Groningen? 4. What is the relationship between the perceived role of image in the decision making process and

the actual destination image? 5. What is the relationship between destination image and evaluative dispositions?



Arising from the research questions, the following two hypotheses are drafted: H1: The more important destination image is during the decision making process, the more favorable the image of Groningen is during the actual stay. H2: The more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions regarding the city. The upper part of the presented framework represents the factors that influence the selection of a university abroad and is derived from Cubillo et al. (2006). City image is just one of the five factors, so its importance in relation to the other four can be determined to answer research question 1. The central part, derived from Echtner & Ritchie (1993), represents the components of destination image and conceptualizes the perceived image of Groningen held by international students. This contributes to answering research question 2. Notice that not all parts of destination image are included while testing the relationships with the other concepts. The holistic and unique aspects of destination image, which are written in the framework in italic, are not used here since these parts are measured through the use of open-ended questions and therefore have no statistical value. The lower part covers the evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen, split up in likeliness to revisit, willingness to recommend and satisfaction, partly following Bigne et al. (2001). Based on this concept, research question 3 can be answered. The arrows in the above model represent the relationships measured in this research. The relation between the importance of factors for choosing a study destination and perceived destination image is linked to research question 4 and hypothesis 1. The relation between perceived image of Groningen and three items on evaluation derives from research question 4 and hypotheses 2. The dashed line on the right side of the framework indicates that the relationship between the importance of factors for choosing a study destination and the evaluative dispostions are tested, though not directly linked to the research questions. While not displayed in Figure 8, the socio-demographic aspects of the respondents are also part of the research as Baloglu & McCleary (1999) and Beerli & Martin (2004) point out these aspects influence the image formation process. Interesting variables for this study are gender, age, country of origin, study phase (bachelor or master) and study situation in Groningen (full program or exchange).



3. Methodology This chapter provides information on the methodology of the present research. The theoretical concepts discussed in the previous chapter are operationalized and the data analyzed techniques are explained.

3.1 Survey To answer the above research questions and to test the hypotheses, I conducted a quantitative survey in the form of an questionnaire. The purpose of the survey is three-fold: To measure the perceived importance of destination image in the decision making process of international students while selecting a study destination abroad, to measure their perceived destination image of Groningen and to measure their evaluative dispositions. The population includes both international exchange students, who are often in the Bachelor phase, and full program students, who are mostly in the Master phase of their studies. This methodological choice follows Gertner (2003) who calls for further research which includes both undergraduate (Bachelor) and graduate (Master) students. A total of approximately 5,000 students are part of the population (HG, 2013, RUG, 2013). According to Vaske (2008) a sample size of approximately of 100 is considered to be suitable for generalizing to the population at a confidence level of 95% with a +/- 10% sampling error. The sampling error is about the limitation of the sample in its ability to describe a population (Vaske, 2008). This means that my aim was to have at least 100 respondents, yet I was not limited to this amount; the more the better. A sample size of around 400 is considered to be suitable for generalizing to the population at a confidence level of 95% with a +/- 5% sampling error, yet I was realistic enough to know that is unreachable. The survey initially took place in the form of an online questionnaire. An internet survey has the advantage of no costs to the respondent in replying and responds tends to be very quick. A disadvantage, on the other hand, is that evidence on response rates are contradictory (Cooper et al., 2008). The questionnaire is spread on social media as there are bustling Facebook groups for international students in Groningen. In case the amount of response did not meet the expectations I could visit the city myself for a few days to approach students personally to fill out the questionnaire as I designed an paper edition of the questionnaire as well. These forms of convenience sampling suits this research best as there is no list with contact details of all international students in Groningen available as I am doing my research independently from the city’s institutions. To stimulate students to response, a 20 Euro gift card for bol.com is being raffled. The questionnaire consists of three content related sections and ends with some socio-demographic questions. The different sections of the questionnaire are described below. The first section of the questionnaire measures the importance of destination image in the decision making process of international students while selecting a study destination abroad. This section is related to research questions 1 and 4. As described earlier, Cubillo et al. (2006) developed a model which includes factors and variables that influence the student’s choice process. This model provides 47 variables divided over five factors (see Appendix I). The respondent can evaluate the importance of each variable on a scale ranging from not important to very important. There are no example phrases available since this list of variables has not been used in a quantitative survey yet. Therefore I used the items as phrased in Cubillo et al. (2006). Respondent can rate the importance of each item on a 5-point scale ranging from very unimportant to very important (e.g. family recommendation). The second section of the questionnaire measures the perceived destination image of Groningen held by international students. This section is related to research questions 2, 4 and 5. The attributes that are being tested derive from Echtner & Richtie (2003) who presented a list of 35 attributes to



measure destination image. The original questionnaire (Echtner, 2001) included two scale items for each of the 35 attributes. Following Stepchenkova & Morrison (2008) I decide to use only one item per attribute for this study to shorten the questionnaire and therefore the burden on the respondents. The phrasing of the attribute items I borrowed, when possible, from the work of Echtner & Ritchie (2003) and Stepchenkova & Morrison (2008). The phrasing is, in general, in such a way that agreeing is better, more favorable (e.g. ‘Local transportation in Groningen is convenient.’). The respondents can react on the statements on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Two attributes, namely beaches and cities, I think are better applicable for seaside and rural destinations and are excluded. Attributes on true student city and high quality education are added for the context of this research. For two other attributes, namely commercialized and urban, agreeing is better does not apply. These are therefore deleted and replaced by attributes on interaction with locals and student associations. The first is derived from Stepchenkova & Morrison (2008), the latter is added for the context of the research. See Appendix II for the full list of attributes used in this study. Echtner & Ritchie (2003) state that in order to capture all components of destination image, a combination of structured and unstructured methodologies should be used. Therefore an unstructured part is added. In this survey the method of free elicitation is used; a form of word-association which brings the advantage that it allows the respondent to describe the destination in his or her own terms, rather than responding to the researcher’s predetermined image attributes (Reilly, 1990, in Jenkins, 1999). Three open-ended questions are asked to the respondents. These questions are based on Echtner & Ritchie (1993), who developed a set of open-ended items to capture all components of destination image shown in Figure 1. The holistic component is captured by the first two open-ended questions, the first question is functional, the second one is more psychologically orientated:

1. What three images or characteristics come to mind when you think of the city of Groningen? 2. How would you describe the atmosphere or mood in the city of Groningen in three words?

The uniqueness dimension is assessed by the third open-ended item:

3. Please list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen.

Following Jenkins’ (1999) advice, this set of items is placed in the first part of the image section of the survey as it offers a spontaneous gaze of the image of held by tourists. The third section of the questionnaire is about the students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen. This section is related to research questions 3 and 5. Based on the literature, I will include the following three questions:

1. Would you return to Groningen in the next 5 years? 2. Would you recommend Groningen as a destination to study abroad? 3. Overall, how satisfied are you with your stay in Groningen?

The phrasing of the questions in borrowed from Bigne et al. (2001). The respondents can rate on a five point scale ranging from definitely no to definitely yes. The operationalization of the above described parts of the survey is summarized in Table 3.1.



Table 3.1: Operationalization of theoretical concepts

Theoretical concept Operationalization in present study

Destination decision making Perceived importance of 47 scale items from Cubillo et al (2006)

Holistic functional Open-ended question: What three images or characteristics come to mind when you think of the city of Groningen?

Holistic psychological Open-ended question: How would you describe the atmosphere or mood in the city of Groningen in three words?

Unique destination features Open-ended item: Please list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen.

Common attributes: Functional and psychological

Perceptions of attributes: 35 scale items, 31 from Echtner & Ritchie (1993), 1 from Stepchenkova & Morrison (2008), 3 Groningen specific

Evaluative dispositions 3 scale items from Bigne et al. (2001): 2 on behavioral intentions (likeliness to revisit and willingness to recommend) and 1 on satisfaction (overall satisfaction)

Following Vaske (2008), the questionnaire ends with questions about socio-demographic personal factors. Respondents are asked about their gender, age, country of origin, study situation in Groningen (exchange or full-program) and study phase. The latter to be able to distinguish between Bachelor and Master students and applied sciences or academic students as Gertner (2010) calls for future research that includes both graduate (Master) and undergraduate (Bachelor) students. A full version of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix III.

3.2 Data collection Data collection took place in November and December 2013. I posted the first message on several popular Facebook group-pages on Monday the 25th of November. The following weeks I repeated this action three times. As response rates did not reach my expectations I stayed in Groningen from the 6th till the 12th of December to approach students personally at university canteens and libraries. In total there are 178 respondents: 60 respondents filled out the online questionnaire while the remaining 118 filled out the questionnaire on paper. The latter category I entered into the online questionnaire afterwards which lead to one data file. This file was later exported to SPSS. After reviewing the data on missing answers, 17 invalid entries are deleted which leads to a total of 161 remaining respondents. Several entries had to be deleted as the concerning respondents were PhD students or Dutch students while the study aims at international Bachelor and Master students. As said, the switch from online to on-site data collection yielded 118 extra respondents. The locations where to find many international students were relatively easy to find thanks to my own study experience in Groningen. During the on-site distribution, many students were willing to participate and the time it took them to compete the whole questionnaire – five to six minutes – appeared not to be a problem. In Table 3 the characteristics of the sample are displayed.



