Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

Selecting a destination image for a capital city rather than for

a nation: A segmentation study
Sung-ta Liu n
Department of Leisure, Sports, and Health Management, St. John0 s University, No. 499, Section 4, Tamking Road, Tamsui District, New Taipei City 251, Taiwan

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 10 June 2013
Accepted 12 December 2013
Available online 4 January 2014

This paper investigates whether when authorities use different types of places to build a destination
image of a capital city, the general public considers that the places represent the city itself rather than a
nation. Taipei City, the capital city of Taiwan, was used as an experimental case study. The survey results
suggest that people tend to perceive that places associated with localities or natural landscapes represent
a city. Meanwhile, places associated with state power, multi-ethnicity, or economic globalization may
give rise to different interpretations of their representations. The results also reveal that in comparison to
citizens, non-citizens may have stronger opinions on whether certain places represent a city or a nation.
Overall, the present research provides a possible typology of places and a decision-making approach for
selecting suitable places for building a destination image of a capital city.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Destination image
Capital city
Segmentation

1. Introduction
The academic debates on destination image emerged in the 1970s
(e.g., Gunn, 1972). It has become a multi-disciplinary topic exploring
how people perceive an image of a destination and how it can have
an effect on people0 s behavior in choice of destinations (Gallarza,
Saura, & Garca, 2002). Earlier tourism literature focused on examining tourists0 or residents0 perceptions of a destination image (e.g.,
Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003; Goodrich, 1978;
Schroeder, 1996; Sternquist Witter, 1985; Tasci & Gartner, 2007). The
concurrent literature has begun to investigate how authorities shape
a destination image for their own interests (e.g., Choi, Lehto, &
Morrison, 2007; Frsich & Robins, 2004; Hashim, Murphy, & Hashim,
2007; Patil, 2011).
When considering delivering a destination image of a city,
Smith (2007) argues that places with specic functions or meanings in a city can become its efcient marketing channels. In terms
of a capital city, it is usually the political, cultural, or economic
center of a nation. Therefore, a place as well as a tourist attraction
in a capital city may be related to features of a nation, such as state
power, multiculturalism, or economic development. Given this
nature, some studies point out that issues concerned with nationalism (e.g., Aiello & Thurlow, 2006), ethnicity representation (e.g.,
Tunbridge, 1998), or negative associations about globalization (e.g.,
Gospodini, 2004) may emerge when using these places to build a
destination image of a capital city.

Tel: 886 981272172.

E-mail address: sungtaliu@gmail.com

2212-571X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.12.002

Since the existing literature does not empirically examine the

argument as above from an overall consideration, the present research
uses Taipei City, the capital city of Taiwan, as an experimental case
study to investigate how people may have different destination images
of a capital city. In doing so, the present research generates a possible
approach to selecting suitable places of a capital city to build its
destination image to possibly avoid it from being associated with
negative nation-related issues.
2. Literature review
Through having access to visual or textual information of places
with specic functions or meanings of a destination appearing in
the mass media or on different kinds of souvenir items, an
individual can eventually form her/his image of the destination
(Day, Skidmore, & Koller, 2002; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 2000).
Advanced technology, such as satellite television and the internet,
has further given people easier access to destination images
generated by public or private tourism agencies. Meanwhile,
people also can actively share their images of certain destinations
through new media such as online social networking sites (e.g.,
Dwivedi, 2009; Frsich & Robins, 2004; Hashim et al., 2007;
Huang & Lee, 2009; Patil, 2011; Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2006).
In this light, featured places of a destination can be useful
marketing tools for public and private tourism sectors.
From an urban destination management point of view, similarly, a city may have certain places with specic functions and
meanings related to the city itself, such as historic buildings,
monumental spaces, or public markets; these places can play not

