Immigrant attraction through place branding? Evidence of city-level effectiveness from Canada’s London

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Immigrant attraction through place branding? Evidence of city-level effectiveness from Canada’s London

T

Evan Cleavea,*, Godwin Arkub a b

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Place branding Immigration Economic development Policy effectiveness Effectiveness measurement Canada

To stabilize and grow their local economies, cities in Canada and other advanced economic regions have begun using place branding to attract high-skilled and well-educated immigrants. This is part of a larger trend where place branding is viewed as a necessary undertaking to respond to local issues. Despite the increased attention, there is considerable uncertainty over whether place branding is effective. To address this question, this research investigates place branding’s role in influencing immigrant place perception and decision-making on where to live. A seven-factor model was used to capture 739 evaluations of the City of London, Canada and five other cities in the Province of Ontario. Responses were analyzed with ANOVA contrast tests and multivariate regression to identify differences in place and brand perceptions between the five cities. Findings identified that immigrant views of the cities differed and influenced decision-making on where to live. Interestingly, perceptions about the economy and housing were the key drivers of the evaluation of cities, rather than traditional branding and promotional efforts. The implication is that cities need to be strategic in their branding efforts to ensure they promote the features of the city that are meaningful to the target audiences being pursued.

1. Introduction In recent years, cities in Canada and other advanced economies have begun prioritizing immigration as an integral part of local economic development efforts (Huang & Liu, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018; Strauss, 2012). To attract and retain immigrants, cities have begun implementing policies designed to explicitly position themselves in positive, welcoming, and favourable lights (see Filomeno, 2015; Harwood & Lee, 2015; Huang & Liu, 2018; McDaniel, 2018; PottieSherman, 2018). These efforts encompass a wide spectrum of policy efforts, from traditional place branding and marketing efforts (i.e. logos and slogans) to more extensive policy that (re)positions the city through economic opportunity, quality of life, as well as cultural and social inclusion (see Housel, Saxen, & Wahlrab, 2018). While efforts in the United States are relatively new and have accelerated in use since the 2008 fiscal crisis (McDaniel, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018), determining how to position a city to attract and retain immigrants has been a concern of local governments in both Canada and Europe for quite some time (Braun, Eshuis, & Klijn, 2014; Cleave, McCauley, & Arku, 2017; Sadler, Cleave, Arku, & Gilliland, 2016; Smart, 1997; Ward, 1998). Though research into the linkages between place branding, local economic development, and immigration is beginning to emerge ⁎

(Collett, 2014; McDaniel, 2018), few studies have explicitly examined the effectiveness of city branding efforts on immigration in a comprehensive way (Niedomysl, 2004, 2007 provides the rare case studies that have tried to quantify place branding’s influence). Instead, research has either emphasized the politics and policies related to branding for immigrants (i.e. Harwood & Lee, 2015; Huang & Liu, 2018; McDaniel, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018) or efforts to measure intra-regional talent and resident attraction (i.e. Braun et al., 2014; Insch & Sun, 2013; Jacobsen, 2009, 2012; Zenker, 2009; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013). The influence of branding in the attraction of inter-regional migrants remains underexplored. It is unclear what city branding approaches or dimensions effectively promote or position the city to immigrants as a place to live and work – despite its increasingly widespread usage as a local economic development approach. An underlying assumption of this research is that a more positively and prominently positioned city is more likely to attract attention and influence the decision-making of a target audience. The need to attract immigrants is an important one for cities in advanced economies, as they represent a source well-educated and highly-skilled talent that is needed to: augment local workforces and sustain growing knowledge economies and advanced manufacturing sectors (Lewis & Donald, 2010; Ley, 2003; Reitz, 2005); overcome the

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Cleave).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102502 Received 12 July 2018; Received in revised form 3 September 2019; Accepted 27 October 2019 0264-2751/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

endgame of the demographic transition and the resulting slow growth or population decline (Hall & Hall, 2008; Huang & Liu, 2018; Niedomysl, 2004); deal with ageing populations which put pressure on the tax-base and the shifting supply and demand of services that accompany such demographic changes (Andersson, 2001; Stockdale, 2004); strengthen the local tax-base due to the separate issue of downloading of government power and service provision responsibility (Arku, 2013; Pottie-Sherman, 2018); and overcome local shortcomings and inability to retain homegrown workers (Hansen, 2010; Salvanto & Ryan, 2014). While these issues are relevant to communities of all sizes and geographical contexts, they are particularly pressing for small and mid-sized cities in advanced economies who have been strained from changing population and economic realities. In light of this context – a greater focus on immigration within city government and economic development efforts to address local needs, increased awareness of the potential role of place branding in attracting immigrants in a competitive global economy, but limited evidence of branding effectiveness – this research seeks to evaluate the question: how does place branding influence immigrant place perceptions? And does this impact where they live? More specifically, this study examines the role of place branding and whether it is a contributing factor when determining where to live within a country after a decision has been made to immigrate to that country. Using the case of immigrants living in the City of London, Ontario a seven-factor model of place branding influence was tested through the analysis of 739 city evaluations to determine its impact on place image and perception of the city. Through ANOVA and multivariate regression models, the perceptions of the immigrant views on London and four key competing markets in the Province of Ontario, Canada (the Cities of Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton; and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo) were tested and contrasted to identify what place branding factors – if any – are most influential in shaping perceptions and evaluations of cities. Focusing on a population within a single city and contrasting it with key competing markets within the region allows for a critical examination of which place branding factors stand out in their role in influencing where they choose to live. In doing so, this paper extends previous research by employing an approach that allows for the identification of specific migration flows at the previously underexamined context of intra-regional decision-making for inter-regional immigrants and identify how place branding influences this migration. This research complements a growing body of interdisciplinary work focusing on immigrant attraction efforts at the local level, immigrant integration, and welcoming cities in the United States south and Rust Belt (Housel et al., 2018, Filomeno, 2015, 2017; Harwood & Lee, 2015; McDaniel, 2014, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018). This research provides perspective in a new geographic area – Canada – of which, to date, there is limited research on branding and immigration at the local level (see Bhuyan, Jeyapal, Ku, Sakamoto, & Chou, 2017; and Johnstone & Lee, 2014 for research into national-level branding efforts to attract immigrants). In addition to refocusing to a Canadian context, this research also provides an investigation of latter-stage decisionmaking within the immigration process, as well as contributes to place brand and local economic development literature by examining policy impact and effectiveness.