Table 3.2: Profile respondents of the survey

Profile respondents Total respondents N=161 100.0%

Gender Male 50.3% Female 49.7%

Age group 18-20 20.5% 21-23 39.1% 24-26 28.0% 27-29 9.9% 30-32 2.5%

Nationality German 19.9% Chinese 11.2% Italian 6.8% Spanish 6.2% French 6.2% Indonesian 6.2% Greek 5.0% Eastern Europe (Bulgarian, Russian, Croatian, Ukrainian) 9.3% South American (Brazilian, Mexican, Venezuelan, Belizean, Uruguayan, Caribbean)

8.7%

Other Europe (British, Belgian, Swedish, Finnish, Irish) 7.5% Other Asian (South Korean, Indian, Vietnamese) 5.0% North American (American, Canadian) 5.0% Middle Eastern (Turkish, Iranian) 2.5% African (Malagasy) 0.6%

Study phase Bachelor 54.0% Master 46.0%

Situation in Groningen Full program student 68.3% Exchange student 31.7%

Table 3.2 shows that the sample has varied distribution of all factors (gender, age group, nationality, study phase and situation in Groningen). However, the sample is not representative for all international students in Groningen. Student statistics of Groningen (Gemeente Groningen, 2011) reveal the nationality of all international students in the city. The top-3 is formed by Germany (43%), China (9%) and Bulgaria (3%). The division EU-countries versus non-EU-countries is 2 equals 1. Compared to the current study, the two largest groups (German and Chinese students) are underrepresented while other groups (e.g. Italian and French students) are subsequently overrepresented. In Groningen the vast majority of the international students is between 21 and 26 years old (Gemeente Groningen, 2011) which is in line with the results of the current study.



3.3 Data Analysis To analyze the role of destination image in the decision making process of international students I use the theoretical model as provided by Cubillo et al. (2006). Its 47 items are, as said before, divided by over five factors. These factors are so called latent constructs; they cannot be observed and measured directly. With the 47 items I captured indicators that represent the underlying factors. The city image factor, for example, includes the following items: City size, Cost of living in the city, Linguistic proximity or distance from home, Safety and security in the city, Social facilities in the city, International environment of the city and University environment. The model of Echter & Ritchie (1993), used to analyze perceived destination image, provides 35 items divided over eight factors. These factors will be often referred to in this study as components of image. As said before, for the purpose of this research four items are replaced. Therefore I changed the division of the items over the factors a bit. The factor Lack of language barrier, for instance, is replaced by Student life which contains three of the four added items: True student city, High quality education and Wide variety of student associations. The fourth item, Interaction with local people, is added to the factor Cultural distance. As Value for money would be the only item measuring the factor Inexpensiveness in this division, it is replaced to Guest facilitation leaving seven factors. Before testing the hypotheses and analyzing the data in more detail, I run reliability tests on the decision making, the destination image, and the evaluation factors. Cronbach’s alpha is used to test the internal consistency and should be at least 0.65 (Vaske, 2008), this is discussed further in the next chapter. After the reliability analyses (see Appendix IV) on internal consistency, I provide descriptive statistics about the importance of factors for choosing a study destination, the perceived destination image and the students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen to provide answers on research questions 1, 2 and 3. The mean of all items within a factor is calculated – the so called index – to be able to interpret the results each component of image scores. To analyze the predictive value of gender, study phase and situation in Groningen on importance and image a t-test is used as these are dichotomous variables. The impact of age and nationality is tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). For this analysis, age was reduced to 5 categories and nationality to 14 categories based on geographical regions. The effect of importance of factors for choosing a student city on image and evaluative dispositions and the effect of image on evaluative dispositions are analyzed by executing multiple regression analyses. This latter part also covers the hypotheses testing which will be explained further below. In all cases a significance level of p<0.05 is used. Next to that, the effect size of the found relationships has been identified. The full test results can be found in Appendix V. The relationships are labeled following Vaske (2008) as minimal, typical or substantial relationships (see Table 3.3). Table 3.3: Interpretation of effect size indices used in this study (Based on Vaske, 2008)

Effect size index Minimal relationship

Typical relationship

Substantial relationship

Eta η 0.10 0.243 0.371 Correlation r 0.10 0.30 0.50 Beta β 0.10 0.30 0.50

3.3.1 Hypotheses testing

To test hypothesis 1 (H1: The more important destination image is during the decision making process, the more favorable the image is during the actual stay.) a multiple regression analyses between the importance of factors for choosing a study destination and the perceived destination image is calculated. Therefore the mean (index) of each of the five decision making factors is



calculated per respondent, just as the mean of the 35 items measuring the perceived destination image. To test hypothesis 2 (The more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions.) the regression between the perceived destination image and the students’ evaluative dispositions is measured. Therefore the mean (index) of the three items measuring the evaluative dispositions and the mean of the 35 items measuring the perceived destination image per respondent is used. To expand the scope of the hypotheses the indexes of all image factors are also included in the results. This reveals for instance how the importance of destination image affects specific parts of the actual perceived image and how specific components of this perceived image affect the students’ evaluative dispositions. To realize this the mean (index) of each of the factors regarding importance the study destination choice and destination image is calculated.

3.3.2 Analysis of open-ended items

To be able to analyze the open-ended items I designed codebooks which reduced the amount of different answers. For example, the question “what three images or characteristics come to mind when you think of the city of Groningen?” included answers like lots of students, many students and student town, as this kind of answers all refer to Groningen being a student city they are aggregated into the answer group student city. The same procedure applies for the items “how would you describe the atmosphere or mood in the city of Groningen in three words?” and “please list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen.” as the latter, for instance, included answers like Martini Church, Martini Tower and Martinitoren. These all refer to the same tower and are therefore aggregated into Martini Tower. This methodological choice follows Echtner & Richtie (1993). They suggest this sorting and categorization techniques. Due to the risk of different spellings (e.g. Vismarkt versus Fishmarkt) I conducted the above described process manually.



4. Results In this chapter the results of the survey are presented. First, the reliability of the decision making and the destination image factors is discussed to make sure the following results can be considered as being reliable. The same applies for the items on evaluative dispositions. Then the descriptive statistics of the perceived importance of items during the decision making process of choosing a study destination abroad are given, just like the statistics of the perceived destination image of Groningen. The latter includes also the results of the open ended questions. Also the results students’ evaluation of their stay in Groningen are discussed. This is followed by analyses of how socio-demographic variables are predictors during the decision making process and regarding the perceived destination image and evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen. Furthermore this chapter includes regression analyses of the perceived importance of choosing a study destination, the perceived destination image and evaluative dispositions. Here, the hypotheses are tested.

4.1 Reliability analyses Before being able to present the descriptive statistics, regression analyses and hypotheses test results and analyzing the data in more detail, reliability tests are run on both the decision making and the destination image factors to be sure they have enough internal consistency. The reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha. Following Vaske (2008), a Cronbach’s alpha of at least 0.65 was considered as acceptable and following Everitt (2002) the item-total correlation should be at least 0.2. Appendix IV shows a full overview of the original factors. Based on the results some items were deleted from further analysis to make the concerning factors reliable. In two cases (i.e. Atmosphere and Cultural distance) there were only two items left. As Cronbach’s alpha requires at least three items these were tested using Pearson’s correlation, which should be at least 0.40 (Vaske, 2008). In the case of the perceived destination image the factor Natural state had to be deleted as this one was not reliable nor able to be made reliable with the deletion of an item. Regarding the evaluative dispositions, no changes had to be made as its Cronbach’s alpha is 0.81. An overview of the remaining factors and associated items which are used in further analysis can be found in table 4.1



Table 4.1: Reliability analyses of factors for choosing study destination, destination image and evaluation

Choosing a study destination Factor Items Cronbach’s alpha

Personal reasons Improve career prospects, Improve future job prospects, Improve future learning prospects, Acquire higher status, Live in a different culture, Make international contacts

0.681

Country image Cultural distance from home, Social reputation of the country, Academic reputation of the country, Development level of the country, Cost of living in the country, Immigration procedures of the country, Opportunity to work during the stay, Time to get the degree

0.678

City Image City size, Cost of living in the city, Linguistic proximity or distance from home, Safety and security in the city, Social facilities in the city, International environment of the city, University environment

0.755

Institution image University prestige, Ranking position of the university, Brand reputation of the university, Academic reputation of the university, Research reputation of the university, Quality reputation of the university, Expertise of teaching staff at the faculty, Professional experience of teaching staff at the faculty, Campus atmosphere, Social life at the university, Safety and security at the university, Library facilities, Availability of computers at the university, Availability of quiet areas at the university, Availability of areas for self-study at the university

0.925

Program evaluation International recognition of the study program, Study program suitability, Study program specialization, Quality of study program, Recognition of study program by future employees, Total cost and finance of the study program

0.806

Destination image

Factor Items Cronbach’s alpha

Comfort/security Cleanness and hygiene, Standard of living, Restaurants, Safety, Friendly people, Quality of service, Political stability, Accessibility, Reputation, Space for everyone

0.835

Interest/adventure Adventure, Different and fascinating, Tourist attractions, Historical sites and museums, Architecture, Sports, Shops

0.823

Guest facilitation Tours and excursions, Student housing, Transportation, Value for money

0.655

Atmosphere Nightlife and entertainment, Festivals and celebrations

r = 0.454¹

Cultural distance Customs and culture, Interaction with local people

r = 0.515¹

Student life Student city, Education, Education or learning experience, Student associations

0.657

¹Correlation as for Cronbach’s alpha a minimum of three items is required.

Evaluative dispositions Factor Items Cronbach’s alpha

Evaluation Return, Recommend, Satisfaction 0.810



4.2 Descriptive statistics To answer research questions 1, 2 and 3 and to clarify the results of the concepts used in further analyses, this section provides the descriptive statistical results. First, the perceived importance of factors for choosing an abroad study destination are discussed. Then, the perceived destination image students have of Groningen is dealt with, followed by the evaluative dispositions of the city. The section ends with the possible association of these concepts with socio-demographic variables.

