Figure its image. The most interesting aspect of
Figure X the comparison between the destination identity and the destination images of Slovenia in Natural landscape and Cultural landscape perspective
The figure X above uses the quantitative data to compare between the destination identity and the destination images in order to gain a better understanding of the difference in each category. As can be seen from the figure X, overall natural landscape projected by STB and the destination image of Slovenia has aligned to one another.
Figure Y the comparison between the destination identity and the destination images of Slovenia in Physical features and hydrology perspective
However, figure Y above has shown the significant difference between the destination identity and the destination image of Slovenia in the “water” element where “Lake Bled”, “Lake Bohinj” and the “River” are main characters to capture the attraction of tourists. Whereas location, landscape and smallness of the country were emphasized by STB, all sampling videos were ignored to mention these facts which lead us to make an assumption that the main purpose of the videos was rather sharing the travel experience in Slovenia than promoting the destination.
Figure A the comparison between the destination identity and the destination images of Slovenia in Human settlement perspective
According to figure A, the cultural landscape has held the major role in both the destination identity and the destination image of Slovenia and these planned comparisons has revealed how the destination identity is not in line with its image. The most interesting aspect of this figure A is whereas, STB has focused to communicate in term of “intangible” elements more than tangible objects, sampling videos in this research are more highlighted on “tangible” elements and the “Feeling” toward them. Even “intangible” elements defined by STB might make the destination identity of Slovenia align with their logo as “I feel Slovenia”, The further investigation in this aspect is recommended to be done as if “intangible” elements presented by DMOs is effective and have been well presented by other stakeholders in Slovenia tourism. “Intangible” elements would as well be problematic for STB, given that various tourists can experience and result in the destination image incongruity or conflicts between different stakeholder in presenting “Intangible” elements which is unlikely to maintain and measure.
Figure Z the comparison between the destination identity and the destination images of Slovenia in Landscape interaction
As shown in figure z above, it is clear that the major aspects that are not consistent in the perceived image and projected image are “sustainability” element which was emphasized by STB though both resources used on this research, however, tourists’ perspective have not noticed any sustainable practices during their travel. Furthermore, there is a significant difference in “Cuisine”, “Wine”, and “Beer” where these elements have attached a lot of attention from the tourists’ perspective but have not been mentioned enough by STB, as the graph has shown the big incongruence between the projected and perceived destination image in these elements.
The results in this chapter have indicated the destination image and the destination identity of Slovenia and the gap between them. The next section, therefore, moves on to discuss the suggestion for STB in term of the strategic communication to minimize the incongruent between the destination image and the destination identity of Slovenia.