12

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

only the role of tourist attractions but also of tools projecting

destination images of a city in different dimensions (Smith, 2007).
The urban literature also has argued that certain places can be
symbols representing locality of a city. For example, a square in a
city center can be associated with the history, culture, or glory of a
city, since it is usually the venue of specic local events (Boyer,
1996; Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, 1992). Besides obvious humanbuilt structures, Aiello and Thurlow (2006) remind destination
managers that natural landscapes of a city also can be regarded as
local features as well as tools for representing an aspect of a miltdimensional image of a city.
Meanwhile, apart from human-built structures and natural
landscapes representing the identity a city mentioned in the urban
and tourism literatures, in his study concerned with how national
identity can be forged in an everyday context, Edensor (2002)
reminds us that a city can have some places initially built by the
state to play the role of symbols of national identity. For instance, a
memorial square can be associated with the history of a nation.
Moreover, a public sports stadium can be related to the popular
culture of a nation. Furthermore, a skyscraper can symbolize the
economic achievement of a nation. Clearly, as Edensor suggests,
these places are usually tourist attractions and frequently appear
in the mass media.
The tourism literature has investigated how a state can use
tourism alongside a destination image to highlight national
identity by sending the relevant messages through paper or digital
materials (e.g., Frsich & Robins, 2004; Hashim et al., 2007; Patil,
2011). Meanwhile, by reviewing the urban literature concerned
with the establishment of a capital city, more evidence can be
found to show how a state can use urban destination factors to
represent national identity. In many case studies, it can be
indicated that relevant places, such as ofcial buildings, monuments, and landmarks, have been vital for planning and designing
a given capital city to represent state power (e.g., Hall, 1998, 2002;
King, 1976; Tinniswood, 1998), cultural characteristics (e.g., Kolbe,
2007), or economic success (e.g., Hall, 1998; Kolbe, 2007; Olsen,
1986) of a nation. After all, a capital city is usually the political,
cultural, or economic center of a nation.
In this light, a capital city appears to be able to use these
national-identity-related places to form its unique destination
image as compared to other ordinary cities. However, few studies
raise issues regarding possible impacts of using these places for
building a destination image of a capital city. For instance, places
associated with state power can be related to nationalism or to an
unpleasant historical period of a nation, such as being colonized,
thereby making tourists or even locals feel offended (Aiello &
Thurlow, 2006; Poria, Biran, & Reichel, 2007).
Places associated with ethnicity also can be problematic for
destination managers. Apparently, city authorities can demonstrate their pursuit of ethnic harmony by constructing museums or
memorials in the interests of ethnic minority groups. These places
also can be tourist spots of a city (Hayden, 1995). Similarly, for the
authorities of a multi-ethnic nation, it is reasonable to build these
places in the capital city to show support for multiculturalism.
Nevertheless, by studying the case of Ottawa, the capital city of
Canada, Tunbridge (1998) indicates that these places can give rise
to controversial public debates with regard to selective representation, commercialization, or even exploitation of specic ethnic
groups.
Places associated with economic globalization also may concern destination image planning of a capital city. Since the early
twentieth century, many cities have launched projects of large-scale
business districts with commercial and entertainment functions.
Clearly, apart from attracting tourists, these places are created to
boost consumption, encourage investment, and increase employment opportunities. What is more, they symbolize the capability of

a city to become involved in a global economy system (Mordue,

2007; Puczko, Ratz, & Smith, 2007; Silk, 2007; Smith, 2007).
However, these places are often packed with structures with
innovative designs and styles, thereby being criticized as being
unable to represent locality (Boyer, 1996; Gnay, 2005; Hannigan,
1998; Harvey, 1993; Hough, 1990; McCarthy, 2004; McNeill &
Tewdwr-Jones, 2003; Silk, 2007; Sklair, 2006).
Despite the criticism, constructing such economic-globalizationrelated places in its capital city can be a power legitimacy strategy for
a state. Under these circumstances, the places may be seen as a
state0 s ignorance of locality and make relevant criticism more
unmanageable. However, some scholars suggest that these places
in fact can be useful for forming an image of a city because their
appearances are disconnected from sensitive issues such as nationalism or ethnic inequality (Gospodini, 2004; Rtz, Smith, & Michalk,
2008). In this light, it remains questionable as to whether these
places are suitable for building a destination image of a capital city.
It indicated in the above literature review that destination
managers can use places associated with local features or nature
sightseeing spots to deliver a destination image connected to the
identity of a city. Meanwhile, in terms of a capital city, due to its
nature of being the political, cultural, or economic center of a
nation, it can have places related to state power, multi-ethnicity,
and economic globalization. Although these three types of places
are supposed to be unique features of a capital city, they may not
be suitable for forming a destination image of the capital city due
to their lack of a strong connection with the city itself.
Considering the theory above and recalling the previously
reviewed literature investigating how authorities shape destination
images and how people have their images of a destination (e.g.,
Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Choi et al., 2007; Echtner & Ritchie, 2003;
Frsich & Robins, 2004; Goodrich, 1978; Hashim et al., 2007; Patil,
2011; Schroeder, 1996; Sternquist Witter, 1985; Tasci & Gartner,
2007), a worth-thinking issue is that when capital city authorities
use certain places to build a destination image of the city, whether
the public, including locals and non-locals, perceives the places as the
representations of the city rather than the nation. Some studies that
have examined similar issues mainly use qualitative approaches (e.g.,
Peirce & Ritchie, 2007; Poria et al., 2007; Puczko et al., 2007; Rtz
et al., 2008; Smith, 2007). In general, however, research focusing on
examining the destination image of a capital city seems to be in its
early stage. Seen in this light, this paper presents an experimental
empirical study that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods
to generate an empirical framework for selecting suitable places for
building a destination image of a capital city.

