Attributes of the destination image of Vietnam for international tourists

Destination image plays an important role in tourism marketing. It not only influences travellers' satisfaction but also has a strong impact on their buying behaviour and decision-making (Chon, 1990). Destination image refers to the ideas, feelings, impressions, attitudes and images tourists have about a certain place. Another way of saying that is that “destination image” describes tourists' perceptions; it is the pictures that come to mind when tourists think of a place (Hunt, 1975). Hence, the image visitors have of a destination is principally subjective because it is based on the perception each tourist has of where they have been or what they have heard about it. Each destination has its own image, but some can have a stronger image than others, which is an important factor in creating demand. The concept of destination image has become a strategic weapon and competitive advantage in tourism marketing. Thereby, the marketer has to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the destination image of a particular location, as it is important to influence tourists' travel motivation and decision-making processes (O'Leary & Deegan, 2003).

Attributes of destination image refer to positive or negative characteristics of a particular destination on the basis of which tourists select, evaluate and identify the level of their satisfaction. The perception of destination image through attributes can influence tourists' destination choice (Hunt, 1975). It also plays an important role in the formation of tourists' satisfaction (Buhalis, 2000). Interestingly, due to the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of the destination image (Kotler & Gertner, 2002), researchers should also analyse the composite image in the context of a specific place and a specific period of time. The study of destination image attributes is essential to tourism research and development in Vietnam, as it provides insights into the key factors that shape tourists' perceptions and attitudes towards Vietnam as a tourism destination. Understanding these attributes enables researchers and destination management organizations (DMOs) to identify the unique characteristics and features of Vietnam that appeal to tourists and promote them effectively. By leveraging the insights generated from studying these attributes, DMOs can create more tailored and targeted approaches to tourism development that better meet the needs and desires of tourists while also promoting the sustainability of Vietnam.

Vietnam as a destination has diverse tourism resources, including many natural attractions, world heritages, ethnic groups, rich cultures and ways of life and shopping, all of which are good conditions for developing many types of tourism throughout the year (Henderson, 2000). These attributes of the destination image of Vietnam are considered advantages of Vietnam for exploiting its tourism potential, developing tourism attractions and promoting higher demand in both domestic and international tourism. In an effort to rebuild Vietnam's tourism after the pandemic, Vietnam became the first Southeast Asian country to fully open to international tourists without any restrictions. Nonetheless, Vietnam failed to attract a large number of international tourists, and the number of international visitors has plunged. This has put enormous pressure on the tourism sector, and travel agencies and tourism organizations are being called to take drastic action to revive international tourism once again. In the international tourism segment, Vietnam welcomed only 3.5 million tourists, making up just 70% of the target of five million tourists set at the beginning of the year, and much lower than the number of 18 million visitors in 2019 (VNAT, 2002). As a result, Vietnam must boost its image for international tourists. In practice, DMOs around the world put effort into promoting attributes such as beautiful beaches, mountains and scenery in order to develop a positive destination image in the mind of tourists. As a result, those functional attributes are no longer helpful in highlighting Vietnam's uniqueness as a destination as tourists can find them in many other places. To stand out, Vietnam needs to shift its branding strategy to promote unique functional and psychological attributes of the destination, as suggested by recent literature.

In fact, the attributes of the destination image of Vietnam is considered as an urgent issue to study. However, there has been little research on attributes of the destination image of Vietnam recently. Therefore, this study is one of the most recent ones that tries to describe and analyse the previous works to provide an overview of attributes of the destination image of Vietnam. It serves as a foundation for future empirical investigations and as a guide for DMOs in developing and promoting Vietnam's destination image with its unique attributes which helps it stand out from other destinations.

The purpose of this research is to synthesize specific attributes of the destination image of Vietnam as perceived by international tourists by reviewing previous works from 2008 to 2022. This paper aims to address the following research questions (adopted from Echtner & Ritchie, 1993): What images or characteristics come to international tourists' mind when they think of Vietnam as a tourist destination? How would tourists describe the atmosphere or mood that they expect while visiting Vietnam?

The theoretical framework of the study is based on three main axes of destination image: (1) functional – psychological attributes, (2) attributes – holistic imagery and (3) common – unique attributes, adapted from Echtner and Ritchie (1993) and described further in the text (Figure 1).