1993). While this theoretical framework has been relationships between new immigrants and attitudes of government and residents (McDaniel, 2014), it also can help explain the economic development policymaking that emphasizes immigrant attraction. Within the literature, there is considerable agreement that declining and aging populations, increasing poverty and unemployment, and low per capita household incomes are key conditions that facilitate the pursuit of economic development policies (Betz et al., 2012; Clingermayer & Feiock, 1990; Rubin & Rubin, 1987). Needs theories helps explain the position of all levels of government in Canada, as immigrant attraction is seen as a key cog for building human capital and economic capacity (see Bhuyan et al., 2017; Johnstone & Lee, 2014; Ley, 2003; Reitz, 2005; Smart, 1997). Indeed, Canada has historically relied on immigration to drive population growth, access needed workers, and support the economy, and this reliance has intensified in recent years. In fact, some have argued that Canadian immigration policy has by default become a national population policy (Ley & Hiebert, 2001). Nearly three-quarters of the population growth that occurred in Canada between 2011 and 2016 came from new immigrants who had permanently settled in Canada, and nearly all net labour force growth is accounted for by immigration. Nearly a quarter of Canada’s population is now comprised of immigrants and permanent residents (Statistics Canada, 2017). In 2016, the majority (62 %) of newcomers were born in Asia and the Middle East, however Africa is now the second largest region for migration (13 %) moving ahead of Europe (8 %; Statistics Canada, 2017). At the national level, Canadian immigration policy is framed primarily as a response to the changing global political-economy, prioritizing Canada’s need to maintain its standing in the global market and then to help create an economic advantage in order to increase its international competitiveness (Buzdugan & Halli, 2009). To this end, well-educated and high-skilled immigration is privileged, as it provides a cheaper and less resource intensive pathway to enhance Canada’s economic growth, by increasing the capacity of human capital (i.e. higher levels of worker education and experience) without having to educate the new arrivals (Abu-Laban & Gabriel, 2002; Buzdugan & Halli, 2009). Thus, Canadian immigration policy has been heavily tied to the needs of the Canadian labor market, with skilled workers giving priority over family class immigrants and refugees due to their high human capital and the economic independence (Citizenship & Immigration Canada, 2006). This preference is reflected in the composition of recent immigrant arrivals, with the majority (60 %) admitted under the economic category, while 27 % admitted through family re-unification, and 13 % admitted as refugee category. While international migration is often framed through an economic lens, intra-regional migration has been theorized to be also facilitated by softer factors (Gottlieb, 2003; Niedomysl, 2004; Walmsley, Epps, & Duncan, 1998). This suggest that lifestyle factors such as quality of place, culture, and natural environment may help immigrants determine their ultimate destination after the decision to migrate to a specific country has been made. While human capital is considered particularly important in the context of Canadian immigration at the national level, this perspective has also trickled down to local governments. For local governments, immigration is understood to be an important economic issue. This sentiment has manifested itself as a strategic economic development priority held by the majority of cities in Ontario (68 %), who cite immigration attraction and retention as a vital local priority. For instance, the City of London (2016) strategic economic development policy document identifies:

2. The need for immigrants – the Canadian context Within policy literature there have been several theoretical frameworks posited that help explain policy decisions of local government (Berry & Berry, 1990; Betz, Partridge, Kraybill, & Lobao, 2012; Huang & Liu, 2018) – and lend explanation to immigration policy at both local and national levels in Canada. The first is needs theory which holds that “local policies reflect the needs emanating from local challenges, be it demographic or economic changes” (Huang & Liu, 2018: 12). In this context, economic need becomes the primary driver of policy development and adoption (see Clingermayer & Feiock, 1990; Feiock & West,

Immigration has also taken on more significance to the economic expansion of London. With an aging population and low rates of natural population growth, more and more of the country’s cities and regions will need to rely on immigration as a way to sustain employment growth. 2

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

In Canada and other advanced economies, many small and midsized cities face stresses due to changes in patterns of population growth and distribution, increased primacy of large cities within regional contexts, and changing economic bases. Cities in closer spatial proximity to these large cities may become stressed satellite cities that are able to maintain some semblance of their population base, they act as feeder cities to major metropolises (Merrilees, Miller, & Herington, 2013). For cities further out, there has been a pattern of decline as the population – and more specifically the talent within the labour force – are bled away with workers and students relocating to major cities with their significant employment, social, cultural, and educational opportunities. This is particularly troublesome for small and midsized cities that have experienced the transition from traditional to the new economy and are no longer able to rely on unskilled labour or large-scale manufacturing as a source of employment. Instead, there is a need for well-educated and highly skilled individuals of which these cities are fighting over (Donald, Morrow, & Athanasiu, 2003; Florida, 2012).

attitude and action; secondary channels which include traditional branding efforts (i.e. logos and slogans), advertising, and other promotion; and tertiary channels which include word-of-mouth and how the city is presented in different forms of media. This diverse set of pathways in which a city can promote itself has several implications. First, place branding is not limited to traditional branding methods which only represent one form of communication, and instead are comprised of an amalgam of the urban environment. While cities are adopting formal place branding strategies, the broader economic and urban development strategies also shape how the city positions itself. Second, the positioning of the city can also be influenced by non-government sources, including media, word-of-mouth communication in the tertiary channel, as well as some primary channel sources such as social and urban design factors that local governments may have limited control over. Third, because of the importance of primary channels of communication, decisions about current and future urban policy inherently have place branding implications, even if it is not explicitly acknowledged or understood by cities, as it has implications on the components and topology of the network of associations at the core of place brands. The implication is that place branding can be both implicit and explicit, intentional and unintentional, and acknowledged or not – and within complex environments like cities all of these types of place branding can occur concurrently. Cities have relied on place branding to attract mobile economic resources, however, until recently there are few examples of this approach explicitly emphasizing the attraction of immigrants (i.e. McDaniel, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018). Instead, emphasis appears to be primarily on domestic talent (Hansen, 2010), entrepreneurs (Jacobsen, 2009; Zenker, Eggers et al., 2013), and the creative class (Lawton, Murphy, & Redmond, 2013; Zenker, 2009). Essentially, immigrants – who are typically highly-skilled and well-education overlap with these groups – are assumed to be attracted by the same branding efforts. The question is: what elements are important to immigrants and is it the same as domestic talent?