4.2.1 Perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination

The first part of the survey is about the perceived importance of aspects related to the study destination choice during the decision making process. As discussed before, this is measured using the model of Cubillo et al. (2006). This model provides 47 attributes divided over five factors. In the present study students were asked to give their opinion on 1 to 5 scale ranging from very unimportant to very important. Table 4.2 shows the means of each factor; in which higher means more important. Table 4.2: Importance of factors for choosing a study destination: Mean per factor

Factor Personal factors Country image City image Institution image

Program evaluation

Mean 3.71 3.27 3.45 3.19 3.75

The results show that things related to the study program are, on average, perceived as the most important. This means that during the selection process of a study destination students see the study program as the most important aspect that predicts their destination choice. Especially the suitability of the program and the quality of the study program play a substantial role in the decision making process; respectively 75% and 72% of the students consider these items as important or very important. Furthermore they perceive personal factors as important; within this factor Make international contacts scored highest; 76% of the students indicated this item with important or very important. Acquire higher status scored lowest within the factor Program; 44% of all respondents sees the acquirement of higher status as an important reason to select a study destination abroad. More important and relevant for this research is the importance of city image aspects during the decision making process. This factor scored an average of 3.45, ranked third of the five factors. Personal aspects and the above mentioned program aspects scored higher, while country image and institution image are perceived less important. The scores of the seven items that are related to city image are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Results survey items on city image

As can be seen, especially the international environment of the city in considered as important as 68% of the students agree on this. The cost of living in the city is also perceived as important in the

0 20 40 60

City size

Cost of living in the city

Linguistic proximity or distance from home

Safety and security in the city

Social facilities in the city

International environment of the city

University environment

Very unimportant Unimportant Neither unimportant nor important Important Very important



destination choice process (63%). The linguistic proximity or distance the study destination has from home is considered as least important within the city image factor; only 31% think this is important. Items related to country image, which are in a way also part of the destination image, are considered as being less important. Within this category especially the opportunity to work during the stay is perceived unimportant; only 29% agree that it is important to be able to work in the chosen study destination. On the other hand, the development level of the country is important according to 65% of the respondents. All in all the importance of the image of a city is not perceived as one of the most important aspects during the process of choosing an abroad study destination. Nevertheless, some aspect related to the city are considered to be very important, especially the cost of living and the extent to which a city has an international environment.

4.2.2 Perceived destination image of Groningen

The second part of the survey is about the perceived destination image of Groningen. As discussed before, the model of Echtner & Ritchie (1993) is used as the basis of this part, which includes three open questions followed by 35 scale items. First, respondents were asked what three images or characteristics come to mind when thinking of the city of Groningen. Table 4.3 shows the most stated words. Second, respondents were asked how to describe the atmosphere or mood in the city of Groningen in three words. The most stated words are shown in table 4.4. Third, respondents were asked to list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen. The most mentioned attractions are shown in Table 3.5. Table 4.3: Top 10 images/characteristics describing the city of Groningen

# %

1. Students 64 39.8 2. Bikes 43 26.7 3. Small 34 21.1 4. Nightlife 30 18.6

International 30 18.6 6. Martini Tower 23 14.3 7. Cold/windy 13 8.1 8. Friendly 11 6.8

Beautiful 11 6.8 Quiet 11 6.8

In the light of this research this result is not surprising that the most stated word describing Groningen is students. Bikes is the second most mentioned characteristic of the city (see Figure 4.4). The third most stated word, small, indicates that many students see Groningen as a small or compact city.



Table 4.4: Top 10 atmospheres/moods describing the city of Groningen

# %

1. Friendly 31 19.3 2. Open-minded 24 14.9 3. Cozy/gezellig 22 13.7 4. Young 19 11.8 5. Fun 17 10.6 6. Lively 16 9.9 7. Safe 14 8.7 8. International 13 8.1

Calm 13 8.1 Happy 13 8.1

The top 10 most stated words describing the atmosphere and mood in the city includes merely positive words. Interestingly enough, many students wrote down the Dutch word gezellig in their answers. Table 4.5: Top 10 unique/distinctive attractions in the city of Groningen

# %

1. Martini Tower 67 41.6 2. Nightlife 23 14.3 3. Canals 21 13.0 4. Bikes 19 11.8 5. Grote Markt 18 11.2 6. Groninger Museum 18 11.2 7. Academy Building 13 8.1 8. Train Station 12 7.5

Student life 12 7.5 Vismarkt 12 7.5

It is clear that the Martini Tower (see Figure 4.2) is by far the top attraction of the city as 42% of all respondents stated this as one of their answers. The second most mentioned attraction is not a specific place or attraction but nightlife in general (see figure 4.3).

Next to the open ended questions, respondents were asked their opinion on 35 5-point scale items ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These items are all related to the destination image of Groningen and are divided over six factors representing six component as well as the mean of all 35 scale items together (see Table 4.6, in which higher is better). Table 4.6: The mean of destination image and its components

Component Image Comfort/ security

Interest/ adventure

Guest facilitation

Atmosphere Cultural distance

Student life

Mean 3.65 3.85 3.23 3.28 3.98 3.31 4.29

Figure 4.4: Bikes in front of Academy Building (CIEE, 2014)

Figure 4.3: Nightlife at Grote Markt (Modelprofile, 2013)

Figure 4.2: Martini Tower (Ilikegroningen, 2012)



Comfort and security in Groningen is rated on average a 3.85 which makes it one of the higher scoring components. It includes the following ten items: Cleanness and hygiene, Standard of living, Restaurants, Safety, Friendly people, Quality of service, Political stability, Accessibility, Reputation and Space for everyone. Figure 4.5 provides the result of each individual item. Within this component Groningen scores especially high on friendliness (4.31) as only 2.5% does not agree with the statement In Groningen people are friendly. Students also think Groningen is a very safe place to stay (4.25); only 3% disagree. On the other hand, students are less positive about the availability of good restaurants (3.21) as only 47% agree on this statement. Furthermore, many students seem to not know what to think of the political stability in Groningen as 42% disagrees nor agrees on the statement The political stability in Groningen is high. Usually this answer possibility is not so popular. For a numeric overview of the results, see appendix VI.

Figure 4.5: Results items on comfort and security

Groningen scores an average of 3.23 on interest and adventure, which is the lowest of all six components of destination image. It includes the following seven items: Adventure, Different and fascinating, Tourist attractions, Historical sites and museums, Architecture, Sports and Shops. Figure 4.6 provides the result of each individual item. The city scores especially high on the possibility to engage in sports activities (4.23); 83% agreed or strongly agrees. Students are ambiguous about the historical sites and museum (2.89) and whether Groningen is a good place for adventure (3.01). Next to that, the results show that students think Groningen does not offer a large variety of tourist attractions (2.66) as only 19% percent agreed and not a single student strongly agreed on the statement Groningen has a large variety of tourist attractions to visit.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Local standards of cleanness and hygiene…

Standard of living in Groningen is high

Good restaurants are easy to find in…

In general, Groningen is a safe place to stay

In Groningen people are friendly

In general, the quality of service in…

The political stability in Groningen is high

Groningen is easily accessible

Groningen has a good reputation

In Groningen is enough space for everyone

Stongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree nor agree Agree Strongly agree



Figure 4.6: Results items on interest and adventure

The guest facilitation component is rated on average a 3.28 and is one of the lower scoring image components. Guest facilitation includes the following four items: Tours and excursions, Student housing, Transportation and Value for money. Figure 4.7 displays the result of the individual items. Many students (57%) agree Groningen offers a good value for money; a mean of 3.62 is scored. About the availability of tours and excursions (2.92) students are less positive as only 29% agree. Regarding the local transportation (3.47), which is in Groningen in most cases means biking, students show mixed opinions.

Figure 4.7: Results items on guest facilitation

The component atmosphere scores an average of 3.98 and is the second highest of perceived destination image. It includes the following two items: Nightlife and entertainment and Festivals and celebrations. Figure 4.8 displays the result of each individual item. Groningen scores high in particular on nightlife and entertainment; 83% agrees that nightlife and entertainment are widely available (4.25). Also the availability of interesting festivals and celebrations are valued; 60% agrees enough of this kind of activities exist in Groningen (3.70).

Figure 4.8: Results items on atmosphere

The cultural distance component, which includes Customs and culture and Interaction with local people, scores an average of 3.31 and is among the lower scoring ones. Figure 4.9 shows the result of the individual items. A small majority of the students (53%) agree there are enough possibilities to

0 10 20 30 40 50

Groningen is a good place for adventure

In Groningen everything is different and…

Groningen has a large variety of tourist…

Enough historical sites and museums exist…

There is a lot of interesting architecture in…

There are enough opportunities to engage…

There are enough shopping possibilities in…


0 10 20 30 40 50

Tours and excursions are easily available in…

There is good quality student housing in…

Local transportation in Groningen is…

Staying in Groningen offers a good value…


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Nightlife and entertainment are widely…

There are enough interesting festivals and…




interact with local people (3.36). A smaller share of the students (44%) agree that very distinctive customs and culture exist in Groningen (3.27); however a relatively high percentage of 39% disagreed nor agreed on this statement.

Figure 4.9: Results items on cultural distance

Student life is the component that scored highest with an average of 4.29. In includes four items: Student city, Education, Education or learning experience and Student associations. Figure 4.10 provides the scores of each individual item. The results show that students are unambiguous, especially regarding Groningen being a true student city (4.53). No less than 93% agree on this statement and no single student answered totally disagree. It is also clear that Groningen is considered offering high quality education (4.32) and a good destination for an educational or learning experience (4.35), with the latter receiving no single totally disagree. To a lesser extend students also confirm on the statement that Groningen offers a wide variety of student associations (3.98) as 77% agree.