3. Methodology
Taipei City, the capital city of Taiwan, was chosen as the
experimental case study. Taiwan was a Japanese colony from
1895 to 1945. The Japanese colonizers set up the basic infrastructure of the capital Taipei. Many of these Japanese legacies, such as
public spaces and ofcial buildings, are still in use and seen as
tourist attractions of present-day Taipei City. After the end of the
Second World War, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party/KMT),
which represented the state of the Chinese mainland at the time,
took over Taiwan from the defeated Japanese Empire. To secure
their legitimacy, the newly established Chinese rulers implemented martial law to maintain control over the Taiwanese society.
Meanwhile, some new sites were established in the capital Taipei
to commemorate the important gures of the KMT. Many new
constructions were even designed to present traditional Chinese
architectural features. Although these places were initially built by
the state in the capital Taipei to forge the Chinese national identity,
they also have become tourist spots (Tay, 1995).

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

Democratization took place in Taiwan in the late 1980s. The

public began to be able to appeal to the central and local
governments for paying attention to the issues regarding local
identity and ethnic minorities. Eventually, local governments grew
to have more power to make decisions concerned with urban
planning, such as boosting the local economy through implementing urban regeneration. Moreover, the central government made
new policies to revitalize local historic sites. In addition, some
public spaces such as museums and community centers were
established to serve the interests of ethnic minorities. As being the
only capital city of the nation, Taipei City has been the rst city to
experience these changes (Liu, 2013).
According to the background of Taipei City, introduced above, it
can be argued that the city has many places that are worth
examining in regards to whether they are suitable for building a
destination image of the capital Taipei. Before the conduction of
the survey, documentary research was performed by reviewing
journals, postcards, moving images, and Internet websites released
by the Taipei City government to identify the possible places
employed by the city government to deliver a destination image
of the city. Subsequently, an interview with three city government
staff members of the Department of Information and Tourism, in
charge of city marketing affairs, was conducted in October 2011. It
was to investigate the authorities0 opinions on the places selected
through the documentary research.
The three city government staff members were interviewed
together. They were told about the aim of the present research and
the theoretical framework concerned with the ve types of
featured places in a capital city. The visual images of the places
obtained from the Internet websites released by the Taipei City
government were presented to the three interviewees. Based on
the opinions of the interviewees, the 25 places related to state
power, multi-ethnicity, economic globalization, locality, or natural
landscapes were conrmed. Incidentally, all the places in the
category of state power were administered by the central government, while the city government administered the places in the
remaining four categories (Table 1).
The same visual images of the 25 places showed to the ofcials in
the previous interview were then presented in the self-administered
survey questionnaires. The respondents were asked to choose one
of the following options to describe how they felt about each place:
It can represent Taiwan, It can only represent Taipei City, or Not
familiar with it. The third option was designated to avoid a situation
in which the respondents might have given an inaccurate answer
due to their lack of knowledge of certain places. The respondents
were not told how the places were categorized.
In one section of the questionnaire, the respondents were
asked to provide their demographic information, including gender,
age, education level, and average monthly disposable income.
Inspired by the studies suggesting possible difference between
local and non-local perceptions of destination image (i.e.,
Gospodini, 2004; Schroeder, 1996; Sternquist Witter, 1985), this
section also asked whether the respondent considered herself/
himself to be a citizen of Taipei City. Specically, the question
emphasized that the respondent could consider herself/himself a
non-citizen, regardless of whether she/he was living in Taipei City
because of school, work, relationship, and the like.
The survey was formally conducted in Taipei City in April 2012.
Since the city authorities were unable to provide the relevant
sampling frame, a convenience sampling method was applied to
collect data from the public spaces of the city, including city hall,
main train stations, and tourist spots. Overall, 198 usable samples
were collected. All data analyses were conducted by using SPSS
18.0 for Windows software.
According to the results of the descriptive analysis, 58.6% of the
respondents were female. The age group of 1830 made up 42.4% of