3. Place branding – a solution? This context helps situate a second key theoretical framework – economic imperatives theories – that postulate the main purpose of governments is to outcompete neighbouring markets to attract economic resources and development (Huang & Liu, 2018; Peterson, 1981). With increased global mobility, economic resources increasingly footloose. Previously, it was argued that cities needed to offer a mix of taxes and services that cater to the interests of these resources in order attract and retain them (Feiock & West, 1993; Peterson, 1981). Contemporary research, however, argues that beyond these functional, hard factors, place attractiveness and positioning through soft factors (i.e. image, history, culture, the ‘buzz’ or milieu of the city) may now be equally important in attracting attention (Giovanardi, 2012; Leslie & Rantisi, 2012). To better promote and position cities to attract new residents and workers, local governments are increasingly relying on place branding initiatives. This increased appreciation for place branding policy can also be contextualized as one outcome of the broader shift to entrepreneurial forms of local government, where city governments are codifying place-based brands and developing formal marketing strategies to improve their image (Cleave & Arku, 2015). A second potential explanation for the rise of place branding efforts is the low barrier for entry. A critique within economic imperative models is that fiscal status and capacity to implement economic development policy initiatives are closely related (Bowman & Pagano, 1992). However, the cost of place branding and sustained financial commitments (i.e. annual marketing budgets) can be low, providing a potential policy pathway for more local governments – even in financially stressed small and mid-sized cities (see Cleave & Arku, 2015; Collett, 2014; Sadler et al., 2016). A final force driving this change is the need to maintain economic standing in an increasingly competitive global economy, where there is greater mobility that allows people to flow across political boundaries at both regional and global scales. In essence, the same political-economic context that have shaped Canada’s immigration policy at a national level influence local government strategy. Place brands have been defined as the networks of connections and associations held by a target audience that shape their perceptions and attachment with a city (Zenker, Eggers, & Farsky, 2013; Braun et al., 2014; Keller, 1993; Zenker, Petersen et al., 2013). Place branding, therefore, becomes the process of creating the framework for these associations – what city elements and attributes are available and how they are communicated to the target audience. This creates an interesting proposition about what brands and branding actually represent. Kavaratzis (2004) in discussion of a tertiary model of place communication, identifies three pathways in which a city works to foster and attenuate the network of connections: primary channels, which include built, economic, social, cultural, and natural environments, government

4. Study area To evaluate the role of place branding in immigrant attraction, data was collected through surveys of migrants living in the City of London, Ontario. London was selected as the case study city for several reasons. First, by examining a single city and contrasting it against key competing markets within the same geo-political region (i.e. Toronto, population 2,732,000; Ottawa, 934,240; and Hamilton, 536,915; and Waterloo, 535,154) it allows for control of broader social and political issues related to immigration, macro-level institutional restrictions, and the general economic climate allowing for differences that are detected to be more readily attributed to local variability. Second, by situating the research in a Canadian setting, it complements and extends emerging work from the United States (i.e. Harwood & Lee, 2015; Huang & Liu, 2018). Third, as this research presents a new method for determining the influence of place branding using a single city allows for the testing and validation of this analytical approach; while creating a pathway for future research. Finally, in a general sense, London’s recent economic history and contemporary needs, and its movement towards place branding and immigration as a key policy priorities is similar to other cities in Ontario (see Cleave & Arku, 2015; Hall & Hall, 2008) and Canada (see Sands & Reese, 2008; Smart, 1997), the U.S. Rust Belt and American south (see McDaniel, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018; Sadler et al., 2016), Europe (Hansen, 2010; Niedomysl, 2007), and Australia (Merrilees et al., 2013). Findings from London, therefore, have potential relevance for policymaking in other locales. London is a mid-sized Canadian city with a population of 383,822, located approximately between Toronto, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan (see Fig. 1). In many ways, London represents a prototypical mid-sized city in an advanced economy, experiencing relatively slow population growth (a 3.9 % increase in population between 2011 and 2016). This 3

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

Fig. 1. Study Area – London, Ontario and its Key Regional Competitors.

In many ways, London has adopted the playbook of communities in other parts of Canada (i.e. the Welcoming Communities by the Province of Manitoba, 2019), Welcoming America (2019) in the United States, Welcoming Cities (2019) in Australia, and Welcoming Communities (2019) in New Zealand – positioning themselves as a welcoming community. This includes discussions on London adopting sanctuary city policies, the development of a strategic plan focused on immigrant attraction and integration (City of London, 2019), and the design of an immigration-targeted place brand (Choose London) that will act as a sub-brand for the city’s main Forest City and Canada’s London brands. As with cities in other regions (see Huang & Liu, 2018) these efforts are supported through collaborations between the city and a local immigration partnership (London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership; LMLIP), the provincial and federal governments. These efforts have similarly been adopted by the key regional competitors that London is contrasted against in this study (i.e. Toronto’s brand based on diversity and multiculturalism; Hamilton and Toronto becoming sanctuary cities; Ottawa and Waterloo’s emphasis on immigrant integration in its economic development strategy). A final consideration is that City of London (2016) has an explicit appreciation for the importance of place branding, stating:

population change is less than key regional competitors the Waterloo which experienced a 5.5 % population increase, Toronto (6.2 %), and Ottawa (5.7 %), and on par with Hamilton (3.7 % growth). The rate of growth experienced in London was slower than provincial population increase for Ontario (4.6 %) and the national growth rate of 5.0 %. Despite this slow overall growth, between 2011 and 2016, the immigrant population in London increased by 9 % from 76,585 to 83,770 (Statistics Canada, 2017), with immigrants accounting for 41 % of the population change in the city. As noted previously, London shares a trajectory of many small and midsized cities in Canada and the United States. London has been beset by economic issues through the decline of traditional manufacturing, losing 41 % of its workforce in the first decade of the twentieth century (Bradford, 2010). More recently, London has struggled to attract and retain young, well-educated, and highly-skilled workers, regularly losing them to larger regional and international competitors (Clemens & Buzzelli, 2015). As a result, London is at constant risk of falling behind the markets, as they jockey with domestic and international competitors for position on the global stage. In this regard, the city has lost ground to regional competitors – Waterloo, Ottawa, and Toronto – who have developed robust local economies built around knowledge and high-tech sectors and are the main settling points for domestic talent within the province. Attracting highly-skilled and well-educated immigrants, therefore, presents cities like London the opportunity to grow their local population and labour force capacity. This sentiment is reflected in the city’s strategic economic development, which notes:

A city’s image or place brand plays a key role in economic development marketing, contributing to the differentiation of an area and outlining the unique value proposition of the community to businesses, visitors and residents. However, while London has adopted a policy stance emphasizing branding and repositioning the city’s image, and there is little formal outlining of the city’s approach to branding. The city’s brand is significantly influenced through implicit branding efforts, such as the decision to position the city as a destination for immigrant; or through unintended outcomes of London’s broader economic development policymaking, such as the focus on live, work, and play (emphasizing culture, social offerings, and recreation).