Figure 4.10: Results items on student life

4.2.3 Evaluative dispositions

Following earlier research including destination image (Bigne et al., 2001, Chen & Tsai, 2007), respondents were asked about two future behavioral intentions: Likeliness to revisit and willingness to recommend Groningen. They were also asked about their overall satisfaction with their stay in the city. Together these three items are used to measure the students’ evaluative dispositions. The mean of each question are shown in Table 4.7 on a scale from 1 to 5 where higher means better. Table 4.7: The mean of items on behavioral intentions and satisfaction

Item Likeliness to revisit Willingness to recommend Overall satisfaction

Mean 3.75 4.35 4.18

Concerning the likeliness to revisit Groningen within five years a mean of 3.75 was scored. Figure 4.11 shows the division of the answers over the five categories, ranging from definitely yes to definitely not. 61.5% think they will come back to visit the city within five years. Only 3% definitely will not come back.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Very distinctive customs and culture exist…

In Groningen there are enough possibilities…


0 20 40 60 80

Groningen is a true student city

Groningen offers high quality education

Groningen is a good destination for an…

Groningen offers a wide variety of student…




Figure 4.11: Results likeliness to revisit Groningen

In general, students are willing to recommend Groningen to others, as 84% show the intention to recommend the city. As can be seen in Figure 4.12, no single student answered definitely not.

Figure 4.12: Results willingness to recommend Groningen

Figure 4.13 shows that 81% of the students are satisfied with their stay in Groningen. Only 4% is not satisfied. Just one student said he was very dissatisfied with his stay in the city.

Figure 4.13: Results satisfaction about stay in Groningen

Overall, the results of the future behavioral intentions are positive: The mean of the three evaluative dispositions together is 4.09 out of 5. The vast majority of the students has the intention to come back within five years and is willing to recommend to the city to others. Also, students are quite satisfied about their stay in Groningen.

31.7

29.8

23.0

12.4 3.1

Definately yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definately not

54.7 29.2

13.0 3.1 0.0

Definately yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definately not

41.0

40.4

14.9 3.1 0.6 Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied



4.2.4 The role of socio-demographic factors

The questionnaire included socio-demographic questions on gender, age, nationality, study phase and study situation in Groningen. This section discusses the relation between these variables and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination, the perceived destination image and the evaluative dispositions. Appendix V provides a full overview of the test results. Table 4.8 gives an overview of the revealed correlations and the associated effect size and relationship strength between socio-demographic factors and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination. Table 4.8: P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination¹

Socio-demographic variable Factor P-value² Effect size³ (η)

Gender Institution 0.032 0.169 Program 0.016 0.190

Study phase Country 0.002 0.244

Institution 0.025 0.177

Study situation in Groningen³ Program 0.007 0.212

Age Institution 0.016 0.274

Nationality Country 0.000 0.468 Institution 0.000 0.557 Program 0.016 0.397

¹ Only the significant relationships are mentioned ² P<0.05 ³ η: 0.10 = minimal relationship, η: 0.243 = typical relationship, η: 0.371 = substantial relationship (Vaske, 2008)

Gender correlates with the importance of institution image and program evaluation, although the relationship is minimal according to Vaske (2008). Female students think items related to the university are, on average, more important (3.33) compared to their male peers (3.06). The same situation applies to items related to the specific study program: 3.89 versus 3.62. For the remaining three factors – personal reasons, country image and city image – no significant differences are found. The image of the institution is the only factor that is associated with age of the students. Especially the older students perceive items related to the image of the university as important: The age category 27-29 scores an average of 3.71, which is high compared to the younger categories 18-20 (3.19) and 21-23 (3.21). The students’ nationality correlates with three out of the five importance factors; only personal reasons and city image are not associated with this variable. Whether students are in the bachelor or master phase of their studies predicts especially the importance of country image; there is a typical relationship. Bachelor students give an average of 3.13 where master students give a 3.42, indicating that master students think items related to the country are more important. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the image of the university: master students (3.35) think these items are more important compared to bachelor students (3.06). Students who follow the entire study program, which is in the case of a bachelor three to four years and for masters one or two years, see the study program as being more important (3.86) during their choice process compared to students who are only in Groningen for an exchange program like Erasmus (3.53), which takes up to one year.



Table 4.8 reveals that the importance of city image during the destination choice process is not associated with any of the measured socio-demographic variables. The correlation of the earlier mentioned socio-demographic factors and the perceived destination image is also tested. Baloglu & McCleary (1999) argued that age is a major factor influencing destination image. Beerli & Martin (2004) state gender and nationality are similarly socio-demographic factors influencing a tourist’s destination image. Table 4.9 gives an overview of the revealed relationships and the associated effect size and relationship strength. Table 4.9: P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination¹

Factor Image component P-value² Effect size³ (η)

Gender Cultural distance 0.001 0.265

Age Atmosphere 0.005 0.300 Student life 0.002 0.322

Nationality Atmosphere 0.011 0.406

¹ Only the significant relationships are mentioned ² P<0.05 ³ η: 0.10 = minimal relationship, η: 0.243 = typical relationship, η: 0.371 = substantial relationship (Vaske, 2008)

Compared to the perceived importance of factors described earlier, the socio-demographic factors have less significant associations with the perceived destination image; only four significant relationships are found. Whether students are in the bachelor or master phase of their studies does not predict their image of Groningen, just like whether they are full program students or participating in an exchange program. What does predict students’ image, for instance, is gender. Male students give higher scores (3.54) to items related to cultural distance compared to their female peers (3.08); there is a typical – medium – relationship. The students’ age correlates with destination image when it comes to the atmosphere in Groningen and the city’s student life. In both cases younger students, particularly the age categories 21-23 and 24-26, are more positive than their older colleagues. The respondents’ nationality is substantially related to the atmosphere component. Spanish (4.50) and North American (4.33) students value Groningen highest on this aspect which includes Nightlife and entertainment and Festivals and celebrations. Remarkable is that in particular Asian students rate Groningen lower on these items; Chinese (3.56), Middle Eastern (3.37) and Indonesian students (3.30) all show low results. An analysis of the association between socio-demographic variables and the students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen revealed no significant relations.

4.3 The found relationships Since research question 1, 2 and 3 are covered, the remaining goals of this research are (4) to examine whether there is a relationship between importance of destination image while choosing an abroad study destination and the actual perceived destination image and (5) to test if perceived destination image predicts the students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen. These goals are translated to the two earlier mentioned hypotheses: H1: The more important destination image is during the decision making process, the more favorable the image is during the actual stay.



H2: The more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions regarding the city. This section provides the results, which includes the hypotheses testing. First, the relationships between the importance of factors for choosing a study destination and the actual destination image are discussed. Second, the relationships between destination image and evaluative dispositions are covered and third, the relations between the importance of factors for choosing Groningen and evaluative dispositions of the stay are addressed.

4.3.1 Importance of factors for choosing a study destination predicting destination image

Table 4.10 shows the results of regression analysis of destination image predicted on the basis of perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination. Destination image is the dependent variable in this table and represents the mean of the 35 scale items per respondent. The independent variables are the five factors for choosing a study destination. Table 4.10: Regression model predicting destination image (dependent) on the basis of perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent)

Effect size (β) P-value

Personal reasons 0.185 0.024 Country image -0.184 0.015 City image 0.710 0.000 Institution image 0.039 0.674 Program evaluation -0.087 0.330

Overal R² 0.479

The conceptual framework of this research suggests that the importance of city image when choosing a study destination predicts destination image. The results show that the degree of importance of city image while choosing a study destination has the strongest effect on the perceived destination image of Groningen; city image has the highest positive beta value and is significant to a ≤ 0.001 level. The relationship can be classified as substantial as the effect size is ≥ 0.50 (Vaske, 2008). In other words, students who perceive items related to the city as more important while choosing a study destination have a more favorable image of the city of Groningen. This means that hypothesis 1 can be accepted. Furthermore, the extent to which students perceive personal reasons as important has a positive effect on destination image. The results show however that country image has a negative effect on the perceived destination image, indicating that student who see aspects of the country where the study destination is located as very important have a less favorable image of Groningen. The effects of personal reasons and program evaluation is both not significant. The five independent factors used in this model together account for 47.9% of the variability of destination image. To provide insight on how each component of destination image is associated with the importance of factors for choosing a study destination multiple regression analyses are conducted. The results are shown in Table 4.11.



Table 4.11: Regression model predicting components of destination image (dependent) on the basis of perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent)

Comfort/ security¹

Interest/ adventure¹

Guest facilitation¹

Atmosphere¹ Cultural distance¹

Student life¹

Personal reasons 0.261**

0.072ns

-0.021ns

0.135ns

0.233* 0.230

*

Country image -0.165* -0.172

* -0.101

ns -0.119

ns -0.133

ns -0.184

*

City image 0.602***

0.619***

0.633***

0.432***

0.475***

0.505***

Institution image -0.012

ns 0.177

ns 0.095

ns -0.115

ns 0.011

ns -0.151

ns

Program evaluation -0.019ns

-0.141ns

-0.088ns

-0.127ns

-0.313**

0.085ns

Overal R² 0.415 0.350 0.342 0.166 0.235 0.281

¹ Beta (β) * P<.05 ** P<.01 *** P<.001 ns

not significant

The highest beta value for each image component is underlined. This is the factor that is most decisive for the relationship with that image component. The results show that for each aspect of the perceived destination image, the effect size of city image is highest and significant at a ≤ 0.001 level. For four components the relationship is substantial, for the other two it is typical. Especially on comfort and security, interest and adventure and guest facilitation the effect size is high. For atmosphere is the importance of city image while choosing a study destination is the only significant predictor. The model accounts most for the variability of comfort and security and interest and adventure; the five independent factors used in this model together account for respectively 41.5% and 35% of the variability of the concerning components.