Theoretically, this framework is used not only as a descriptive sorting device for Vietnam, but as an integrative lens for destination-image research. The functional–psychological axis clarifies the cognitive-affective architecture of image formation, showing how tangible beliefs about attractions, infrastructure, price and service quality interact with affective evaluations such as excitement, relaxation and perceived hospitality (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004). The attributes–holistic axis contributes to conceptual and measurement debates by recognising that destination image is produced both through discrete evaluative attributes and through an overall gestalt impression of place (Gallarza, Saura, & Calderón García, 2002; Tasci & Gartner, 2007). The common–unique axis extends the framework to destination branding and competitive positioning, because destinations compete not only through generic resources but also through distinctive associations that make a place recognisable and difficult to substitute (Pike & Ryan, 2004). By synthesising positive and negative image attributes, the study also speaks to tourist behaviour research, particularly the links among image, satisfaction, revisit intention and recommendation (Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020).

Recent 2024–2026 scholarship further updates this framework in three important ways. Lv, Zhang, and Li (2024) move beyond conventional attribute-based image positioning by showing how sensory preference can differentiate destinations with otherwise similar perceived images. Tan et al. (2025) extend destination-image formation into multimodal projected image, demonstrating how coordinated visual, auditory and textual cues in short-form tourism videos shape user engagement. Yang and Pesonen (2026) refine the cognitive–affective–conative logic by separating destination image from behavioural intentions and observable action, thereby reducing conceptual circularity and strengthening causal clarity in image–behaviour research.

A systematic review was adopted in this study to collect articles related to attributes of the destination image of Vietnam perceived by international tourists that published from 2008 to 2022. More precisely, this study used a structured literature review guided by systematic-review principles rather than a purely narrative review. The review was designed to make the identification, screening and synthesis of Vietnam destination-image studies transparent, traceable and conceptually defensible (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003; Snyder, 2019; Page et al., 2021).

In the first stage, data were collected from Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), one of the largest and most popular online databases and search engines for scholarly research. Connected Paper (connectedpapers.com) was also used to define the linkages among these research articles. To ensure that the reviewed articles were relevant and within the scope of this study, “attributes,” “perceived destination image”, “Vietnam” and “international tourists” were used as keywords during the data search. Forty-one articles were sorted out by the system from the online database.

The rigorous review consisted of three sequential screening steps. First, titles and abstracts were screened to remove records that mentioned Vietnam tourism only generally but did not examine destination image, perceived image, tourist perception or image-related attributes. Second, full texts were assessed against explicit inclusion criteria: studies had to focus on Vietnam or a Vietnam sub-destination; examine international tourists, foreign visitors or externally formed perceptions of Vietnam and report identifiable destination-image attributes, descriptors or evaluative dimensions that could be extracted for synthesis. Third, each retained paper was checked for whether its findings could be mapped onto the conceptual dimensions of destination image, particularly functional versus psychological attributes, attribute-based versus holistic impressions, common versus unique attributes and positive versus negative image associations.

Papers were excluded when their main focus was domestic tourism only, general tourism motivation, destination choice, satisfaction, loyalty, revisit intention, tourism policy, destination competitiveness or promotional strategy without extractable evidence on Vietnam destination-image attributes. This criterion was important because destination image is a multi-dimensional construct whose cognitive, affective and overall components may influence tourist behaviour differently; therefore, only papers that provided extractable attribute-level evidence were suitable for synthesis (Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020).

A total of 12 articles were finally selected for analysis. The decision to retain 12 articles was therefore not based only on availability, but on conceptual fit: each selected article had to contribute empirical or review-based evidence about how Vietnam's destination image was perceived, described or evaluated through specific attributes. To strengthen temporal relevance, two recent Vietnam-focused studies published after the review window were also consulted as a contextual sensitivity check rather than as part of the 2008–2022 core corpus. Luong's (2024) study on eco-destination image in Da Lat and Vo-Thanh et al.’s (2026) study on projected versus organic image congruence in Vietnam confirm that recent destination-image research continues to emphasise attribute-level perceptions, image congruence, place-specific associations and behavioural implications. If the authors decide to update the formal review period to 2026, these studies should be added to the main corpus; otherwise, they should be used only to justify the contemporary relevance of the review.

The data analysis was carried out as follows: First, the findings of attributes from selected publications were presented in Table 1. Then, results were compared and evaluated to find out the similarities and differences among these attributes. These attributes were analysed by content and then synthesized by theme based on the concept of components of the destination image from Echtner and Ritchie (1993) to identify answers to the two research questions.