13

the sample; 50% of the respondents had college degrees. Although

44.6% of the respondents did not have disposable income, 21.4% had
average disposable incomes between NT$10,000 and NT$20,000 per
month, and 21.4% had a monthly income between NT$20,001 and NT
$40,000. At the time, the minimum wage per month in Taiwan was
NT$18,780 (Council of Labor Affairs, 2013). Finally, 67.4% of the
respondents considered themselves citizens of the capital Taipei.
Other details of the results of the descriptive analysis regarding
the respondents perceptions of the places are shown in Table 2.
Meanwhile, a goodness-of-t analysis was performed to examine
whether there were signicant differences between the numbers of
respondents with different opinions on the places. The results reveal
how the majority of the respondents perceived the representations
of the places. In addition to the goodness-of-t analysis, the crosstabs
and chi-square analyses were also performed to investigate whether
citizens and non-citizens would have different views of the representation of the places. When these analyses were executed, the
respondents who chose Not familiar with it to express their lack of
knowledge about certain places were not regarded as usable data.

4. Results of goodness-of-t analysis

The results of the goodness-of-t analysis were interpretable
because all the expected values were greater than ve (Table 3). In
terms of the places in the categories of locality and natural
landscapes, the statistically signicant differences were observed
between It can represent Taiwan and It can only represent
Taipei City for all the places (p .000 o.050). The majority
perceived that all the places in these two categories could only
represent Taipei City. The results reect the literature, arguing that
places associated with locality or natural attractions of a capital
city are more likely to be related to the city itself instead of a
nation (i.e., Aiello & Thurlow, 2006; Peirce & Ritchie, 2007).
By looking into the statistical results of the places in the category
of state power, signicant differences were found for all the places
except the National Revolutionary Martyrs0 Shrine (p.7074.050)
and the National Theater and Concert Hall (p.0774.050). The
majority perceived that the Presidential Ofce Building, the National
Dr. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall, the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, and the National Palace Museum could represent Taiwan.
Meanwhile, they thought that the Grand Hotel could only represent
the capital Taipei.
By examining the background of places in the category of state
power (see Table 1), it can be indicated that all the seven places in the
category were built by the state to serve its legitimacy as well as
national identity policy. As being the ofce of the national leader, the
symbolic meaning of the Presidential Ofce Building is obviously clear.
Moreover, two memorial halls were erected to commemorate the
late national leaders. In addition, the National Palace Museum was
designed to legitimize Chinese cultural identity. Meanwhile, in comparison to the previous four places perceived by the respondents as
being more associated with the nation, the National Revolutionary
Martyrs Shrine, the National Theater and Concert Hall, and the Grand
Hotel might be perceived as being more like cultural and recreational
infrastructures. Therefore, they received different statistical results
from those of the other four places in the same category.
In terms of the ve places in the category of multi-ethnicity, the
results revealed that there were no signicant differences between
the Taipei 2-28 Memorial Museum (p .085 4.050) and the
Ketagalan Culture Center (p .5144 .050). Meanwhile, the Taipei
Hakka Culture Hall, the 44th South Village, and the Little Philippines were the places that got more votes from respondents who
thought they could only represent Taipei City instead of Taiwan.
By examining the background of places in the category of
multi-ethnicity (see Table 1), it can be indicated that the 2-28

14

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

Table 1
25 places selected by documentary research and interview.
Theme

Place

Description

State power

Presidential Ofce Building

The building was built by the Japanese colonial government in 1919 to be the colonial governor0 s ofce. Presently, it
serves as the ofcial building of the president of the Republic of China (ROC).
The site was built by the central government in 1969 to commemorate the late ROC military gures. Its unique function
and guard-handover rituals make it one of Taipei City0 s tourist destinations.
The hall was built in 1972 by the central government to commemorate Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the ROC. The hall
alongside its public park provides visitors with tourism and recreational functions.
The hall was built on 1980 by the central government to commemorate Chiang Kai-shek, the late ROC president. The hall
alongside its public park provides visitors with tourism and recreational functions.
Located next to the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, the sites were built in 1987 by the central government to
host important artistic performances.
The site was built by the central government to host important international guests. In 1973, it was renovated as a 14story building in traditional Chinese-palace architectural style. It then became one of Taipei City0 s landmarks.
The site was built in 1965 by the central government to store and display signicant Chinese cultural relics. It is one of
the most important tourist destinations in Taipei City.