4.3.2 Destination image predicting evaluative dispositions

The conceptual framework of this research suggests that destination image correlates with the students’ evaluative dispositions. In this section, the relations between the perceived destination image of Groningen and the three items measuring evaluative dispositions are tested. This includes testing hypotheses 2: The more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions regarding the city. The results of correlation of the two behavioral intentions and overall satisfaction with perceived destination image are shown in Table 4.12, just as the correlation of the mean of the three items together and destination image. Table 4.12: Correlation model predicting evaluative dispositions on the basis of destination image

Evaluation Return Recommend Satisfaction

Destination image r: 0.700***

r: 0.536***

r: 0.654***

r: 0.641***

*** P<.001

The relationship between destination image and the students’ evaluation of the stay is substantial (r ≥ 0.5) and significant at a ≤ 0.001 level. This means that hypothesis 2 can be accepted: The more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions regarding the city. Furthermore, all three relationships between destination image and future behavioral intentions and satisfaction are significant at a ≤ 0.001 level. The destination image students have, has a positive effect on whether the students are likely to return to Groningen, are willing to recommend the city to others and are overall satisfied with their stay. Not only the results are significant, the relations are substantial which means there is a strong correlation between destination image and both behavioral intentions and satisfaction.



The above table presents results of simple regression analyses (correlation) predicting the evaluative dispositions on the basis of destination image based on the 35 scale items. To make clear how each component of destination image predicts evaluation, multiple regression analyses is used. The results are shown in Table 4.13. Table 4.13: Regression model predicting the evaluative dispositions (dependent) on the basis components of destination image (independent)

Evaluation¹ Return¹ Recommend¹ Satisfaction¹

Comfort/security 0.002 -0.179ns

0.163ns

0.084ns

Interest/adventure 0.295

** 0.418

*** 0.184

* 0.104

ns

Guest facilitation 0.128 0.085ns

0.067ns

0.186*

Atmosphere 0.108 0.066 ns

0.100ns

0.121ns

Cultural distance -0.020 -0.091

ns 0.010

ns 0.054

ns

Student life 0.415***

0.416***

0.329***

0.306***

Overal R² 0.563 0.404 0.469 0.448

¹ Beta (β) * P<.05 ** P<.01 *** P<.001 ns

not significant

The highest beta value for each evaluative disposition is underlined. This is the image component that is most decisive for the relationship with that item. The three evaluative dispositions together mostly associate with student life. When zooming in on the three individual items measuring the students’ evaluation of their stay it appears that interest and adventure is most predictive for the likeliness to return to Groningen, although city’s student life also scores high. When it comes to the willingness to recommend Groningen to others and overall satisfaction, student life is the most associated component. This indicates that especially these two aspects of destination image predict future behavioral intentions and satisfaction.

4.3.3 Importance of factors for choosing a study destination predicting evaluative

dispositions

To be exhaustive in defining the role of image in the students’ evaluative dispositions, also the relation between the importance of factors for choosing a study destination and future behavioral intentions and satisfaction is tested. Again, multiple regression analyses are executed and the highest beta value is underlined. The results are shown in Table 4.14. Table 4.14: Regression model predicting the evaluative dispositions (dependent) on the basis of perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination (independent)

Evaluation¹ Return¹ Recommend¹ Satisfaction¹

Personal reasons 0.242* 0.053

ns 0.332

*** 0.295

**

Country image -0.108 -0.040ns

-0.158ns

-0.098ns

City image 0.466***

0.361***

0.459***

0.396***

Institution image -0.205 -0.135

ns -0.146

ns -0.262

ns

Program evaluation 0.064 0.132ns

-0.011ns

0.016*

Overal R² 0.255 0.142 0.275 0.210

¹ Beta (β) * P<.05 ** P<.01 *** P<.001 ns

not significant



City image the image component that is most decisive for the relationship with the students’ evaluative dispositions regarding Groningen. City image is also the image component which most decisive for the relations with all three individual items. Indicating that when city image becomes more important in the students’ decision making process for choosing a study destination, the likeliness to return to the city and willingness to recommend Groningen also rises, as well as students are more satisfied about their stay. In all three cases, the relationship is typical. Since all results of the survey have been covered, the next chapter includes the discussion of the results. A link with earlier studies and theories will be made and the implications of the results will be given.



5. Discussion In this final chapter the results are discussed and evaluated. Comparisons are made with previous studies to put the results in perspective followed by an evaluation of the methods and the limitations of the present research. The chapter includes discussion on the implications of the study and ends with final conclusions.

5.1 Role of destination image while choosing a study destination The study includes revealing the role of destination image in the decision making process by using the theoretical model of Cubillo et al (2006). It appeared that city image was the third most important aspect, after personal and program evaluation. Earlier research using this model was of a qualitative nature. That study, conducted by Rudd et al. (2012), included in-depth interviews with Chinese students enrolled in an British business school. Their findings include that city image is the least important construct, however almost half of the respondents suggested the city was of influence. Within the aspect of city image, cost of living and international environment were often mentioned while the size of the city seemed not to be influential. On the other hand, country image was the most important factor. The results of the present study however show a different perspective as city image appears to be more important than country image, yet personal factors and program evaluation are still even more important during the decision making process of selecting an abroad study destination. Within city image, students indicate especially that the international environment is important. The city of Groningen indeed fulfills this requirement as there are over 4000 international students living in the city (Gemeente Groningen, 2011). The cost of living in the city is also perceived as an important factor in the destination choice process. Within the Netherlands Groningen is an average city regarding the housing prices, for instance Amsterdam is more expensive while Enschede is cheaper (Sum, 2011). So in line with Rudd et al. (2012), the international environment of the city and the cost of living are among the most important items related to the city. All in all, the results show some similarities with previous research, yet there are also major differences concerning the importance of city image in relation to the other four factors.

5.2 Destination image of Groningen The central concept of this study is destination image. The image students have of the city of Groningen is tested by using the theoretical model of Echtner & Ritchie (1993). This model has also been adopted by several other scholars (Bigne et al., 2001, Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008, Di Marino, 2007). Groningen scores an average of 3.65 on the perceived destination image which is high compared to Di Marino (2007), who used the same 5-point scale and investigated the image of the French Riviera among Italian tourists. Here an average of 3.31 was scored. Groningen scores mainly high on comfort and security, atmosphere and student life. The latter is, however, added for the purpose of this research and not part of Echtner & Ritchie’s original 35 attributes. This makes comparison with other the other studies problematic, yet it gives an indication. Following Echtner & Ritchie (1993, 2003), the results of the open ended questions combined with the scale items represent the image of Groningen held by international students. Both parts are combined and presented in Figure 5.1, which is a revised model of Echtner & Ritchie (2003). The figure includes the most mentioned answers on the open-ended questions, which capture unique aspects of Groningen. These are located at the right side of the figure. The outcomes of the scale items, which include both common-functional and common-psychological items, are to be found at the left side of the model. This latter part includes only those items which revealed such an opinion about Groningen that at least 55% of the students agreed or totally agreed, for instance safety is included here since 85% agree that Groningen is a safe place.



Figure 5.1: Components of destination image of Groningen received by international students

That Groningen scores high on atmosphere, which includes celebration, festivals and nightlife, is no surprise as well known travel guide giant Lonely planet (2013) characterizes Groningen as a city with a healthy, hedonistic nightlife. Based on own experience, the researcher of this study knows that in Groningen national festivities as Queen’s Day and Liberation Day are celebrated exuberantly and even on week days the city center is full of entertainment and many pubs are packed. Furthermore the high score on student life is explainable as the city houses around 50,000 students on a total population of hardly 200,000 (Gemeente Groningen, 2011). This high amount of student also relates back to the busy nights in Groningen all week long as students often do not have a nine to five schedule. One negative result is that students think Groningen does not offer a large variety of tourist attractions as only 19% percent agreed and not a single student strongly agreed on the statement Groningen has a large variety of tourist attractions to visit. This is in line with the results from the open-ended questions related to unique attractions as many respondents mentioned not physical attractions or sites but more general aspects like nightlife and bikes, yet it is inconsistent with Echtner & Ritchie’s (1993) expectation that respondents would mention unique destination features. Though city image ranked third out of five regarding the perceived importance while choosing a study destination, multiple regression analyses show it has the strongest relationship with the perceived destination image. The hypothesis the more important destination image is during the decision making process, the more favorable the image is during the actual stay has therefore been accepted. This means that students who perceive aspects of the city where the university is located as important, are also likely to have a more positive image of the city where they choose to go. At least that is the case for students who ended up in Groningen. Among the five factors for choosing a destination, city image even has the highest correlation with the perceived image of Groningen. Actually this seems logical since students who perceive the city as very important are more likely to choose a city that fits their needs. Students who base their choice – for instance – on the study program might end up in a city that does not fit their ideal standards of a city which might affect their city image negatively. Baloglu & McCleary (1999) argue that age is a major factor influencing destination image. In this study only two relationships are found. Both the relation between age and atmosphere and age and student life appeared to be typical. In both cases the younger students are more positive than their older peers about the city of Groningen. Beerli & Martin (2004) state gender and nationality are socio-demographic factors influencing destination image. This statement cannot convincingly be confirmed. Whether the student is male or female only appears to affect the cultural distance component of image and the student’s nationality just affects students’ appreciation of the atmosphere in Groningen. Following Gertner (2010) a comparison was made between bachelor and master students. There appears to be no significant difference in destination image between these



two groups. In general it can be said that socio-demographic variables hardy affects students’ image of Groningen. This is contradictory with Baloglu & McCleary (1999) and Beerli & Martin (2004) who both argue these aspects are rather important. However, the focus of their research was different as they focused more on the image formation process and made a division in cognitive and affective image while the present study included the components of the image of Groningen as suggested by Echtner & Ritchie (1993). This might be a reason why the effect of socio-demographic variables is lower compared to previous research. Studies who also adopted Echtner & Ritchie’s (1993) model unfortunately do not provide information about the effect of this kind of variables (Di Marino, 2007, Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008) which would provide more comparative material.