Specifically, a data-extraction matrix was developed for each eligible article. The matrix recorded: author and year; source market or tourist group; Vietnam destination or sub-destination examined; research method and data source; explicit destination-image attributes; positive or negative valence and the corresponding destination-image component. Attribute terms with similar meanings were grouped only after comparing their original wording and empirical context. For example, “delicious cuisine,” “local food” and “fresh food” were grouped as food/cuisine-related functional attributes, while “friendly people,” “hospitality” and “welcoming locals” were grouped as psychological/social attributes. This procedure helped avoid treating every tourism-related factor as a destination-image attribute and strengthened the construct validity of the synthesis.

The final synthesis therefore moved from article-level evidence to attribute-level coding and then to theme-level classification. This made the review rigorous in three ways: it clarified which papers were eligible, explained why some papers were excluded and showed how diverse attribute descriptions were converted into a coherent taxonomy of Vietnam's destination image.

Figure 2 below illustrates the research procedure:

To move from a descriptive review of individual studies to a more analytical synthesis, this section first presents Table 1. Streamlined evidence matrix of reviewed studies on Vietnam's destination image, which connects shortened attribute evidence from prior Vietnam destination-image research with key analytical and managerial signals for destination image management.

Across the reviewed studies, Vietnam's destination image is not simply a list of positive and negative attributes. It is better understood as a set of image patterns that destination image managers must actively manage: generic functional appeal, distinctive psychological meaning, market-specific expectations and negative conversion barriers. Table 2 summarises the attributes and managerial implications of Vietnam's destination image.

First, Vietnam has a strong base of functional-common attributes, especially cuisine, culture, natural landscapes, beaches, heritage, affordability, climate, shopping and entertainment. These attributes are valuable because they make Vietnam attractive at the consideration stage; however, they are not sufficiently distinctive because tourists can also find beaches, scenery, food and cultural heritage in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia/Bali and Cambodia. The managerial challenge is therefore to avoid promoting Vietnam only as another beautiful and affordable Asian destination.

Second, Vietnam's stronger differentiating potential lies in psychological and hybrid image associations: hospitable people, interesting local ways of life, energetic urban streets, peaceful landscapes, relaxing atmospheres, memories, colonial charm, freshness and a sense of discovery. These attributes help turn functional assets into a recognisable destination personality. For destination image managers, this means that communication should connect tangible attractions with emotional storylines, for example “vibrant streets and gentle hospitality”, “living heritage and everyday local life” or “culinary abundance with human warmth”.

Third, the negative attributes identified in the literature should be interpreted as conversion barriers rather than minor weaknesses. Traffic disorder, poor cleanliness and hygiene, environmental problems, weak infrastructure, language barriers, inconsistent service quality and feelings of insecurity may not erase Vietnam's appeal, but they can interrupt the movement from awareness to intention, from intention to visit and from visit to recommendation. These attributes are therefore brand-risk indicators that should be monitored and improved by national and local DMOs.

Fourth, the findings show that source markets do not evaluate Vietnam through the same image lens. Chinese tourists are sensitive to language support, signage and service efficiency; Japanese tourists require stronger reassurance about safety, cleanliness and service quality; European and Finnish tourists respond to scenery, local life, culture, food and atmosphere; ASEAN visitors may recognise Vietnam's culture, cuisine and friendliness but still compare the country's infrastructure and cleanliness with nearby destinations. This makes market-specific image management more appropriate than a single generic national campaign.

The findings are especially important because Vietnam competes in a crowded ASEAN tourism space where several destinations offer overlapping promises of beaches, food, culture, heritage, affordability and tropical experiences. Recent industry data reinforce the competitive pressure: Vietnam welcomed nearly 21.17 million international visitors in 2025, while Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore continue to position themselves aggressively through high-value tourism, major events, cultural soft power, cruise and lifestyle experiences and the Visit Malaysia 2026 campaign (ASEANstats, 2026; Singapore Tourism Board, 2026; Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2025; Tourism Malaysia, 2025; Vietnam News, 2026).

This means that Vietnam does not compete with one destination only. It competes with Thailand and Indonesia/Bali for beach, island, wellness and tropical leisure images; with Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia for cultural heritage and regional circuit tourism; with Singapore, Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur for urban convenience, events, shopping and food-led short breaks and with Malaysia, Indonesia and Laos for nature, eco-tourism and soft-adventure experiences. This competitive context matters because many of Vietnam's positive attributes, such as beautiful beaches, natural scenery, culture and good food, are high-value but also substitutable. Without clearer differentiation, Vietnam may be remembered as attractive but not necessarily as the first-choice or must-return destination.