National Revolutionary
Martyrs Shrine
National Dr. Sun Yat-sen
Memorial Hall
National Chiang Kai-shek
Memorial Hall
National Theater and
Concert Hall
Grand Hotel
National Palace Museum
Multi-ethnicity

Taipei 2-28 Memorial

Museum
Ketagalan Culture Center
Taipei Hakka Culture Hall
44th South Village

Little Philippines
Economic
globalization

Taipei Expo Park

Ximen Red House Creative
Market

Locality

Dadaocheng
Ximending
Bopiliao Historic Block
Treasure Hill
Taipei Confucius Temple
Huaxi Street Tourist Night
Market
Ningxia Night Market
Shilin Night Market

Natural
landscapes

Maokong
Blue Highway

Beitou Hot Spring

The site was established by the Taipei City government in 1997 to commemorate the victims of a series of bloody
conicts between the Taiwanese local population and Chinese mainland ofcials that began on February 28, 1947.
Ketagalan is the name of a Taiwanese aboriginal tribe. The tribe0 s original residences included the Taipei Basin. In 2002,
the Taipei City government established the center to store and display cultural relics of the Taiwanese aborigines.
Like the Taiwanese aborigines, the Hakka people are a minority in Taiwanese society. The site was built by the city
government in 1998 to store and display cultural relics of the Taiwanese Hakka.
The site was the living quarters for soldiers and their families who moved from the Chinese mainland to Taiwan in the
late 1940s. In 2003, the Taipei City government restored the site to present the image of the classic military-dependent
quarters.
The site was formed by a Catholic church to provide a location for many Filipino migrant workers to gather on Sundays.
Eventually, the place became the capital of Taipei0 s Little Philippines in the late 1990s.
The site was constructed as a part of the Taipei City government0 s waterfront project, which aimed to regenerate the old
city area. It hosted the 2011 International Flora Expo.
Built by the Japanese colonists in 1908, Ximen Red House was the rst public market of the colonial capital Taipei. Its
operation ceased in 1997, and it was renovated by the Taipei City government as an artistic display and performance site
in 2002.
The place is located in the early-developed west area of Taipei City. It was designed by the city government as a tourist
spot destination, featuring civilian culture, historic buildings, and traditional local industries, such as food and crafts.
The place was established by Japanese colonists as a commercial district of the colonial capital Taipei. It has been
designed by the Taipei City government as a tourist destination packed with stores selling pop culture goods.
The place is located in the early-developed west area of Taipei City. In 1999, it was designated by the Taipei City
government as a historic site.
The place was a military base built by Japanese colonists in the 1930s. In 1997, the city government designated the place
as a historic site.
In 1992, the site was designated by the Taipei City government as a historic site. Currently, the city government has
designated the place and its surrounding area as a cultural district to attract tourists.
This market is one of the famous night markets of the capital Taipei. It has been designated by the city government as a
tourist destination.
One of the famous night markets of the capital Taipei, it has been designated by the city government as a tourist
destination.
One of the famous night markets of the capital Taipei, it has been designated by the city government as a tourist
destination.
A mountainous area located in suburban Taipei City, it is famous for its tea culture and for viewing the night scenery of
Taipei.
The name refers to a water route system for tourists based on the rivers owing around the border of the capital Taipei.
The system was designed as part of the city0 s waterfront project, which aimed to regenerate the old city area and to
boost tourism.
It is a famed tourist destination for its natural hot spring.

Memorial Museum was established to commemorate the victims

of a series of nationwide bloody ethnic conicts. In terms of the
Ketagalan Culture Center, Ketagalan was the name of an aboriginal tribe of Taiwan. Based on the above reasons, the majority of
the respondents might connect these two places with the collective memory of the nation, instead of the city. In general, the
statistics generated from the category of multi-ethnicity can
support the literature arguing that places associated with ethnic
issues have a higher possibility of being interpreted in different
ways, thereby concerning decision-making of city authorities on
their destination image-building strategies (i.e., Tunbridge, 1998).
In terms of the two places in the category of economic globalization, by examining the background of these two places (see Table 1), it

can be indicated that although the Taipei Expo Park was part of the
waterfront regeneration project of the city government, the park also
functioned as one of the host venues of the 2011 International Flora
Expo, the biggest expo event held in Taiwan in recent years. It might
be the reason that the majority related the place to the nation, despite
the fact that the name of the place included the word Taipei.
Meanwhile, before it was designated as a creative market, the Ximen
Red House had been a famous local public market. It might be the
reason that the majority thought the place could only represent Taipei
City. In general, the statistics concerned with the category of economic
globalization reect the literature highlighting the uncertain effect of
using places associated with economic globalization to form a
destination image of a city (i.e., Gospodini, 2004; Rtz et al., 2008).

