**1. Introduction**

Common assets of rural destinations such as heritage, culture, food and landscape; inadvertently means there is a lack of distinct differentiation among rural tourism destinations [1], making it a challenge to identify or develop a sense of destination image, identity and awareness for rural destinations [1]. In addition, rural tourism destinations are limited in their drawing power and "individual rural destinations are often too small to form a critical mass required of a primary destination" ([2], p. 838). As a consequence, smaller destinations specifically those that are rural lack resources and capability to promote and market their destinations competitively. To overcome these limitations, the concept of relationship-based approach is indispensable to source for the much needed resources to embark on a destination branding process. In this circumstance, one of the ways rural destinations can address these limitations is to brand and initiate marketing efforts. More recent studies have recognised the important role of destination branding in rural tourism destinations [1]; and sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural

tourism destinations [3]. Likewise, more emphasis has been focused on how branding can be used to promote rural destinations [4].

**Framework (Citations)**

[19]

Cai [2]

Laws [21]

Destination competitiveness, Ritchie & Crouch [11]

Anholt [23]

City image communication, Kavaratzis [25]

Brand equity, Aaker

Destination branding,

Destination branding,

Destination branding model, Kaplanidou &Vogt [22]

Nation brand hexagon,

Relational network brand, Hankinson [24]

de Chernatony's The Brand, Caldwell & Freire [26]

Destination branding model, Risitano [27]

7As Destination branding model, Baker

City brand model, Gaggiotti et al. [29]

The conceptual model of destination branding

Destination branding model [31]

A model of destination branding [32]

Strategic place branding model [33]

[28]

[30]

**279**

CAGE model, Ghemawat [20] **Strengths Weaknesses**

Destination brand image formation Focus on nation branding building of

a country

broad.

branding

Framework

model

rural destination

destination image

practitioners

Not suitable for rural destination

Complex model and the focus is not on a single rural destination

Provides relatively generic steps

It fails to describe the different appeals that are peculiar to each tourism destination. The model is too

The model is targeted at nation

Not specific on destination brand building process for any given destination (e.g. city, nation or rural

Focus on city image and not rural branding destination framework

Model developed for physical products and not tourism place

The focus is only on the stages involved in building destination brand in general terms

The framework was developed and applied to Kazakhstan cities

Tourist-centred in destination brand

These two stages are inadequate to develop a branding framework for

Focus is on visitor's behaviours

Developed for place branding

Too generic and narrow to develop a rural tourism destination branding

tourism destination)

It focuses on brand identity tourists. These two components are not adequate to develop branding framework in rural destination

Diamond model [18] Destination competitive advantage Economic model for nations

Useful in nation branding and

*Developing a Rural Tourism Destination Brand Framework from the Perspective…*

Cooperative rural destination branding (multiple rural

Offers step-by-step process of destination branding planning

Tourism destination branding components are recognised: awareness, identity, image and the

tourist's point of view

roles of stakeholders

Promotion of tourism and components of destination branding

The model is focused on managing stakeholders relationship in order to build a favourable destination image

Perceptions and image through communication strategy

Relevant in destination brand identity, awareness and image

Identified two types of brand equity brand identity and brand knowledge

Extension of Law's (2002) model. It highlighted adoption and attitudes as

It explains component of place branding such as infrastructure and

Brand knowledge, brand trust and

Featured destination brand development and destination brand

Brand image and tourist future

Key components: stakeholder engagement, brand identity, WOM,

branding process

superstructure

maintenance

behaviours

brand experience

loyalty

Destination brand value from the

products

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93839*

destinations)

Despite the importance of branding, the literature on destination branding points to a lack of theory for developing a rural tourism destination brand, one that considers rural settings and community stakeholders. The role of stakeholders in rural destination brand development is an essential component of destination brand development [5, 6]. This is important because very few tourism studies have analysed the roles of stakeholders in destination brand development [7], and further research has been suggested [8]. It is important to focus on the elements of tourism destination appeal [or attractions or 'must sees' or must dos'] [9], p. 7, destination attributes [10]; core resources and attractors (Ritchie & Crouch [11]); and destination image [2, 12, 13]. It is important to identify the relevant theories for rural tourism destination brand development that support the achievement of the purpose of this paper. Therefore, this study is underpinned by two of the relationshipbased theories [stakeholder theory] ([14] p. 46; [15]), and relationship management theory [16, 17]. Notably, the main aim of this study is to develop a destination brand framework for rural tourism using the relationship-based approach – by asking the questions, "How should a rural destination brand best be developed?", and "What are the existing frameworks for supporting this development?" To address these questions, the next section on existing literature works is focused on destination branding framework, approaches in destination branding and underpinning theories.