The distinctive opportunity for Vietnam is therefore to manage destination image as a layered competitive proposition: iconic landscapes and heritage provide recognition; cuisine and everyday local life provide sensory memorability; hospitality and peacefulness provide emotional attachment and improved cleanliness, safety, infrastructure and language support protect trust. In practical terms, Vietnam's competitive message should move from “Vietnam has beautiful scenery and rich culture” to a sharper proposition such as “Vietnam offers living heritage, generous cuisine, human warmth and contrasting rhythms of vibrant cities and peaceful landscapes”.

The first managerial implication is that destination image managers should move from asset promotion to image-portfolio management. Each attribute should be classified according to whether it is common or unique, functional or psychological, positive or negative and whether it matters more for awareness, choice, satisfaction, revisit intention or recommendation. This would help DMOs decide which attributes to promote, which attributes to improve and which attributes to monitor as image risks.

The second implication is that Vietnam's image strategy should be segmented by source market. For Chinese-speaking markets, language support, signage, payment convenience, tour-guide quality and transport efficiency should be treated as image-building priorities. For Japanese and some long-haul markets, safety, hygiene, service consistency and environmental quality need stronger reassurance. For European, Australian and emerging Indian markets, Vietnam can emphasise local life, cuisine, heritage, nature, sustainability and emotionally rich experiences. For nearby ASEAN markets, short-break convenience, food, shopping, culture and value-for-money should be combined with visible improvements in service quality and cleanliness.

The third implication is that DMOs should manage the gap between projected image and organic image. Official campaigns can project beautiful landscapes and cultural richness, but tourists' reviews, short-form videos, blogs and post-trip reports often reveal whether visitors actually experience cleanliness, safety, friendliness, accessibility and service quality. Image managers should therefore use user-generated content and market-specific feedback as early-warning data for destination-brand performance.

The fourth implication is that negative attributes should become measurable destination-management indicators. Traffic disorder, pollution, overcharging, weak heritage preservation, language barriers and inconsistent service quality should be tracked not only as operational problems but also as reputational risks. Improving these areas would increase the credibility of Vietnam's positive image and strengthen the link between destination image, satisfaction, revisit intention and word-of-mouth recommendation.

Overall, the impact of this study is that it gives Vietnam's destination image managers a structured evidence base for making strategic choices. Rather than promoting all attributes equally, DMOs can prioritise the attributes that differentiate Vietnam, repair the attributes that damage trust and align communication with the expectations of specific international markets. This makes the review useful not only as an academic synthesis of destination-image attributes, but also as a practical tool for competitive positioning, brand monitoring and post-pandemic tourism recovery.

Practically, the findings suggest that Vietnam's DMOs should manage destination image as a portfolio of attributes, prioritising distinctive psychological associations such as hospitality, peacefulness and living local culture while repairing negative attributes such as cleanliness, traffic disorder, service inconsistency and language barriers. For further research, future studies should test how these positive and negative attributes influence satisfaction, revisit intention and recommendation across major source markets and across competing ASEAN destinations.

These implications follow directly from the findings because the review shows that Vietnam's most memorable image combines common functional assets with distinctive affective meanings, while its weakest image elements operate as barriers to trust and behavioural intention. They are also consistent with the conclusion that destination-image management cannot rely only on promoting beaches, cuisine and heritage, but must also improve the experiential conditions that allow these attributes to become satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth.

In this sense, the discussion extends the Abstract's claim about six groups of destination-image attributes by showing how those groups can guide practical decisions on positioning, service improvement and market-specific communication. The paper's contribution is therefore not only to list 39 attributes of Vietnam's destination image, but to translate them into an evidence-based framework for competitive destination branding and post-visit image management.

The main conclusion of this paper is that Vietnam's destination image is attractive but uneven: it is strengthened by cuisine, culture, landscapes, hospitality and emotional atmosphere, yet weakened by cleanliness, traffic, infrastructure, service quality and communication problems. By identifying which images and atmospheres come to tourists' minds when they think of Vietnam, the results directly answer the Introduction's core questions about Vietnam's perceived characteristics and expected mood as an international tourism destination. The findings support prior destination-image research that image is formed through both cognitive and affective components, but they extend this work by showing that Vietnam's competitiveness depends on converting generic functional attributes into distinctive psychological and experiential meanings.

However, because the review is limited to selected studies from 2008 to 2022 and does not test tourists' current perceptions empirically, it cannot fully explain how Vietnam's image has changed after reopening, digital-platform visibility and intensified ASEAN competition. Extensions of this paper using longitudinal data, social-media analytics and market-specific surveys would help answer the larger question of how Vietnam can convert destination image into stronger positioning, satisfaction, revisit intention and recommendation.