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

15

Table 2
Results of the descriptive analysis.
Theme

Place

Options (%)
It can represent Taiwan

It can only represent Taipei city

Unfamiliar with it

State power

Presidential Ofce Building

National Revolutionary Martyrs Shrine
National Dr. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall
National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall
National Theater and Concert Hall
Grand Hotel
National Palace Museum

66.7
46.0
68.2
59.1
40.4
33.3
61.6

33.3
43.4
31.8
39.4
52.5
65.2
37.9

10.6

1.5
7.1
1.5
.5

Multi-ethnicity

Taipei 228 Memorial Museum

Ketagalan Culture Center
Taipei Hakka Culture Hall
44th South Village
Little Philippines

55.1
39.9
28.8
27.8
20.7

42.9
35.9
47.0
43.9
42.9

2.0
24.2
24.2
28.3
36.4

Economic globalization

Taipei Expo Park

Ximen Red House Creative Market

58.4
14.8

39.6
78.1

2.0
7.1

Locality

Dadaocheng
Ximending
Bopiliao Historic Block
Treasure Hill
Taipei Confucius Temple
Huaxi Street Tourist Night Market
Ningxia Night Market
Shilin Night Market

30.3
17.2
24.2
19.7
27.3
17.7
16.7
24.2

63.1
80.8
48.0
42.9
64.6
74.2
73.2
73.2

6.6
2.0
27.8
37.4
8.1
8.1
10.1
2.5

Natural landscapes

Maokong
Blue Highway
Beitou Hot Spring

29.6
24.5
31.1

69.9
53.6
66.3

.5
21.9
2.6

Table 3
Results of goodness-of-t analysis.
Theme

Place

X2

Df p

Expected value Option (N)

It can represent Taiwan It can only represent Taipei city

State power

Presidential Ofce Building

22.000 1
National Revolutionary Martyrs Shrine
.141 1
National Dr. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall 26.182 1
National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall
7.800 1
National Theater and Concert Hall
3.130 1
Grand Hotel
20.354 1
National Palace Museum
11.213 1

.000
.707
.000
.005
.077
.000
.001

198
177
198
195
184
195
197

99.0
88.5
99.0
97.5
92.0
97.5
98.5

132
91
135
117
80
66
122

66
86
63
78
104
129
75

Multi-ethnicity

Taipei 228 Memorial Museum

Ketagalan Culture Center
Taipei Hakka Culture Hall
44th South Village
Little Philippines

.085
.514
.003
.000
.000

194
150
150
142
126

97.0
75.0
75.0
71.0
63.0

109
79
57
55
41

85
71
93
87
85

115
29

78
153

92.5
97.0
71.5
62.0
91.0
91.0
89.0
96.5

60
34
48
39
54
35
33
48

125
160
95
85
128
147
145
145

.000 195 97.5

.000 153 76.5
.000 191 95.5

58
48
61

137
105
130

2.969
.427
8.640
15.365
15.465

1
1
1
1
1

Economic globalization Taipei Expo Park

Ximen Red House Creative Market

7.093 1
84.484 1

.008 193 96.5

.000 182 91.0

Locality

Dadaocheng
Ximending
Bopiliao Historic Block
Treasure Hill
Taipei Confucius Temple
Huaxi Street Tourist Night Market
Ningxia Night Market
Shilin Night Market

22.838
81.835
15.448
17.065
30.088
68.923
70.472
48.751

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

Natural landscapes

Maokong
Blue Highway
Beitou Hot Spring

32.005 1
21.235 1
24.927 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5. Results of crosstabs and chi-square analyses

Although the non-citizens occupied only 32.6% of the 198
respondents, all the expected values were above ve in the results
of the crosstabs and chi-square analyses. The statistical results

185
194
143
124
182
182
178
192

were therefore interpretable. For 10 out of the 25 places, the

values of p were less than .050. It means there were relations
between citizenship and opinions of the respondents for these 10
places, including the Presidential Ofce Building, the National
Revolutionary Martyrs0 Shrine, the Grand Hotel, the 44th South

16

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

Table 4
Results of crosstabs and chi-square analyses.
Place

X2

Opinion

Citizenship (N)
Citizen

Presidential Ofce Building

22.152

.000

It can represent Taiwan

National Palace Museum

44th South Village

Ximen Red House Creative Market

Dadaocheng

Xinmending

Bopiliao Historic Block

Maokong

Blue High Way

13.971

12.693

5.439

13.258

13.057

17.232

15.608

16.013

10.234

.000

.000

.020

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.001

Non-citizen

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship
Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