London’s population growth over the last decade while steady, has trailed many communities closer to the GTA. The city has been challenged to increase its population through direct immigration and generally speaking has an older population than many comparative communities. If unchanged, this positioning may limit London’s long term economic prosperity. Attracting and retaining immigrants in London is critical to the city’s competitiveness (City of London, 2016: 11). 4

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

Table 1 Summary of Key Elements of Place Promotion. Factor

Code

Description

Promotional Efforts

PROM

Recreation and Natural Environment

REC

Local Culture

CULT

Urbanity

URBAN

Housing

HOUSE

Local Economy

ECON

Social Offerings

SOC

Refers to a group of items related to direct advertisement and branding efforts (logos and slogans) used by the city (Cleave & Arku, 2015). In particular, this is consistent with Kavaratzis (2004) secondary channel of place communication. Broadly refers to outdoor entertainment activities offered by the city, as well as the natural environment and greenspace available for these activities to occur in (Niedomysl, 2004; Zenker, 2009). Includes items such as the perceived diversity and multiculturalism of the city, as well as the availability of relevant cultural activity groups (i.e. ethnic organizations; Insch & Sun, 2013; Zenker, Petersen et al., 2013). Includes the design of the city, its atmosphere or energy, but also the population size and density – all characteristics that impact how urbane or the lifestyle associated with living in that city (Florida, 2012; Lawton et al., 2013). Includes perceptions on cost, quality and availability of housing, as well as the perceived overall cost of living in a city (Florida et al., 2011; Niedomysl, 2004; Zenker, Eggers et al., 2013). Teases out perceptions related to the availability of relevant and good jobs, as well as the direction the local economy is headed (Cleave & Arku, 2015; Jacobsen, 2009, 2012). Captures perceptions on whether the city has opportunities for talent to meet new people, have a thriving social scene, as well as nightlife and other social activities that fall outside standard recreation (Lawton et al., 2013).

5. Survey design and data collection

themselves for immigrants as a positive place to live and work. The more positively or more strongly these elements are perceived by the target audience, the more likely strong psychological connections will be formed that will drive forms of place investment such as migration. Due to the lack of research on place branding influence on migrants, it is unclear the exact attributes of a city that are meaningful if branded, and to what extent this actually influences immigrant decision-making, particularly as there is likely a mis-alignment of the brand and the audience needs and expectations. Similar methodologic approaches have been previously used in creative class and talent attraction studies related to place branding (see Florida et al., 2011; Lawton et al., 2013; Zenker, Eggers et al., 2013) and acculturation research (see Cleveland & Laroche, 2007); however, the application of the survey instrument in this study is novel, and more broadly, multidimensional scales have not been previously used in immigration branding research. All 28-items were measured using a Likert scale with a range from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). Due to high Cronbach’s alpha (all above 0.70), indicating high internal consistency, the survey responses were consolidated into single values for each factor. Additionally, the respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of the place brand image along two basic dimensions – place favourability and strength/power (these dimensions were previously defined by Cleave & Arku, 2017) - and were also measured along a 7-point Likert scale. The respondents were asked to complete the survey providing their perceptions of London as well as for one of four other major cities in the province which was randomly assigned. Finally, participants answered questions on demographic variables such as age, family status, migration and educational background. The data was collected through online and hard-copy surveys distributed through local networks of migrants and organizations that provide support services in London. This included survey dissemination through 24 cultural activity groups (i.e. the Ghanaian Association of London and Middlesex), the LMLIP, the London Economic Development Corporation, the London YMCA, and the Cross-Cultural Learning Centre. Through these channels, hard copies were distributed through direct solicitation (i.e. at events hosted by cultural activity groups), as well as through being made available for pick up at offices and locations regularly frequented by potential participants. Weblinks to the online version of the survey were provided through email and in enewsletters, distributed by the organizations. In total there were 353 survey responses (97 hardcopy, 156 online), representing a response rate of approximately 10 %. Overall, there were 739 city evaluations (London, n = 353; Toronto, n = 104; Ottawa, n = 96; Hamilton, n = 91; and Waterloo, n = 95). By asking for perceptions of multiple cities, it allowed for a greater overall sample (n = 739) as well as for comparisons between perceptions of the different cities to be made. In the study group, 33 % indicated they were

To measure immigrant views on London and its key regional competitors, this study utilized a seven-factor model examined through a 28-item multidimensional scale. Drawing on relevant literature on place branding and place communication (see Ashworth & Voogd, 1994; Boisen, Terlouw, & van Gorp, 2011; Cleave & Arku, 2017; Florida, Mellander, & Stolarick, 2011; Hall & Hubbard, 1996; Insch & Florek, 2008; Insch & Sun, 2013; Jacobsen, 2009, 2012; Kavaratzis, 2005; Lawton et al., 2013; Merrilees et al., 2013; Niedomysl, 2004, 2008; Ward, 1998; Young & Lever, 1997; Zenker, 2009; Zenker, Petersen et al., 2013), examination of local urban and economic development, a seven-factor model of place communication was developed. The seven key factors identified are summarized in Table 1 and the 28-item multidimensional survey in Table 2. This instrument was designed, purified, and validated through a cross-sectional pilot study of immigrants from cities in Ontario. Together, these factors present a comprehensive model that explains the way that cities intentionally and unintentionally attempt to position Table 2 Summary of the seven-factor model. Factor

Item

Traditional Promotional Efforts (PROM)

Logo or Slogan Traditional Advertising Online Content News Coverage Outdoor Recreation Activities Organized Rec Activities Greenspace Access to water Beauty of the Natural Environment Diversity and Multiculturalism Cultural Organizations Cultural Opportunities Urban Design Population size and density Energy, Atmosphere, or Buzz Urban Image of the City Current Economic Conditions Employment Opportunities Quality and Availability of Jobs Future Economic Conditions Overall Cost of Living Cost of Housing Quality of Housing Businesses that Operate in the City Population of Similar Age Vibrant Nightlife Good Place to Make Friends Number of Singles

Recreation and Natural Environment (REC)

Cultural (CULT) Urbanity (URBAN)

Local Economy (ECON)

Housing (HOUSE)

Social Offerings (SOC)