5.3 Evaluative dispositions The hypothesis regarding the effect of destination image on evaluative dispositions is accepted. Destination image correlates with the likeliness to return to Groningen, the willingness to recommend the city to others and the overall satisfaction with the stay. These three items derive from Bigne et al. (2001). In their study the relationships also appeared to be significant, yet in the present study the relations are stronger. Following the division of Vaske (2008), the results of Bigne et al. (2001) would indicate there is a typical relation between image and likeliness to return, willingness to recommend and satisfaction while in this study all three relations are substantial. The results of Zhang et al. (2014) also show a typical relation though they used slightly different implications of behavioral intentions and they did not include satisfaction. When evaluating the hypothesis related to evaluative dispositions it is not surprising that they are both accepted. It seems logical that someone who is more positive about a certain destination also is more likely to return to the same destination later on. Just as that it seems legit that someone who is more positive about the destination is likely to recommend the place to friends and family and is more satisfied. Nevertheless it is important to have some kind of proof of this as the results stress the importance of having a good, favorable image for a destination.

5.4 Reflections on theory and methods From a theoretical viewpoint, this study adds to the existing literature of both destination image and educational tourism. To the first by providing insights into the destination image of a city held by a specific population. As stated in the introduction, Pike (2004) conducted a study on 142 articles regarding destination image which revealed that only 26 papers focused on a city image and only 23 focused on a specific travel context. To the second by applying the model of Cubillo et al (2006) to a quantitative method of which the results reveal significant findings. Furthermore this study fills the gap in research the role of destination image for international students by combining the two fields of research, of which the results also reveal significant relationships. This paragraph evaluates the methods and theory used in the present research. After the literature review basically three main concepts are used in the conceptual framework: The role destination image has in the decision making process of international students in selecting their study destination, the components of image and evaluative dispositions. The first concept, the role of image during the decision making process, is operationalized using the model of Cubillo et al. (2006) who provided a list of 47 items divided over five factors that could a student’s destination choice. However, until now it was not used yet in quantitative research. In this study, the list of 47 items is kept the same and the factors are tested on reliability. Following Vaske’s (2008) criteria, the analysis of reliability of the five factors resulted in dropping four of the 47 items: three regarding personal reasons and one regarding institution image. In this way all five factors became reliable which made the model suitable for use in further analyses. That only these limited



adjustments were necessary indicate the model of Cubillo et al. (2006) has proven its value once again, even in quantitative research. The operationalization of the second concept, perceived destination image, derives from Echtner & Ritchie (1993) who presented a model that combines 35-scale items and 3 open-ended items. Their model is the central part of the conceptual framework and has been used by many researchers in studies on several types of destinations. The results of the open-ended item on distinctive or unique attraction, however, showed different kind of answers than suggested by Echtner & Ritchie: On item please list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen., students answered not only physical attractions or sites but also but more general aspects like nightlife, bikes and student life while Echtner & Ritchie’s (1993) expect that respondents would answer unique destination features. This might indicate that, in order to grasp the unique destination features, this question is only suitable for destinations that do have many tourist attractions since the results of the scale items show that Groningen scores low on the availability of tourist attractions and other researchers (e.g. Andreu et al., 2000, Bigne et al., 2001, Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008) using this model have not faced this issue while studying for instance Russia or Spain. Another disadvantage of the model is that some of the 35 attributes Echtner & Ritchie provide in their list are not suitable for a city like Groningen. For instance two attributes, namely beaches and cities, are only applicable for seaside and rural destinations. These, plus two other ones, are therefore replaced in this research. This makes that a one on one comparison with the results of other studies problematic. Next to the socio-demographic variables described earlier, information sources are also part of the image formation process (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999, Beerli & Martin, 2004). As in this research Echtner & Ritchie’s (1993) model is used to measure destination image, information sources are not included. Future research could therefore also cover how students prepare themselves during the selection of a study destination. For instance questions on what sources students use and who influence them most, cover this aspect. Here, the continuum provided by Gartner (1993 in Beerli & Martin, 2004, see chapter 2) could be helpful. The third concept, evaluative dispositions, is operationalized using three items derived from Bigne et al. (2001). As concluded before, the results of the present study are comparable with their findings, yet in their analysis the results of the items are kept separate from each other. In the present research, the three items have been tested on internal consistency and merged into one new variable labeled evaluative dispositions which is used in data analysis. The high Cronbach’s alpha (0.81) revealed that the three items measure more or less the same construct which allows interpreting the results not only per individual item, but also on the level of evaluative dispositions in general. It seems logical that students who are likely to return to a destination are also more willing to recommend a destination and more satisfied with their stay, yet existing studies just did not test this. Like all empirical studies, this research has some limitations that might affect the evaluation and generalization of its findings. The moment of the research, for instance, might affect the results. Data collection is done in November and December, which was a relatively cold period. The results show that many students think Groningen is cold and windy and that Groningen has no good climate, which could have been totally different when collecting data in June or July. Also because it is not clear for how long participants live in Groningen; it could be that they have not experienced a Dutch summer yet. Another implication of not knowing for how long a student lives in Groningen is that the first part of the questionnaire might lead to distorted results as the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination might chance over time. For instance if a student already studies in Groningen for three years, he might have forgotten how important he thought the items were at the time he had to choose his destination. Therefore, in a next study, a question about the date of arrival would therefore be desirable.



Furthermore, the generalization of the results is a limitation as the study only covers international students studying in the city of Groningen. The sample size of 161 is above the minimum of 100, but by far not the 400 which is ideal. Therefore the results are just suitable for generalizing to the population at a confidence level of 95% with a 10% sampling error (Vaske, 2008). The sampling error is about the limitation of the sample in its ability to describe a population. When more resources are available, future studies on this topic should aim for at least 400 respondents in order to receive more representative findings. Preferably, future research should include at least two different student city to verify if the results are generalizable. Next to that it would be desirable to ask students both at their arrival in the city and again after a certain fixed period; this would capture the problem of forgetting how important aspects were during the destination choice process. To follow Jenkin’s (1999) in using both qualitative and quantitative research methods, it could be an addition to ask students more in-depth in why they exactly choose for the specific study destination. In this way the results can also be compared with Cubillo et al. (2006) who conducted interviews with merely Chinese students.

5.5 Conclusions The first goal of this study – related to research questions one, two and three – was to understand the three main concepts of this study in relation to Groningen: Factors for choosing a study destination, the city’s destination image and student’s evaluative dispositions. It appeared that city image is the third most important out of a total of five factors. Within city image especially an international environment and the cost of living are considered as being important; both aspects are in favor of Groningen as the scores on these attributes are high. Regarding the destination image of the city the results are positive; Groningen is valued especially regarding its student life and atmosphere. On the other hand the city scores merely low in terms of tourist attractions. The evaluative dispositions of students who currently study in Groningen are positive as almost all students are likely to return, willing to recommend the city to others and satisfied with their stay. The second goal of this study – related to research questions four and five – was to determine the relations between the concepts mentioned above. Regarding these relations two hypotheses ware drafted: (H1) The more important destination image is during the decision making process, the more favorable the image is during the actual stay, and (H2) the more favorable the image of Groningen, the more favorable the evaluative dispositions regarding the city. Both hypotheses have been accepted in this study. Therefore it can be concluded that if students perceive destination image as being more important during the decision making process of choosing an abroad study destination, the perceived destination image becomes more favorable during the actual stay. There is a substantial relationship between these two aspects. Moreover it can be concluded that the more favorable the image of Groningen students have, the higher the probability is that students will return in the future, recommend Groningen to others are satisfied with their stay. Altogether this study once more stressed the importance and relevance of the field of research on destination image as it plays an major role in the destination choice process and in evaluative dispositions. The main practical implication of this study is that it provides insights in the image of Groningen held by international students and in future behavioral intentions and satisfaction. The results can be useful for the municipality of Groningen, the city’s DMO Marketing Groningen and it’s universities. The study can be used to support marketing and positioning strategies as it reveals some aspects that could be stressed in their promotional activities. As stated before, the European Parliament has the goal to create an European higher education area and their aim is that at least 20% of all graduate students should have had an internship or studied abroad by the year 2020 (Fombona et al, 2013). This shows, once again, the potential of focusing on the attraction of more international students.



Furthermore the city’s institutions could expand their existing research agenda on international students with the scope of this research if they want more in-depth information. The results emphasize the significance for a study destination’s institutions to know the image of that specific destination as it affects students’ choice and evaluation, especially since international student recruitment has emerged into a major objective for universities (Turner, 2008, in Rudd et al., 2012).