71
85.5
54.6
59
44.5
45.4

56
41.5
88.9
7
21.5
11.1

127
127.0
65.8
66
66.0
34.2

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

49
60.4
41.5

39
27.6
72.2

88
88.0
51.2

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

69
57.6
58.5

15
26.4
27.8

84
84.0
48.8

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

68
79.3
52.7

50
38.7
79.4

118
118.0
61.5

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

61
49.7
47.3

13
24.3
20.6

74
74.0
38.5

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

45
39.3
42.9

7
12.7
20.6

52
52.0
37.4

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

60
65.7
57.1

27
21.3
79.4

81
81.0
62.6

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

27
18.7
22.9

1
9.3
1.7

28
28.0
15.8

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

37
99.3
77.1

58
49.7
98.3

149
149.0
84.2

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

52
41.6
40.9

7
17.4
13.2

59
59.0
32.8

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

75
85.4
59.1

46
35.6
86.8

121
121.0
67.2

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

33
22.7
26.2

1
11.3
1.6

34
34.0
18.0

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

93
103.3
73.8

62
51.7
98.4

155
155.0
82.0

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

42
31.9
43.3

4
14.1
9.3

46
46.0
32.9

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

55
65.1
56.7

39
28.9
90.7

94
94.0
67.1

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

50
38.1
39.4

7
18.9
11.1

57
57.0
30.0

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

77
88.9
60.6

56
44.1
88.9

133
133.0
70.0

It can represent Taiwan

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

42
33.8
38.9

5
13.2
11.9

47
47.0
31.3

It can only represent Taipei City

Count
Expected value
% within citizenship

66
74.2
61.1

37
28.8
88.1

103
103.0
68.7

It can only represent Taipei City

National Revolutionary Martyrs Shrine

Total (N)

S.-t. Liu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3 (2014) 1117

Village, the Ximen Red House Creative Market, Dadaocheng,

Ximending, the Bopiliao Historic Block, Maokong, and the Blue
Highway (Table 4).
According to the statistical results, non-citizens had stronger
opinions about what these 10 places represented. Their opinions
were similar to those of the majority for the same 10 places shown
in the results of the goodness-of-t analysis, except for the
National Revolutionary Martyrs0 Shrine, which did not show a
signicant difference. The comparison of the results generated
from the two statistical approaches echoes the reminder derived
from the literature that highlights a possible difference between
local and non-local images of a destination (e.g., Gospodini, 2004;
Schroeder, 1996; Sternquist Witter, 1985).

6. Conclusion
By consulting the tourism and urban literatures, the present
research suggests there are ve types of places that may concern
forming a destination image of a capital city: locality, natural
landscapes, state power, multi-ethnicity, and economic globalization. To examine the proposed theoretical framework, the present
research used Taipei City, the capital city of Taiwan, as the
experimental case study. The results demonstrate that the majority of respondents tend to perceive that places associated with
state power, multi-ethnicity, or economic globalization represent
Taiwan while places associated with locality and natural landscapes represent Taipei City only. Moreover, non-citizens may have
stronger opinions on what these places represent than those of
citizens.
Few studies have explored issues regarding selecting places for
building a destination image of a capital city where places may be
related to the nation, rather than just to the city itself. The present
research therefore enriches the relevant academic debates.
Furthermore, the approach and the results can be applicable for
destination managers in the context of capital city marketing or
branding. That is to say, it is necessary to consider the symbolic
meanings of places and the market segmentation at the very
beginning of choosing places for forming a destination image of a
capital city, as long as the aim is to highlight the identity of the city
rather than a nation. A relevant survey alongside analyses would
benet the efciency of decision-making and help construct a
monitoring framework for choosing suitable places.

References
Aiello, G., & Thurlow, C. (2006). Symbolic capitals: Visual discourse and intercultural exchange in the European Capital of Culture Scheme. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 6(2), 148162.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868897.
Boyer, M. C. (1996). The city of collective memory: Its historical imagery and
architectural entertainments. London: The MIT Press.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public spaces. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Destination image representation on
the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related website. Tourism Management, 28(1), 118129.
Council of Labor Affairs. Minimum wage adjustment. (2013). o http://www.cla.
gov.tw/cgi-bin/siteMaker/SM_theme?page=4e12daf9 4 Retrieved 10.06.13.
Day, J., Skidmore, S., & Koller, T. (2002). Image selection in destination positioning:
A new approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 177186.
Dwivedi, M. (2009). Online destination image of India: A consumer based
perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
21(2), 226232.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of
destination image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 3748.
Edensor, T. (2002). National identity, popular culture and everyday life. Oxford: Berg.

