*Tourism*


#### **Table 8.**

*Model fit-absolute fit indices.*


destination image, the study found that ancillary services were more significant than accessibility. This was because ancillary services had a bigger influence on affective image than accessibility. Also, price did not significantly influence tourism performance. Amenities tended to influence tourism performance much more than price. This tended to contradict general perceptions among tourism and hospitality stakeholders. This also contradicted conventional wisdom. Price, amenities and ancillary services had a notable influence on affective image while price did not significantly impact tourism performance**.** This suggested that the conceptual framework was logical and did not deviate much from what the proposed destination image recovery model revealed. In summary, the conceptual framework was supported by the model with regards to the significant influence of ancillary services on affective image and the significant influence of ancillary services on performance. Affective image is

**Model HOELTER**

*Development of a Destination Image Recovery Model for Enhancing the Performance…*

Default model Independence model 397

**0,05 0,01**

404 245 248

The conclusions of the study were derived from the study findings. In terms of

The second research objective covered determinants of DI and performance of the tourism sector in Zimbabwe. The most important factor which influenced image and performance of the tourism sector was the price charged by lodging facilities. It was followed by overall quality of the destination and the value tourists attached to Zimbabwe as a vacation destination. Immigration infrastructure and facilities for young children were rated highly. The ZTA and the Tourism Business Council of Zimbabwe (TBCZ), representing the government and the private organizations respectively in tourism and hospitality, were well positioned to influence DI

the research objective to do with the Current situation with regards to DI and performance of the tourism sector in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe was mainly visited by tourists traveling for purposes of visiting friends and relatives (VFR). Most of the tourists traveled alone and some in groups followed by those who traveled as couples. The VFR market is known to stay in private homesteads, avoiding hotel accommodation. Africa and Europe contributed most of the tourists who visited Zimbabwe and these were mostly educated males, highly educated with an annual income of at least US\$50000 per annum. However, they spent very little in the destination (at most US\$1000). This was not surprising given that the destination mainly hosted the VFR market. The national airline lacked capacity to adequately fly tourists into the country and to various tourist destinations in Zimbabwe. Thus

known in literature to be a significant factor in image formation [64].

**5. Conclusions and implications**

*Source: Data Survey (2018). Minimization: 0.703. Miscellaneous: 3.219. Bootstrap: 0.000. Total: 3.922.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93854*

**Table 12.** *Sampling adequacy.*

**123**

the destination's accessibility was compromised.

#### **Table 9.**

*Relative fit indices.*


#### **Table 10.**

*Parsimony-adjusted measures.*

Lastly, with respect the RMSEA statistic, this was found to be 0.052. Because the observed statistic was less than the expected maximum of 0.08, if follows, therefore, the model was valid. **Table 11** depicts the RMSEA statistic.

To test for the sampling adequacy for the model, the researcher considered the use of the Hoelter's statistics as prescribed by [99]*,* Barrett (2007) and [100]. **Table 12** shows sampling adequacy. [89, 100] argue that a critical N of 200 or higher indicates a satisfactory fit. From the results above, both the independence model and the default model had Ns greater than 200, and thus confirming the adequacy of the samples used for this study. Overall, the above tests confirmed the validity of the model as well as the model results. **Table 12** shows sampling adequacy.

The conceptual framework suggested the relationships between four components of the cognitive image, namely price, amenities, accessibility and ancillary services and affective image and destination performance. In order to improve


#### **Table 11.** *RMSEA.*

*Development of a Destination Image Recovery Model for Enhancing the Performance… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93854*


*Minimization: 0.703. Miscellaneous: 3.219. Bootstrap: 0.000. Total: 3.922.*

#### **Table 12.** *Sampling adequacy.*

destination image, the study found that ancillary services were more significant than accessibility. This was because ancillary services had a bigger influence on affective image than accessibility. Also, price did not significantly influence tourism performance. Amenities tended to influence tourism performance much more than price. This tended to contradict general perceptions among tourism and hospitality stakeholders. This also contradicted conventional wisdom. Price, amenities and ancillary services had a notable influence on affective image while price did not significantly impact tourism performance**.** This suggested that the conceptual framework was logical and did not deviate much from what the proposed destination image recovery model revealed. In summary, the conceptual framework was supported by the model with regards to the significant influence of ancillary services on affective image and the significant influence of ancillary services on performance. Affective image is known in literature to be a significant factor in image formation [64].