5

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

city. The brand favourability and strength for London (an average rating of 5.01 and 5.07, respectively) were the highest-rated by the respondents among the five cities. Since the respondents had all previously chosen to live in London, an implication is that the positive and strong image is closely associated with the attraction and retention of immigrants who are determining where to live between a group of cities within the same region. Of further note, housing was viewed most positively among the factors (5.33 across all five cities), while traditional branding and promotion was the least favourable (3.55). Overall, the one-way ANOVA indicated that there was variance among the means for each city, meaning there are potential differences in the way that each city in the study was perceived compared to its competitors. Finally, the results of Levine’s statistic for each factor showed that there was homogeneity within the variances, meaning it is valid to conduct ANOVA contrast tests for comparing each city’s rating, despite each being based on a different number of respondents. To compare how London and the other cities were perceived in terms of the key place branding elements in the seven-factor model, group differences were analyzed using a series of ANOVA contrast tests (Table 4). Means for the different groups are shown in Fig. 2. Supporting the descriptive statistics previously presented, the mean favourability (0.31) and brand strength ratings (0.29) by the respondents varied significantly from the other cities surveyed the study. London was the only city to be positive compared to the pooled average of competitor cities. A significant difference across all cities for promotional measures was found, with only Toronto (0.64) having a mean that significantly contrasted those of the other cities. A potential explanation is that Toronto has a well-developed place brand based on diversity and multiculturalism that is specifically designed to speak to immigrants. For the remainder of the cities, the perceptions of traditional promotional activities were either non-significant or negative. In the case of London, its mean was significantly more negative when contrasted against the means of other cities, which can be interpreted that traditional promotional activities had little impact on the final determination of immigrants on where they were going to live. There were two factors – economy (0.43) and housing (0.41) – where London again had the only positive perception when contrasted against the other cities (Table 4). This is juxtaposed against the perception of London as having unfavourable social offerings (−0.22), urbanity (−0.26), and cultural offerings (−0.11) – which are often viewed as important factors in attracting talent and the creative class but appear less important in shaping the decision-making of immigrants in selecting to live in London. While the ANOVA analysis allowed for comparisons of the factors across the study cities, it does not allow for specific determination of the factors that influence brand perceptions. Table 5 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis, modeling the influence that the seven-factor model has on brand image favourability. This model accounts for 31.5% of the variability in favourability of the place brand. Four factors, economy (β = 0.223), housing (0.169), urbanity (0.152), and recreation/natural environment (0.145) were found to have a significant positive association with favourability, with the three remaining factors having no significant relationship. Table 6 summarizes the multiple regression model along the second dimension – how strongly the place brand resonates, in which the model explains 33.5 % of the variability. Again, economy (0.220) and housing (0.245) were found to have significant positive relationships, along with culture (0.113). For both dimensions of the brand, traditional promotional methods had weak but slightly negative relationships, suggesting they had little impact on how the final place brand was received.

from Asia and the Middle East, 45 % from Africa, 9 % from Europe, and 13 % from the Americas. 56 % were male, while 44 % were female. The respondent group was on the whole well-educated, with 65 % indicating they had a university degree or higher, and an additional 13 % having completed other post-secondary education. Finally, 94 % indicated that London was the first place they had lived in Canada, and on average had been in the city for 7 years (with a standard deviation of 6 years). Since the average length of time the study group had been in London is short, that London is the first Canadian city that the majority of respondents have lived in, and that 80 % indicated that their perception of London had not changed, the perspectives of the study group can be viewed as an excellent proxy for recent immigrants – particularly as accessing immediately arrived immigrants can be extremely difficult. 6. Analytical approach The responses of the survey participants were analyzed three ways all using SPSS and followed a similar analytical approach to Zenker (2009). First, one-way ANOVA was used to test if there was statistically significant variation between means of the favourability of each part of the seven-factor model for each city. This was used as an initial test to determine if there was variability in the responses and if there was homogeneity in the variances. This latter test is important, because the proper specification of ANOVA with uneven group sizes requires homogeneity of variance. Second, using a series of ANOVA contrast tests, group differences were analyzed for the five cities included in this study within the seven factors of the conceptual model for city branding. This approach allows for the means of each factors for the different cities to be compared with one another; comparing a group of four cities directly by considering the variance from the remaining group (summarized in Table 3; see Zenker, 2009). Third, a multivariate regression model was used to first delineate the relationships between the seven explanatory factors and the response variables of brand image strength and positivity. These response variables were developed from a review of the literature and provide a simple method for measuring the impact of the brand, where stronger and more positive brand positioning will lead to the city being viewed in a more favourable manner. For the brand to resonate and influence a target audience it needs to be viewed positively (Hansen, 2010) but also needs to be well established, communicated and understood (Hospers, 2011). The outcome of this analytical approach is that it allows the examination of how different cities within the same region are perceived by migrants, what factors are most important to them in how they perceive place brands. These findings provide a context for understanding both immigrant decision-making as well as what cities can do to attract these groups. 7. Results Fig. 2 summarizes the means of each element of the seven-factor model separated by city and presents the result of the one-way ANOVA, to determine if there is variation between the perceptions of each city. As Fig. 2 shows, there are differences in the magnitudes of the means for each factor overall, as well as in the means when examined for each Table 3 Cases of comparison for the ANOVA contrasts. Case

Cities Compared

Considering the variance of

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Waterloo London, Ottawa, Hamilton, Waterloo London, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo London, Toronto, Ottawa, Waterloo London, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton

London Toronto Ottawa Hamilton Waterloo

8. Discussion This study demonstrates that the place branding does influence the 6

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

Fig. 2. Factors-Rating Means for Study Cities. Table 4 Results of the ANOVA contrast of means.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

IMG1

IMG2

PROM

REC

CULT

ECON

HOU.

SOC

URB

0.31** −0.02 −0.36*** −0.13 −0.20*

0.29** 0.20* −0.40*** −0.30** 0.22*

−0.18 0.64*** −0.20* 0.07 −0.33*

0.03 −0.06 −0.23* 0.25* 0.01

−0.11 −0.17* −0.55*** 0.29** 0.54***

0.43*** 0.11 −0.11 −0.16* −0.27**

0.41*** −0.30** −0.21* −0.04 0.14

−0.22* 0.38** −0.19* −0.09 0.10

−0.26* 0.33** −0.37** 0.30* −0.10

Contrast of means for each city; * significant at p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001; IMG1 = brand favourability, IMG2 = perceived brand strength.

perceptions of different cities, and that certain elements that a city can use to position itself against competitors will influence the decision to live there. This finding aligns with previous research on place branding and perceptions of talent and the creative class (i.e. Zenker, Eggers et al., 2013) which identified the potential for brands to shape the image and decision-making of a target audience. An implication of this immigrant attraction efforts by struggling cities – documented by Huang and Liu (2018); McDaniel (2018); Merrilees et al. (2013), and Pottie-Sherman (2018) – can use place branding as a development strategy to address local needs and issues and be positioned favourably against regional and international competitors. London had the most favourable and strongest brand image among the immigrants surveyed, with the strong implication being that this played a significant role in positioning London against its regional competitors as the best place to relocate. From this study it is clear that perceptions on the local economy and the likelihood of gaining employment and finding affordable and good quality housing are the two factors that consistently have a significant positive influence, with the regression analysis showing that these factors influenced the perceptions of the brand overall. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the results of the ANOVA analysis, where these perceptions of the local economic and housing separated London from its competitors. If economy and housing are the two that are most influential in attracting international immigrants, traditional factors for attracting talent become less important. Employment and affordable cost of living are consistent with key local attributes that economic immigrants are looking for when determining where to live (Bevelander & Pendakur, 2014; Tastsoglou & Preston, 2005). This is further supported by the