17

Frsich, E., & Robins, M. B. (2004). Visiting Africa: Constructions of nation and
identity on travel websites. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 39(12),
133152.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garca, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a
conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 5678.
Goodrich, J. N. (1978). A new approach to image analysis through multidimensional
scaling. Journal of Travel Research, 16(3), 37.
Gospodini, A. (2004). Urban morphology and place identity in European cities: Built
heritage and innovative design. Journal of Urban Design, 9(2), 225248.
Gnay, B. (2005). Skyframe (Gkkafes) in Istanbul: An ontological assessment.
Journal of Urban Design, 10(1), 111132.
Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationspace: Designing tourist regions. Washington D.C.: Taylor
and Francis/University of Texas.
Hall, P. (1998). Cities in civilization: Culture, innovation, and urban order. London:
Phoenix Giant.
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design
in the twentieth century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy city: Pleasure and prot in the postmodern metropolis.
London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1993). From space to place and back again: Reections on the condition
of postmodern. In: J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, & L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the
futures: Local cultures, global change (pp. 329). London: Routledge.
Hashim, N. H., Murphy, J., & Hashim, N. M. (2007). Islam and online imagery on
Malaysian tourist destination websites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 12(3), 10821102.
Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. London:
The MIT Press.
Hough, M. (1990). Out of place: Restoring identity to the regional landscape. London:
Yale University Press.
Huang, W. -J., & Lee, B. C. (2009). Capital city tourism: Online destination image of
Washington, DC. In: Proceedings of the paper presented at information and
communication technologies in tourism 2009 conference. Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
King, A. D. (1976). Colonial urban development: Culture, social power and environment. London: Routledge & Kegan Ltd.
Kolbe, L. (2007). Central and Eastern European capital cities: Interpreting wwwpages history, symbols and identity. Planning Perspectives, 22(1), 79111.
Liu, S. T. (2013). Settler urban legacies: A case study of Taipei City. Cities, 31,
239247.
Mackay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural
destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 417423.
McCarthy, J. (2004). Tourism-related waterfront development in historic cities:
Malta0 s Cottonera Project. International Planning Studies, 9(1), 4364.
McNeill, D., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2003). Architecture, banal nationalism and reterritorialization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3),
738743.
Mordue, T. (2007). Tourism, urban governance and public space. Leisure Studies,
26(4), 447462.
Olsen, D. J. (1986). The city as a work of art: London, Paris, Vienna. London: Yale
University Press.
Patil, V. (2011). Narrating political history about contested space: Tourism websites
of India0 s Northeast. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 9891008.
Peirce, S., & Ritchie, R. (2007). National capital branding: A comparative case study
of Canberra, Australia and Wellington, New Zealand. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 22(3/4), 6778.
Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2007). Different Jerusalems for different tourists:
Capital citiesthe management of multi-heritage site cities. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 22(3/4), 121138.
Puczko, L., Ratz, T., & Smith, M. (2007). Old city, new image: Perception, positioning
and promotion of Budapest. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(3/4),
2134.
Rtz, T., Smith, M., & Michalk, G. (2008). New places in old spaces: Mapping
tourism and regeneration in Budapest. Tourism Geographies, 10(4), 429451.
Schroeder, T. (1996). The relationship of residents0 image of their state as a tourist
destination and their support for tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4),
7173.
Silk, M. L. (2007). Come downtown & play. Leisure Studies, 26(3), 253277.
Sklair, L. (2006). Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City, 10(1), 2147.
Smith, A. (2007). Monumentality in capital cities and its implications for tourism
marketing: The case of Barcelona. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(3/4),
7993.
Stepchenkova, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2006). The destination image of Russia: From
the online induced perspective. Tourism Management, 27(5), 943956.
Sternquist Witter, B. (1985). Attitudes about a resort area: A comparison of tourists
and local retailers. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1), 1419.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional
relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413425.
Tay, W. S. (1995). Ideology, identity, and architecture: Modernism, postmodernism,
and antiquarianism in Taiwan. The Humanities Bulletin, 4, 8596.
Tinniswood, A. (1998). Vision of power: Ambition and architecture from ancient Rome
to modern Paris. London: Reed Consumer Books Limited.
Tunbridge, J. E. (1998). Tourism management in Ottawa, Canada: Nurturing in a
fragile environment. In: D. Tyler, Y. Guerrier, & M. Robertson (Eds.), Managing
tourism in cities: Policy, process and practice (pp. 91108). London: Wiley.