References Baloglu, S. & McCleary, K.W. (1999). A Model of Destination Image Formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-879 Bigne, J.E., Sanchez, M.I., Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism Image, Evaluation Variables and After Purchase Behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-616 Beerli, A. & Martin, J.D. (2004). Factors Influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681 CIEE (2014). Retrieved on 21-03-2014 from http://study-abroad-blog-groningen-ups.ciee.org/student/ Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, S. (2008). Tourism: Principles and Practice, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow Cubillo, J.M., Sanchez, J., Cervino, J. (2006). International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101-115 Dagblad van het Noorden (28-08-2013). Groningen wereldstad Di Marino, E. (2007). The Strategic Dimension of Destination Image: An Analysis of the French Riviera Image From the Italian Tourists’ Perceptions. Thesis (PhD). University of Naples “Frederico II” Echtner, C.M. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993). The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. The Journal Travel Research, 31(4), 3-13 Echtner, C.M. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37-48 European Parliament (2013). Retrieved on 13-09-2013 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20121213STO04619/html/Erasmus-find-out-how-it-works-and-how-it-was-saved Everitt, B.S. (2002). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Fombona, J., Rodriguez, C., Sevillano, M.A.P. (2013). The Motivational Factor of Erasmus Students at the University. International Education Studies 6(4), 1-9 Gartner, W.C. (1993). Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2, 191-216 Gertner, R.K. (2010). Similarities and Differences of the Effect of Country Images on Tourist and Study Destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(4), 383-395 Gemeente Groningen (2011). Studenten- en jongerenhuisvesting in 2011 Gemeente Groningen (2013). Retrieved on 12-09-2013 from http://gemeente.groningen.nl/verhuizen/aantal-inwoners-gemeente-groningen-loopt-op-tot-bijna-196.000

http://study-abroad-blog-groningen-ups.ciee.org/student/

http://study-abroad-blog-groningen-ups.ciee.org/student/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20121213STO04619/html/Erasmus-find-out-how-it-works-and-how-it-was-saved

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20121213STO04619/html/Erasmus-find-out-how-it-works-and-how-it-was-saved

http://gemeente.groningen.nl/verhuizen/aantal-inwoners-gemeente-groningen-loopt-op-tot-bijna-196.000

http://gemeente.groningen.nl/verhuizen/aantal-inwoners-gemeente-groningen-loopt-op-tot-bijna-196.000



Gnoth, J. (1994). Quality of Service and Tourist Satisfaction. In: Witt, S. & Moutinho, L., Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, 279,284, Prentice-Hall, Harlow GroningenLife! (2013). Retrieved on 12-09-2013 from http://www.groningenlife.nl/wonen-in-groningen Hanzehogeschool Groningen (2013). Retrieved on 08-10-2013 from http://hanze.nl/home/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool+Groningen/facts-and-figures.htm I Like Groningen (2012). Retrieved on 21-03-2014 from http://www.ilikegroningen.nl/zien/attracties-sightseeing/martinitoren Jenkins, O.H. (1999). Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images. International Journal Of Tourism Research, 1, 1-15 Kim, S. & Letho, X.Y. (2013). Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Personalities: The Case of South Korea. Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 117-130 Lam, J.M.S., Ariffin, A.A.M., Ahmad, A.H. (2011). Edutourism: Exploring the Push-Pull Factors in Selecting a University. International Journal of Business and Society, 12(1), 63-78 Lonely Planet the Netherlands (2013). Lonely Planet, Melbourne Model Profile (2013). Retreived on 21-03-2014 from http://modelprofile.nl/the-places-to-be-koninginnedag-2013/ Pike, S. (2002). Destination Image Analysis – A Review of 142 Papers From 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management, 23, 541-549 Pike, S., Mason, R. (2011). Destination Competitiveness Through the Lens of Brand Positioning: The Case of Australia’s Sunshine Coast. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2), 169-182 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2013). Retrieved on 08-10-2013 from http://www.rug.nl/about-us/where-do-we-stand/facts-and-figures/internationalisation-figures Ritchie, B.W. (2003). Managing Educational Tourism, Channel View Publications, Clevedon Rudd, B., Djafarova, E., Waring, T. (2012). Chinese Students’ Decision-Making Process: A Case of a Business School in the UK. The International Journal of Management Education, 10, 129-138 Song, H. & Hsu, C.H.C. (2013). The Image of Taiwan as a Travel Destination: Perceptions From Mainland China. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30, 253-271 Stepchenkova, S. & Morrison, A.M. (2008). Russia’s Destination Image Among American Pleasure Travellers: Revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tourism Management, 29, 548-560 Studyportals (2013). Retrieved on 12-09-2013 from http://www.studyportals.eu/media/press-releases/479/persbericht-rijksuniversiteit-groningen-meest-geliefd-bij-internationale-studenten.html Sum (2011). Retrieved on 03-10-2013 from http://www.sum.nl/gemiddelde-kamerprijs-studentenstad/

http://www.groningenlife.nl/wonen-in-groningen

http://www.groningenlife.nl/wonen-in-groningen

http://hanze.nl/home/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool+Groningen/facts-and-figures.htm

http://hanze.nl/home/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool/Over+de+Hanzehogeschool+Groningen/facts-and-figures.htm

http://www.ilikegroningen.nl/zien/attracties-sightseeing/martinitoren

http://www.ilikegroningen.nl/zien/attracties-sightseeing/martinitoren

http://modelprofile.nl/the-places-to-be-koninginnedag-2013/

http://modelprofile.nl/the-places-to-be-koninginnedag-2013/

http://www.rug.nl/about-us/where-do-we-stand/facts-and-figures/internationalisation-figures

http://www.rug.nl/about-us/where-do-we-stand/facts-and-figures/internationalisation-figures

http://www.studyportals.eu/media/press-releases/479/persbericht-rijksuniversiteit-groningen-meest-geliefd-bij-internationale-studenten.html

http://www.studyportals.eu/media/press-releases/479/persbericht-rijksuniversiteit-groningen-meest-geliefd-bij-internationale-studenten.html

http://www.sum.nl/gemiddelde-kamerprijs-studentenstad/

http://www.sum.nl/gemiddelde-kamerprijs-studentenstad/



Tasci, A.D.A., Gartner, W.C., Cavusgil, S.T. (2007). Conceptualization and Operationalization of Destination Image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31, 194-223 Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing Inc, State College, Pennsylvania



Appendices

Appendix I: Factors for choosing a study destination Derived from Cubillo et al. (2006) Personal Factors

Improve career prospects Improve future job prospects Improve future learning prospects Acquire higher status Live in a different culture Make international contacts Improve language skills My family’s recommendation My friends’ recommendation My professor’s recommendation

Country Image

Cultural distance from home Social reputation of the country Academic reputation of the country Development level of the country Cost of living in the country Immigration procedures of the country Opportunity to work during the stay Time to get the degree

City Image

City size Cost of living in the city Linguistic proximity or distance from home Safety and security in the city Social facilities in the city International environment of the city University environment

Institution image

University prestige Ranking position of the university Brand reputation of the university Academic reputation of the university Research reputation of the university Quality reputation of the university Expertise of teaching staff at the faculty Professional experience of teaching staff at the faculty Campus atmosphere Social life at the university Safety and security at the university Library facilities Availability of computers at the university Availability of quiet areas at the university



Availability of areas for self-study at the university Sport facilities

Program evaluation

International recognition of the study program Study program suitability Study program specialization Quality of study program Recognition of study program by future employees Total cost and finance of the study program



Appendix II: Destination image factors Based on Echtner & Ritchie (1993)

Comfort/security Local standards of cleanness and hygiene are high in Groningen Standard of living in Groningen is high Good restaurants are easy to find in Groningen In general, Groningen is a safe place to stay In Groningen people are friendly In general, the quality of service in Groningen is high The political stability in Groningen is high Groningen is easily accessible Groningen has a good reputation In Groningen is enough space for everyone

Interest/adventure

Groningen is a good place for adventure In Groningen everything is different and fascinating Groningen has a large variety of tourist attractions to visit Enough historical sites and museums exist in Groningen There is a lot of interesting architecture in Groningen There are enough opportunities to engage in sports activities in Groningen There are enough shopping possibilities in Groningen

Natural state

Groningen is a restful and relaxing place to stay Groningen has impressive scenery Groningen has nice parks

Tourist/guest facilitation

Tours and excursions are easily available in Groningen There is good quality student housing in Groningen Local transportation in Groningen is convenient Overall, staying in Groningen offers a good value for money

Resort atmosphere/climate

Nightlife and entertainment are widely available in Groningen Groningen has a pleasant climate There are enough interesting festivals and celebrations in Groningen Groningen appeals more to adults than to children

Cultural distance

Very distinctive customs and culture exist in Groningen In Groningen there are enough possibilities to interact with local people Many people speak English in Groningen

Inexpensiveness Lack of language barrier



Student life Groningen is a true student city Groningen offers high quality education Groningen is a good destination for an educational or learning experience Groningen offers a wide variety of student associations



Appendix III: Questionnaire Dear fellow student, My name is Thomas Hartjes and I am working on my thesis about city images. Please help me by completing this questionnaire. You also have a chance to win a 20 euro gift card for Amazon / Bol.com! Please answer the survey only if you are a non-Dutch student who studies in Groningen. Please try to answer all the questions. If you have any questions or technical problems while completing this survey, please send an email to [email protected] for a prompt response. The answers you give in the survey are anonymous and responses will be used for research purposes only. Thank you in advance for your participation! Thomas Hartjes

mailto:[email protected]



Section I Please think back to the period when you chose your destination for studying abroad, which in your case resulted in the city of Groningen. How would you rate the importance of the items below in the decision making process regarding your study destination choice? Please select one box per item. 1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 = very important

This section continues on the next page.



1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 =

very important

Section II Please answer the following three open-ended questions about Groningen.

1. What three images or characteristics come to mind when you think of the city of Groningen?

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

2. How would you describe the atmosphere or mood in the city of Groningen in three words?

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

3. Please list three distinctive or unique attractions that you can think of in the city of Groningen.

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................



Please give your opinion about the following statements about Groningen. Indicate if you: Strongly disagree (SD) – Disagree (D) – Neither disagree nor agree (N) – Agree (A) – Strongly agree (SA)



Section III Please answer the following two questions. 1 = definitely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = maybe, 4 = probably yes, 5 = definitely yes

Please answer the following question. 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = somewhat satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions about yourself to help me understand different characteristics of respondents and allow me to compare your answers with those of other people. You will remain anonymous and your answers will be confidential. What is your gender? What is your age?

⃝ Male .......... years ⃝ Female What is your nationality? At which institution are you studying?

.................................................. ⃝ University of Groningen (RUG) ⃝ Hanze University (HG) ⃝ Other: .................................................. At which study phase you are currently? Which situation applies to you in Groningen?

⃝ Bachelor ⃝ I am a full-program student ⃝ Master ⃝ I am an exchange student (e.g. Erasmus) If you want to have a chance to win a € 20.- gift card for Amazon / Bol.com please write your email:

.................................................. Thank you very much for your cooperation!