Table 5 Brand Favourability Regression Model. Model

PROM REC CULT ECON HOUSE SOC URB

t B

Std. Error

−.027 .145 .046 .223 .169 −.142 .152

.064 .074 .045 .062 .047 .075 .054

−0.419 1.960* 1.019 3.597*** 3.618*** −1.902 3.740***

* significant at p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001. Table 6 Brand Strength Regression Model. Model

PROM REC CULT ECON HOUSE SOC URB

t B

Std. Error

−.102 .229 .113 .220 .245 −.080 .021

.070 .286 .050 .091 .051 .082 .059

−1.455 0.672 2.269** 2.242** 4.785*** −.968 .356

* significant at p = 0.05; ** p = 0.01; *** p = 0.001.

7

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

respondents who indicated the main reasons for moving to London was for employment (75 %). As economic immigrants are the most common class – and the most sought after by cities to support local economies – these results suggest that cities trying to attract them should position themselves as good locales to find jobs and having affordable cost of living. This suggest that the emerging trend of positioning a city as welcoming is a less effective branding strategy. Supporting this, the two cities in the study that have adopted sanctuary city policies – Hamilton and Toronto – also had negative favourability scores. This finding also presents an interesting counterpoint to research and practice on attraction of other highly-skilled, talented, and creative groups which have found that factors such as urbanity and diversity seem to be the most important factors for attracting the creative core to a city (Florida et al., 2011; Lawton et al., 2013; Lewis & Donald, 2010; Zenker, Petersen et al., 2013; Zenker, 2009). Instead, the findings of this study are more in line with Zenker (2009) assertions about the noncreative class who prioritize cost efficiency most readily. While immigrants fill a similar role in the local economy as highly educated and creative domestic workers, the findings of this study demonstrate that they represent a different class of economic resource and have different factors that are priorities in their evaluation of cities and decisionmaking. For cities, this means that a single general branding effort cannot be used to attract these different groups, and instead the city must carefully consider what factors are developed and promoted depending on who the target audience is. The implication is that cities need to have adaptiveness in their brand strategy to be able to connect with their desired target audience. While an overall city brand has to be coherent, it also needs to be flexible enough to be able to position for different groups. In the case of London, the branding and economic development strategy indicates the desire to position the city to attract both domestic talent and international immigrants. Therefore, it needs to be adaptive to promote the cultural and social elements that attract the talent, while still being capable of positioning the city favourably in areas of the economy and housing. Another implication of this study is that it demonstrates that traditional branding efforts, in particular logos and slogans, are not effective methods for positioning a city or creating positive perceptions (see Anholt, 2005; Boisen, Terlouw, Groote, & Couwenberg, 2017; Cleave, Arku, Sadler, & Gilliland, 2017; Govers, 2013; Hansen, 2010; Kavaratzis, 2004). As noted, Toronto has a strong traditional place brand targeted at immigrants on a message of multiculturalism and diversity (0.64), but this does not translate into a favourable place image (−0.02). For cities, which often rely on logos and slogans as the key parts of their branding (Cleave, Arku, & Chatwin, 2017), the findings of this study indicate that a change in strategy is needed with a reconceptualization of what place branding is. The findings of this study demonstrate that primary channels of place communication (Kavaratzis, 2004) were the ways in which perceptions of the study cities were developed; therefore, these should be the areas where local governments recognize place branding can occur. While London acknowledges the importance of place branding and that it needs to be more substantive than a logo in their strategic plans, it fails to delineate the primary channels of communication it could leverage. Though the city delineates the need to attract immigrants they do not specifically explore how to connect this with place branding or other economic development efforts. The recent immigration strategic plan by the city (2019) suggests a vague, welcoming brand position closely associated with its historic Forest City and contemporary Canada’s London brands, which is more focused on recreation and the natural environment than it is the economy or housing. In this plan, the city again focuses on factors important to domestic talent. As a result, the city is failing to maximize the efficiency of their branding activities, as there is a mismatch between what the city is selling and what the audience wants. A similar piece of evidence is found in the perceptions of Hamilton, which positions itself as a welcoming city, but is viewed negatively in areas of economy (−0.16) and housing (−0.04) so has an

overall weak (−0.30) and unfavorable image (−0.13) amongst respondents. To change this, the act of policymaking and the decision to focus on attracting immigrants needs to be understood by cities as an inherently an act of place branding, as it sets the framework for how cities will promote and position itself and who their target audience is. While economic and housing issues are not obvious in their role in place branding, they become key factors in positioning the city, so these elements need to be understood as brand elements. Decisions made by the city to support or attenuate these factors will influence how it promotes and positions itself, as well as how it is perceived. Much of what cities are currently doing to brand and position themselves is unintentional or unintended. Moving forward there has to be a strategic shift that allows branding initiatives to be more explicitly considered within all policymaking. This research showed that place branding – particularly comprehensive actions that extend beyond traditional logos and slogans – influence how cities are viewed by immigrants, and by extension, economic and housing dimensions of city brands appear to have the ability to guide decision-making. Since this research focused on the perceptions of migrants in one city – London – and compared them to the other likely potential destinations for immigrants in Ontario, the factors that separated London can be isolated as some of the key determinants of where immigrants chose to live. This presents a unique way of accessing the decision-making aspect and allows for real-world, rather than conceptualized phenomenon to be considered. 9. Conclusion, limitations, future research This article makes several important and novel contributions, most notably, the application of the seven-factor model which both complements existing models (i.e. Kavaratzis, 2004 three channel model; Zenker, 2009 four factor model), and extends scholarship by examining perceptions and decision-making of immigrants. Indeed, this paper quantifies the impact of place branding and its effectiveness as an economic development strategy. It also helps contextualize recent efforts to by cities to attract immigrants to support local economic development (see Huang & Liu, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018) as it quantifies and contrasts the dimensions that position cities, and how they are interpreted and received by potential migrants, providing evidence for where to direct future policymaking. As local governments need to ensure that their branding strategies extend beyond logos and slogans and focus on local characteristic that are important to their target audience (i.e. jobs and housing). There are several potential limitations to this study based on its design and implementation. While there is a conceptual generalizability due to commonalities between London and cities in other regions in terms of economic status and emphasis on immigrants within development policy, there are potential caveats for the generalizability of seven-factor model. First, amorphous quality of immigration – covering a wide range of rationales, geographies, histories, cultural and social characteristics –may have differences in perspectives and reception of place brands across immigrant groups from different countries-of-origin and cultural backgrounds (and the current sample sizes for different cross-sections within the study are too small to ascertain difference or draw conclusion when contrasted). Because of this, there is the risk of overlooking aspects that may be unique to specific immigrant groups, as well as those that exist outside this research. Similarly, by focusing on one case study area, rather than multiple cities across some aspects of place branding and the response of immigrants might be overlooked. Given the study design and approach to data collection it is difficult to parse correlation and causation (i.e. it is not clear if the findings correlate only for the case of London or present evidence of a broader influence of place branding). These potential limitations present an opportunity for future research on several fronts. This includes larger, cross-sectional studies of 8