## **2. Literature review**

#### **2.1 Existing destination branding framework**

Extant literature on place and destination branding found that there are different frameworks developed over the years for place and destination brand development. These frameworks as presented in **Table 1** were developed by scholars, but also place/destination branding management experts, consultants, and United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO).

#### **3. Approaches in destination branding**

There are different approaches that researchers and practitioners on nation, place and tourism destination branding have adopted in previous studies. These approaches, strengths and weaknesses are presented in **Table 2**.

Based on the analysis of destination brand approaches in **Table 2**, it should be noted that most of the existing approaches and studies were conducted in cities, countries and regions with the exception of Cai [2], and Wheeler et al. [44]'s studies which were carried out in rural destinations.

#### **4. Relationship-based approach (RBA) and stakeholder theory**

The concept of relationship management, otherwise known as relationship marketing, is an approach that is used in the marketing field [50–54]. The purpose of employing relationship marketing is to develop customers' loyalty to the organisation's products and services. The relationship-based approach is rooted in both

*Developing a Rural Tourism Destination Brand Framework from the Perspective… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93839*


tourism destinations [3]. Likewise, more emphasis has been focused on how brand-

Despite the importance of branding, the literature on destination branding points to a lack of theory for developing a rural tourism destination brand, one that considers rural settings and community stakeholders. The role of stakeholders in rural destination brand development is an essential component of destination brand development [5, 6]. This is important because very few tourism studies have analysed the roles of stakeholders in destination brand development [7], and further research has been suggested [8]. It is important to focus on the elements of tourism destination appeal [or attractions or 'must sees' or must dos'] [9], p. 7, destination attributes [10]; core resources and attractors (Ritchie & Crouch [11]); and destination image [2, 12, 13]. It is important to identify the relevant theories for rural tourism destination brand development that support the achievement of the purpose of this paper. Therefore, this study is underpinned by two of the relationshipbased theories [stakeholder theory] ([14] p. 46; [15]), and relationship management theory [16, 17]. Notably, the main aim of this study is to develop a destination brand framework for rural tourism using the relationship-based approach – by asking the questions, "How should a rural destination brand best be developed?", and "What are the existing frameworks for supporting this development?" To address these questions, the next section on existing literature works is focused on destination branding framework, approaches in destination branding and

Extant literature on place and destination branding found that there are different frameworks developed over the years for place and destination brand development. These frameworks as presented in **Table 1** were developed by scholars, but also place/destination branding management experts, consultants, and United

There are different approaches that researchers and practitioners on nation, place and tourism destination branding have adopted in previous studies. These

Based on the analysis of destination brand approaches in **Table 2**, it should be noted that most of the existing approaches and studies were conducted in cities, countries and regions with the exception of Cai [2], and Wheeler et al. [44]'s studies

The concept of relationship management, otherwise known as relationship marketing, is an approach that is used in the marketing field [50–54]. The purpose of employing relationship marketing is to develop customers' loyalty to the organisation's products and services. The relationship-based approach is rooted in both

approaches, strengths and weaknesses are presented in **Table 2**.

**4. Relationship-based approach (RBA) and stakeholder theory**

ing can be used to promote rural destinations [4].

underpinning theories.

*Tourism*

**2. Literature review**

**278**

**2.1 Existing destination branding framework**

Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO).

**3. Approaches in destination branding**

which were carried out in rural destinations.


#### **Table 1.**

*Summary of strengths and weaknesses of existing framework (model).*

relationship-based theories [55] and relationship management theory [16, 17]. Relationship-based approach is concerned with trust and commitment in terms of mutual benefits to be derived by participating parties (stakeholders and nonstakeholders) involved in relationship building in a tourism destination [45]. Aitken and Campelo [56] suggest that relationship forms one of the major components of place branding, and they suggest that relationship building has been a challenge for branding a destination. The use of relationship-based approach to study how a destination brand framework for rural tourism is developed is crucial because the process involved in developing a destination brand is very complex [57, 58]. There is a dearth of theoretical and empirical studies featuring the relationship building process in the literature in connection with developing a destination brand framework [45, 53, 59], and specifically in rural tourism. Notably, tourist expectations and tastes have been a challenge to several destinations because of various opportunities that present itself to the visitor in terms of preference over other destinations or switching capacity of the tourist in terms of where to spend their holiday. This leads to stakeholder theory as one of the relationship-based theories supporting this study.