Appendix IV: Reliability analyses Reliability analyses of decision making factors

Item-total correlation

Alpha if item deleted

Cronbach’s alpha

Personal reasons 0.524

Improve career prospects 0.457 0.431

Improve future job prospects 0.403 0.444

Improve future learning prospects 0.323 0.475

Acquire higher status 0.186 0.508

Live in a different culture 0.213 0.500

Make international contacts 0.377 0.462

Improve language skills¹ 0.071 0.546

My family’s recommendation¹ 0.070 0.542

My friends’ recommendation¹ -0.006 0.574

My professor’s recommendation¹ 0.302 0.470

Country image 0.678

Cultural distance from home 0.217 0.688

Social reputation of the country 0.452 0.631

Academic reputation of the country 0.492 0.621

Development level of the country 0.424 0.637

Cost of living in the country 0.499 0.620

Immigration procedures of the country 0.395 0.642

Opportunity to work during the stay 0.212 0.690

Time to get the degree 0.346 0.654

City image 0.755

City size 0.550 0.707

Cost of living in the city 0.541 0.711

Linguistic proximity or distance from home 0.261 0.772

Safety and security in the city 0.463 0.727

Social facilities in the city 0.538 0.711

International environment of the city 0.552 0.709

University environment 0.431 0.734

Institution image 0.916

University prestige 0.640 0.910

Ranking position of the university 0.692 0.909

Brand reputation of the university 0.639 0.910

Academic reputation of the university 0.709 0.908

Research reputation of the university 0.644 0.910

Quality reputation of the university 0.711 0.908

Expertise of teaching staff at the faculty 0.760 0.906

Professional experience of teaching staff at the faculty 0.718 0.908

Campus atmosphere 0.374 0.917

Social life at the university 0.391 0.916

Safety and security at the university 0.467 0.915

Library facilities 0.784 0.905

Availability of computers at the university 0.682 0.909

Availability of quiet areas at the university 0.639 0.910

Availability of areas for self-study at the university 0.740 0.907

Sport facilities¹ 0.106 0.925

Program evaluation 0.806

International recognition of the study program 0.661 0.752

Study program suitability 0.564 0.775

Study program specialization 0.628 0.763

Quality of study program 0.693 0.752

Recognition of study program by future employees 0.558 0.777

Total cost and finance of the study program 0.343 0.829

¹These items are excluded from further analysis



Reliability analyses of destination image factors



Cronbach’s alpha

Comfort/security 0.835

Local standards of cleanness and hygiene are high in Groningen 0.613 0.814

Standard of living in Groningen is high 0.537 0.819

Good restaurants are easy to find in Groningen 0.473 0.829

In general, Groningen is a safe place to stay 0.543 0.819

In Groningen people are friendly 0.524 0.821

In general, the quality of service in Groningen is high 0.571 0.816

The political stability in Groningen is high 0.404 0.832

Groningen is easily accessible 0.560 0.817

Groningen has a good reputation 0.645 0.811

In Groningen is enough space for everyone 0.490 0.825

Interest/adventure 0.812

Groningen is a good place for adventure 0.594 0.780

In Groningen everything is different and fascinating 0.589 0.781

Groningen has a large variety of tourist attractions to visit 0.556 0.786

Enough historical sites and museums exist in Groningen 0.611 0.777

There is a lot of interesting architecture in Groningen 0.668 0.764

There are enough opportunities to engage in sports activities in Gro. 0.283 0.825

There are enough shopping possibilities in Groningen 0.536 0.790

Natural state¹ 0.603

Groningen is a restful and relaxing place to stay¹ 0.384 0.544

Groningen has impressive scenery¹ 0.438 0.467

Groningen has nice parks¹ 0.426 0.496

Guest facilitation 0.655

Tours and excursions are easily available in Groningen 0.382 0.621

There is good quality student housing in Groningen 0.407 0.616

Local transportation in Groningen is convenient 0.561 0.503

Overall, staying in Groningen offers a good value for money 0.412 0.602

Atmosphere/climate 0.532

Nightlife and entertainment are widely available in Groningen 0.282 0.492

Groningen has a pleasant climate¹ 0.219 0.584

There are enough interesting festivals and celebrations in Groningen 0.284 0.490

Groningen appeals more to adults than to children¹ 0.557 0.242

Cultural distance 0.562

Very distinctive customs and culture exist in Groningen 0.505 0.234

In Groningen there are enough possibilities to interact with local people 0.463 0.306

Many people speak English in Groningen¹ 0.192 0.677

Student life 0.657

Groningen is a true student city 0.558 0.513

Groningen offers high quality education 0.427 0.598

Groningen is a good destination for an educational/learning experience 0.443 0.588

Groningen offers a wide variety of student associations 0.348 0.657

¹These items are excluded from further analysis

Reliability analysis of evaluative dispositions



Cronbach’s alpha

Evaluation 0.810

Likeliness to return 0.590 0.859

Willingness to recommend 0.743 0.674

Overall satisfaction 0.701 0.709



Appendix V: Effect of socio-demographic variables Factors for choosing a study destination

Analysis of effect socio demographic factors on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Personal Country City Institution Program

T-Test¹

Gender 0.070 0.407 0.957 0.032 0.016

Study phase 0.292 0.002 0.744 0.025 0.279

Situation 0.459 0.962 0.623 0.056 0.007

ANOVA²

Age 0.401 0.480 0.936 0.016 0.466

Nationality 0.053 0.000 0.111 0.000 0.016

¹ Significance 2-tailed – (P<0.05) ² Significance (P<0.05)

Effect gender on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Institution Program

Male 3.06 3.62

Female 3.33 3.89

Total 3.19 3.75

Effect study phase on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Country Institution

Bachelor 3.13 3.06

Master 3.42 3.35

Total 3.27 3.19

Effect situation on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Program

Full program 3.86

Exchange 3.53

Total 3.75

P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Factor Importance construct P-value¹ Effect size² (η) Relationship

Gender Institution 0.032 0.169 Minimal

Program 0.016 0.190 Minimal

Study phase Country 0.002 0.244 Typical

Institution 0.025 0.177 Minimal

Situation Program 0.007 0.212 Minimal

Age Institution 0.016 0.274 Typical

Nationality Country 0.000 0.468 Substantial

Institution 0.000 0.557 Substantial

Program 0.016 0.397 Substantial

¹ P<0.05 ² η: 0.10 = minimal relationship, η: 0.243 = typical relationship, η: 0.371 = substantial relationship (Vaske, 2008)



Effect age on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Institution

18-20 3.19

21-23 3.21

24-26 2.94

27-29 3.71

30-32 3.58

Total 3.19

Effect nationality on importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Country City Institution Program

German 2.90 3.29 2.98 3.72

Chinese 3.59 3.54 3.85 4.04

Italian 3.17 3.22 2.36 3.05

Spanish 2.34 3.81 3.01 3.65

French 3.10 3.47 2.67 3.35

Indonesian 3.86 3.83 3.99 4.12

Greek 3.52 3.54 3.21 3.96

Eastern Europe 3.53 3.43 2.83 3.70

South American 3.23 3.60 3.48 3.77

Other Europe 3.11 3.57 3.49 4.03

Other Asian 3.28 3.02 3.66 4.02

North American 3.16 3.59 2.92 3.46

Middle East 3.34 2.79 3.10 4.00

African 2.63 3.43 2.93 3.67

Total 3.27 3.45 3.19 3.75



Destination image

Analysis of effect socio demographic factors on image

Image Comfort/ security

Interest/ adventure

Guest facilitation

Atmosphere Cultural distance

Student life

T-Test¹

Gender 0.328 0.563 0.350 0.064 0.106 0.001 0.695

Study phase 0.206 0.102 0.828 0.166 0.572 0.076 0.348

Situation 0.651 0.654 0.822 0.563 0.239 0.700 0.155

ANOVA²

Age 0.291 0.460 0.569 0.478 0.005 0.668 0.002

Nationality 0.307 0.061 0.842 0.068 0.011 0.746 0.202


P-value and effect size of correlations between socio-demographic variables and the perceived importance of factors for choosing a study destination

Factor Image construct P-value¹ Effect size² (η) Relationship

Gender Cultural distance 0.001 0.265 Typical

Age Atmosphere 0.005 0.300 Typical

Student life 0.002 0.322 Typical

Nationality Atmosphere 0.011 0.406 Substantial

¹ P<0.05 ² η: 0.10 = minimal relationship, η: 0.243 = typical relationship, η: 0.371 = substantial relationship (Vaske, 2008)

Effect gender on image

Cultural distance

Male 3.54

Female 3.08

Total 3.31

Effect age on image

Atmosphere Student life

18-20 3.74 4.17

21-23 4.17 4.35

24-26 4.10 4.44

27-29 3.50 4.06

30-32 3.50 3.63

Total 3.98 4.29

Effect nationality on image

Atmosphere

German 4.00

Chinese 3.56

Italian 4.09

Spanish 4.50

French 4.25

Indonesian 3.30

Greek 3.81

Eastern Europe 4.27

South American 3.93

Other Europe 4.21

Other Asian 3.75

North American 4.44

Middle Eastern 3.37

African 4.00

Total 3.98



Evaluative dispositions

Analysis of effect socio demographic factors on evaluative dispositions

Evaluation Return Recommend Satisfaction

T-Test¹

Gender 0.967 0.613 0.373 0.939

Study phase 0.828 0.983 0.878 0.618

Situation 0.268 0.766 0.223 0.117

ANOVA²

Age 0.536 0.993 0.381 0.124

Nationality 0.690 0.384 0.572 0.168




Appendix VI: Results destination image

SD: Strongly disagree D: Disagree N: Neither agree nor disagree A: Agree SA: Strongly agree

Date post:	30-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

The role destination image plays for international ...

Documents