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku

different immigrant groups and in different places to determine if the preliminary evidence holds. This includes gaining the perspectives of individuals who just immigrated to Canada, as well as by focusing on the perspectives of immigrants in other cities to identify whether the two key dimensions here are unique to London, or if they are ubiquitous. This research can also be extended to supplement other quantitative research on place branding’s influence on domestic talent (see Zenker, 2009) as well as the emerging research on welcoming cities (see Huang & Liu, 2018; McDaniel, 2018; Pottie-Sherman, 2018). Finally, qualitative research could probe more deeply into the impact of place branding on immigrants to gain further insight into the effectiveness of city efforts to reposition themselves to better attract footloose economic resources. Ultimately, London is a fairly un-unique city, and shares many political and economic commonalities – both challenges and opportunities – with other midsized cities in advanced economies. And in London, there is evidence that place branding – when attenuated correctly – can influence immigrant perceptions of a place. Therefore, the lessons learned from this study of London can guide understanding of factors that impact late-stage immigration decision-making in other geographical contexts.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2006). About immigration. City of London (2016). Economic development road map. City of London (2019). Choose London: Innovative, vibrant, global. Cleave, E., & Arku, G. (2015). Community branding and brand images in Ontario, Canada. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 11(1), 65–82. Cleave, E., & Arku, G. (2017). Putting a number on place: A systematic review of place branding influence. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(5), 425–446. Cleave, E., McCauley, B., & Arku, G. (2017). Just Because You Could, Doesn’t Mean You Should: Exploring when cities should brand through a case study of the City of London, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 26(2), 1–14. Cleave, E., Arku, G., Sadler, R., & Gilliland, J. (2017). Is it sound policy or fast policy? Practitioners’ perspectives on the role of place branding in local economic development. Urban Geography, 38(8), 1133–1157. Cleave, E., Arku, G., & Chatwin, M. (2017). Cities’ economic development efforts in a changing global economy: content analysis of economic development plans in Ontario, Canada. Area, 49(3), 359–368. Clemens, K., & Buzzelli, M. (2015). The role of Higher education in highly-skilled labour attraction and retention in medium-sized City regions. ANN.dI RIC.EStudi DI geogr LXXI 3012. Cleveland, M., & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturaton to the global consumer culture: Scale development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 249–259. Clingermayer, J., & Feiock, R. (1990). The adoption of economic development policies by large cities: A test of economic, interest group, and institutional explanations. Policy Studies Journal, 18(3), 539–552. Collett, E. (2014). The city brand: Champion of immigrant integration or empty marketing tool? Washington: Migration Policy Institute. Donald, B., Morrow, D., & Athanasiu, A. (2003). Competing for Talent: Implications for Social and Cultural Policy in Canadian City-Regions. Hull, Strategic Research and Analysis, 35. Feiock, R., & West, J. (1993). Testing competing explanations for policy adoption: Municipal solid waste recycling programs. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 399–419. Filomeno, F. (2015). The migration-development nexus in local immigration policy: Baltimore city and the Hispanic diaspora. Urban Affairs Review, 53(1), 102–137. Filomeno, F. (2017). Theories of local immigration policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Florida, R. (2012). Rise of the creative class revisited: 10th anniversary edition. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2011). Beautiful places: The role of perceived aesthetic beauty in community satisfaction. Regional Studies, 45(1), 33–48. Giovanardi, M. (2012). Haft and sord factors in place branding: Between functionalism and representationalism. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 8(1), 30–45. Gottlieb, P. (2003). Economy versus lifestyle in the inter-metropolitan migration of the young: A preliminary look at the 2000 Census. International Journal of Economic Development, 5(3). Govers, R. (2013). Why place branding is not about logos and slogans. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(2), 71–75. Hall, H., & Hall, P. (2008). Decline and No growth: Canada’s forgotten urban interior. The Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 31(1), 39–57. Hall, T., & Hubbard, P. (1996). The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 20(2), 153 -147. Hansen, R. (2010). The narrative nature of place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 268–279. Harwood, S., & Lee, S. (2015). Immigrant-friendly community plans: Rustbelt efforts to attract and retain immigrants. In M. Burayidi (Ed.). Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity in Urban planning (pp. 236–262). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hospers, G. (2011). Place marketing in shrinking Europe: Some geographical notes. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 102(3), 369–375. Housel, J., Saxen, C., & Wahlrab, T. (2018). Experiencing intentional recognition: Welcoming immigrants in Dayton, Ohio. Urban Studies, 55(2), 384–405. Huang, X., & Liu, C. (2018). Welcoming cities: Immigration policy at the local government level. Urban Affairs Review, 54(1), 3–32. Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2008). A great place to live, work and play: Conceptualising place satisfaction in the case of a city’s residents. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), 138–149. Insch, A., & Sun, B. (2013). University students’ needs and satisfaction with their Host City. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(3), 178–191. Jacobsen, B. (2009). Investor-based place brand equity: A theoretical framework. Journal of Place Management and Development, 2(1), 70–84. Jacobsen, B. (2012). Place brand equity: A model for establishing the effectiveness of place brands. Journal of Place Management and Development, 5(3), 253–271. Johnstone, M., & Lee, E. (2014). Branded: International education and 21st-century Canadian immigration, education policy, and the welfare state. International Social Work, 57(3), 209–221. Kavaratzis, M. (2004). From city marketing to city branding: Towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding, 1(1), 58–73. Kavaratzis, M. (2005). Place branding: A review of trends and conceptual models. The Marketing Review, 5(4), 329–342. Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. Lawton, P., Murphy, E., & Redmond, D. (2013). Residential preferences of the ‘creative class’? Cities, 31(1), 47–56. Leslie, D., & Rantisi, N. (2012). The Rise of a New Knowledge/Creative Economy: Prospects and Challenges for Economic Development, Class Inequality and Work. In T. Barnes, J. Peck, & E. Sheppard (Eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography (pp. 158–171). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements The authors wishes to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for their funding support. The authors also extend a special thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments. References Abu-Laban, Y., & Gabriel, C. (2002). Selling diversity: Immigration, multiculturalism, employment equity, and globalization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Andersson, B. (2001). Scandinavian evidence on growth and age structure. Regional Studies, 35, 377–390. Anholt, S. (2005). Some important distinctions in place branding. Place Branding, 2(1), 116–121. Arku, G. (2013). Outsourcing functions to economic development corporations: Exploring the perceptions of officials in Ontario. Public Organization Review, 14(1), 49–70. Ashworth, G., & Voogd, H. (1994). Marketing and place promotion. In J. Gold, & S. Ward (Eds.). Place promotion: The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Berry, F., & Berry, W. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415. Betz, M., Partridge, M., Kraybill, D., & Lobao, L. (2012). Why do localities provide economic development incentives? Geographic competition, political constituencies, and government capacity. Growth and Change, 43(3), 361–391. Bevelander, P., & Pendakur, R. (2014). The labour market integration of refugee and family reunion immigrants: A comparison of outcomes in Canada and Sweden. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(5), 689–709. Bhuyan, R., Jeyapal, D., Ku, J., Sakamoto, I., & Chou, E. (2017). Branding ‘Canadian experience’ in immigration policy: Nation building in a neoliberal era. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 47–62. Boisen, M., Terlouw, K., & van Gorp, B. (2011). The selective nature of place branding and the layering of spatial identities. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(2), 135–147. Boisen, M., Terlouw, K., Groote, P., & Couwenberg, O. (2017). Reframing place promotion, place marketing, and place branding - moving beyond conceptual confusion. Cities. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.021. Bowman, A., & Pagano, M. (1992). City intervention: An analysis of the public capital mobilization process. Urban Affairs Review, 27(3), 356–374. Bradford, N. (2010). ). Economic Ideas and Development Strategy: The Case of London, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 19(1), 1–22. Braun, E., Eshuis, J., & Klijn, E. (2014). The effectiveness of place brand communication. Cities, 41, 64–70. Buzdugan, R., & Halli, S. (2009). Labor market experiences of canadian immigrants with focus on foreign education and experience. The International Migration Review, 43(2), 366–386.