Stakeholder theory is regarded as one of the relationship-based theories [55]. A stakeholder is defined as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organisation's objectives" ([14] p. 46; [15]); and those groups who are vital to the survival of the organisation [60]. The stakeholder theory is important in rural tourism destination brand in order to identify the individuals or groups that are likely to affect or be affected by tourism related activities. The few studies that have applied the stakeholder theory in understanding the destination branding process have narrowed down the application of the stakeholder theory to specific aspects of destination branding. For example, Marzano [5], and; Marzano and Scott [6] have used the stakeholder theory to explore the power of stakeholders in destination branding. Quinlan [39] also adopted the stakeholder theory to study the branding of urban destinations. Other studies are complexity of tourism destination branding [61]; identity and salience [62].

set up to manage and promote the development of the rural destination brand of Leineperi and the 13 surrounding villages in southern Finland [63]. The responsibility of running the joint association was given to a hired employee who coordinates, collaborates and handles the information distribution. In addition, voluntary donations are made by the villages [63]. The involvement of different stakeholders could be traced to the expected mutual benefits that destination branding would bring to Leineperi and other villages. In addition, the existence of

**Strengths Weaknesses**

Nation image [36] Nation/Country image The focus is on governance

*Developing a Rural Tourism Destination Brand Framework from the Perspective…*

Image building not sufficient overlooked

It suggests destination branding success depends on the power of stakeholders

It considers mainly the use of power in DB

Focus only on visitors and overlooked CSFs

Target market is women between (20-40) years old in the Sapporo city in Japan

selected industry leaders – Iowa State in USA

Lacks consideration for destination branding

Emphasised satisfaction, experience and

Destination image – functional destination (tangible) and psychological features

The city of Rome was the case study. It focused on cultural assets only.

Focused on national park and not rural

improving relationship building but not Enough to develop destination brand

Focused on visitors' benefits

destination branding strategies

stakeholders' roles

process

Destination stakeholder Unity among stakeholders, overlooked

Public relations [42] Nation branding Tends to replace image with public relations Identity-centred [43] Evaluation of destination image Destination image from the viewpoints of

Destination identity Focused only on NTO in Finland

strategies

loyalty

(intangible)

destination.

Enhancing relationship quality Emphasised tourist loyalty through

stakeholder collaboration has been suggested as a means of rural tourism

**Approach (Citations)**

[37]

[5]

[39]

Stakeholder power

Stakeholder power

Stakeholder approach

Customer equitybased approach [40]

Innovation and network [41]

Identity-based Saraniemi, (2011)

Tourist behavioural centred experience

Destination image and destination personality [46]

Integrated approach

Destinations' loyalty Alves et al. [49].

*Source: Developed for this study.*

[45]

[47]

**Table 2.**

**281**

Destination Competitiveness Law and Lo [48]

Image building [2] Destination identity and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93839*

Customer-based [38] Customer-based brand equity (CBBE)

Values-based [44] Destination brand identity and values

destination image

Positional, reputational decision-making approaches

Effect of stakeholder power on destination branding (DB)

Brand strategy and customer relations management

The role of innovation and network approach

Destination loyalty and communication

Factors contributing to destination image

brand equity

perspective

*Existing destination brand approaches – Strengths and weaknesses.*

Five dimensions of destination

National park and tourist

In a rural destination context, recent studies indicate that the destination brand building process is a joint effort of different stakeholder groups which involved city authorities, residents, entrepreneurs, artists, craftsmen and community associations. For example, in Leineperi village Finland, a joint community association was

*Developing a Rural Tourism Destination Brand Framework from the Perspective… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93839*


**Table 2.**

relationship-based theories [55] and relationship management theory [16, 17]. Relationship-based approach is concerned with trust and commitment in terms of mutual benefits to be derived by participating parties (stakeholders and nonstakeholders) involved in relationship building in a tourism destination [45]. Aitken and Campelo [56] suggest that relationship forms one of the major components of place branding, and they suggest that relationship building has been a challenge for branding a destination. The use of relationship-based approach to study how a destination brand framework for rural tourism is developed is crucial because the process involved in developing a destination brand is very complex [57, 58]. There is a dearth of theoretical and empirical studies featuring the relationship building process in the literature in connection with developing a destination brand framework [45, 53, 59], and specifically in rural tourism. Notably, tourist expectations and tastes have been a challenge to several destinations because of various opportunities that present itself to the visitor in terms of preference over other destinations or switching capacity of the tourist in terms of where to spend their holiday. This leads to stakeholder theory as one of the relationship-based theories supporting

**Strengths Weaknesses**

Developed for place branding – country or nation branding, small city

Stakeholder collaboration within the Mournes, Northern Ireland

The focus is on the quest for tourist

branding

loyalty in Spain

Divided into three dimensions: destination management and marketing, destination brand identity, and destination brand

Success factors and critical

Sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural destinations

equity.