9

Cities 97 (2020) 102502

E. Cleave and G. Arku Lewis, N. M., & Donald, B. (2010). A new rubric for ‘Creative city’ potential in Canada’s smaller cities. Urban Studies, 47(1), 29–54. Ley, D. (2003). Seeking Homo economicus: The canadian state and the strange story of the business immigration program. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(2), 426–441. Ley, D., & Hiebert, D. (2001). Immigration policy as population policy. Canadian Geographer, 45, 120–125. McDaniel, P. (2014). Revitalization in the Heartland of America: Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs for Economic Development. American Immigration Council, 1–13. McDaniel, P. (2018). Shared humanity, city branding, and municipal immigrant integration initiatives in the Southeastern United States. Southeastern Geographer, 58(3), 250–281. Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C. (2013). City Branding: A facilitating framework for stressed satellite cities. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 37–44. Niedomysl, T. (2004). Evaluating the effects of place-marketing campaigns on interregional migration in Sweden. Environment & Planning A, 36(11), 1991–2009. Niedomysl, T. (2007). Promoting rural municipalities to attract new residents: An evaluation of the effects. Geoforum, 38(4), 698–709. Niedomysl, T. (2008). Residential preferences for interregional migration in Sweden –Demographic, socio-economic and geographical determinants. Environment & Planning A, 40(5), 1109–1131. Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pottie-Sherman, Y. (2018). Austerity urbanism and the promise of immigrant- and refugee-centered urban revitalization in the U.S. Rust Belt. Urban Geography, 39(3), 438–457. Province of Manitoba (2019). Welcoming communities. https://www.immigratemanitoba. com/choose-manitoba/welcoming-communities/. Reitz, J. (2005). Tapping immigrants’ skills: New directions for Canadian immigration policy in the knowledge economy. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 11(4), 409–432. Rubin, I., & Rubin, H. (1987). Economic development incentives: The poor (Cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Review, 23(1), 37–62. Sadler, R., Cleave, E., Arku, G., & Gilliland, J. (2016). A comparative analysis of place branding in Michigan and Ontario. Urban Research & Practice, 9(1), 16–36.

Salvanto, S., & Ryan, J. (2014). Relocation branding: A strategic framework for attracting talent from abroad. Journal of Global Mobility the Home of Expatriate Management Research, 2(1), 102–120. Sands, G., & Reese, L. (2008). Cultivating the creative class: And what about Nanaimo? Economic Development Quarterly, 22(1), 8–23. Smart, J. (1997). Borrowed men of borrowed time: Globalization, labour migration and local economies in Alberta. The Canadian Journal of Regional Science = La Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Regionales, 20(1–2), 141–156. Statistics Canada (2017). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census. Stockdale, A. (2004). Rural out-migration: Community consequences and individual migrant experiences. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 167–194. Strauss, J. (2012). The economic impact of immigration on St. Louis. Kansas City: William T. Kemper Foundation. Tastsoglou, E., & Preston, V. (2005). Gender, immigration and labour market integration: Where we are and what we still need to know. Atlantis, 30(1), 46–59. Walmsley, D., Epps, W., & Duncan, C. (1998). Migration to the New South Wales North Coast 1986–1991: Lifestyle motivated counter urbanisation. Geoforum, 29(1), 105–118. Ward, S. (1998). Selling places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850 – 2000. London: E and FN Spon. Welcoming America. (2019). https://www.welcomingamerica.org/programs/ournetwork. Welcoming Cities. (2019). https://welcomingcities.org.au/. Welcoming Communities. (2019). https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/what-wedo/welcoming-communities/who-is-involved. Young, C., & Lever, J. (1997). Place promotion, economic location and the consumption of city image. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 88(4), 332–341. Zenker, S. (2009). Who’s your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 2(1), 23–32. Zenker, S., Petersen, S., & Aholt, A. (2013). The Citizen Satisfaction Index (CSI): Evidence for a four basic factor model in a German sample. Cities, 31(1), 156–164. Zenker, S., Eggers, F., & Farsky, M. (2013). Putting a price tag on cities: Insights into the competitive environment of places. Cities, 30(1), 133–139.

10