evaluation

*Summary of strengths and weaknesses of existing framework (model).*

Stakeholder theory is regarded as one of the relationship-based theories [55]. A stakeholder is defined as "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organisation's objectives" ([14] p. 46; [15]); and those groups who are vital to the survival of the organisation [60]. The stakeholder theory is important in rural tourism destination brand in order to identify the individuals or groups that are likely to affect or be affected by tourism related activities. The few studies that have applied the stakeholder theory in understanding the destination branding process have narrowed down the application of the stakeholder theory to specific aspects of destination branding. For example, Marzano [5], and; Marzano and Scott [6] have used the stakeholder theory to explore the power of stakeholders in destination branding. Quinlan [39] also adopted the stakeholder theory to study the branding of urban destinations. Other studies are complexity of tourism desti-

In a rural destination context, recent studies indicate that the destination brand building process is a joint effort of different stakeholder groups which involved city authorities, residents, entrepreneurs, artists, craftsmen and community associations. For example, in Leineperi village Finland, a joint community association was

nation branding [61]; identity and salience [62].

this study.

**280**

**Framework (Citations)**

*Tourism*

Stakeholder

et al. [35].

Sustainable competitiveness Campón-Cerro et al.

[3]

**Table 1.**

A framework of place branding [34]

collaboration McComb

*Source: Developed for this study.*

*Existing destination brand approaches – Strengths and weaknesses.*

set up to manage and promote the development of the rural destination brand of Leineperi and the 13 surrounding villages in southern Finland [63]. The responsibility of running the joint association was given to a hired employee who coordinates, collaborates and handles the information distribution. In addition, voluntary donations are made by the villages [63]. The involvement of different stakeholders could be traced to the expected mutual benefits that destination branding would bring to Leineperi and other villages. In addition, the existence of stakeholder collaboration has been suggested as a means of rural tourism

destination success within the Mournes, Northern Ireland [35]. Based on the different explanations from literature sources presented in this section, the methodology section reveals research approach, data collection methods and analytic techniques adopted in this study.

(c) what are the roles of tourism destination stakeholders in developing a destina-

*Developing a Rural Tourism Destination Brand Framework from the Perspective…*

The in-depth interviews were conducted in five different locations namely, Bario, Miri, Kuching, Shah Alam and Putra Jaya: Prime Minister's Department - Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) in Malaysia from April to September 2014. The in-depth interview sessions lasted an average of 60 minutes and were digitally recorded [71]. Transcription was undertaken immediately after the conclusion of the interview [72], so that the data collected from the participants would still be fresh in the researcher's mind [73]. In addition to the in-depth interviews, participant observation was carried out in Bario for a total of 30 days. As a result, 50 pages of field notes were generated as a narrative account to record all the events, places visited and activities in Bario. In order to enhance the validity and reliability of participant observation, this study adopted the seven steps suggested for participant observation by Cresswell [74], pp.134-135. This study also followed the recommendation of Tilstone [75] that the participant observation should address the context (i.e. date, time, length of observation, and activities or events) and content (i.e. stakeholders' involvement in local events) of the phenomenon being studied. In addition, documentary evidence such as brochures and printed materials in relation to Bario were also used to complement the data obtained from both in-depth interviews and participant observation. Scott [76]'s four criteria for assessing the quality of documentary evidence (authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning) were used as a guide to assure validity and reliability of the

Thematic analysis was adopted to analyse the data collected from the in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was deemed fit because it is a qualitative analytic method that involves identifying themes by systematically reading the data very carefully and then re-reading the data several times [77]. The themes emerged from the study's findings. This study also used the six stages of thematic analysis as recommended by Braun and Clarke [78] which sees the researcher: (1) familiarising with the data; (2) developing the initial codes (or open codes); (3) searching for the relevant themes; (4) reviewing themes that have emerged; (5) defining, labelling or naming the codes; and (6) producing a report of the findings. This analytic method specifically identified codes and themes that provide answers to the main questions. Finally, content analysis was used to analyse the field notes from the participant observation and documentary evidence as supplementary data to the in-depth

This section presents the findings based on the triangulation of data sources (indepth interviews, participant observation and documentary evidence) used in this study. The case study presents an in-depth investigation into Bario as a unique study context of a rural tourist destination in Malaysia. The main aim of this study is to develop a destination brand framework for rural tourism destinations using the relationship-based approach. The number of participants is presented in **Table 3** and the main findings from the research questions are presented in three sections. For the purpose of anonymity, participant code number (PCN) representing iden-

interviews. Content analysis is widely used in tourism research [79].

tion brand for rural tourism?

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93839*

collected materials.

**5.4 Data analysis**

**6. Findings and discussion**

**283**

tification of each of the participant were used.
