Starting conditions for the green branding of a city

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research paper

Starting conditions for the green branding of a city a,⁎

a

T b

Chung-Shing Chan , Lawal M. Marafa , Cecil C. Konijnendijk Van Den Bosch , Thomas Barfoed Randrupc a b c

Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, N.T., Hong Kong University of British Columbia, Canada, Forest Sciences Building, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z4, Canada Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning & Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: City branding Copenhagen Green resource brand Hong Kong Urban green resources

The aim of this paper is to investigate the starting conditions of green resource branding in Hong Kong and Copenhagen. The study is based on the application of the Green Brand Hexagon (GBH) that measures multidimensional attributes of a green resource brand. Two surveys were conducted in Hong Kong (n = 395) and Copenhagen (n = 217), sampling inbound visitors. The results show that visitors in Hong Kong tend to believe that green brand attributes are connected to the economic benefits of a greener urban environment, while the green aspects related to international status and public policies are relatively stronger in Copenhagen. Hong Kong has a square green resource brand structure that combines interconnected green resource attributes, whereas Copenhagen keeps a hexagonal structure with more dimensions but a simpler composition in each dimension.

1. Introduction Green branding has recently been recognized as an important strategy for improving city governance, liveability and competitiveness (e.g. Insch, 2011). Biophysical green spaces such as public parks, trees, and landscapes that are widely visible to and accessible by the public are a major contributor to green city branding (Konijnendijk, 2010). These are regarded as urban green spaces (Zhang, Tan, & Diehl, 2017) or, more broadly, urban green resources (Chan & Marafa, 2014). They strengthen local identity (Matsuoka & Kaplan, 2008), develop a society that balances human and nature (Register, 2006), offer opportunities for destination marketing (Hui & Wan, 2003; Tamanini, 2012), and create an attractive brand that appeals to various types of visitors and users (Braiterman, 2011). A well-projected and positively recognized brand can transcend geographical boundaries to influence location-decision behavior (Anholt, 2007; Giovanardi, 2012). Brand creation requires starting from an understanding of the identity or the essence of a place (Govers & Go, 2009). Whereas the construction of brand identity is the process of selecting elements to represent the identity of a brand (Blichfeldt, 2005), city branding is regarded as "the process of designing, planning and communicating the name and the identity, in order to build or manage the reputation" of the city (Anholt, 2007, p. 4). Consequently, city branding should start from the selection of a specific theme of

⁎

attributes and the conversion of the desirable attributes to brand identity. This notion applies to cities attempting to develop a green brand in the sense that their urban green resource availability and attributes should be meticulously considered in the process. A user perspective can assess whether or not a city has the potential to establish a green brand based on its urban green resources. Whereas citizens’ perception of the attributes of a green city brand represents the local recognition of these urban green resources, visitors’ perceptions can be considered as the ‘starting conditions’ of green branding, which contribute to a destination with nature-based or eco-leisure attractions (Chan & Marafa, 2016a; Chan, Peters, & Marafa, 2015). These conditions characterize the uniqueness of urban green resources, generate a specific green brand identity, and contribute to the foundation of green branding. More importantly, the similarities and differences in the green resources among cities configure the attributes representing their green resources, which may include both visible green spaces and intangible characteristics such as international status and policy aspects. Such a combination of attributes is an important quality to attract visitors who are potential immigrants to a city. This paper argues that the attributes of urban green resources, such as the provision and characteristics of ecological resources, parks and green spaces, and natural landscape, represent a special set of conditions and status of a city. These specific green attributes are able to build a strong and positive image and

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.-S. Chan), [email protected] (L.M. Marafa), [email protected] (C.C. Konijnendijk Van Den Bosch), [email protected] (T.B. Randrup). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.05.006 Received 13 April 2017; Received in revised form 12 May 2018; Accepted 19 May 2018 2212-571X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

developing a destination marketing policy. The findings will also provide some insights to city marketers and urban planners about placing a greater emphasis on the strengths of a city when positioning it as a green city or creating a green brand based on these assets.

generate a green brand for a city that attract certain groups of visitors or potential immigrants. The process of branding these urban green resources is to understand and characterize how target groups perceive the green attributes and in turn to promote the values of these attributes to them. This paper elaborates on the phenomenon of green city branding by presenting a comparative study of Hong Kong and Copenhagen. These two cities were selected because of the variety in their characteristics of green spaces and available resources, despite which they still champion in some of the global and regional ranking exercises in terms of liveability and green environment. The comparison may indicate that even a compact metropolis like Hong Kong can take advantage of distinctive attributes and a specific green brand structure. On the other hand, a well-known green city like Copenhagen may not be comprehensively competitive in green branding. Policy makers and city marketers can, therefore, learn to build on stronger green assets (Parkerson & Saunders, 2005). When examining various results of city ranking exercises, Copenhagen appears very often in a top position, whereas Hong Kong is often considered less competitive in terms of liveability and environmental quality. However, when public parks (especially Country Parks) and other green spaces are taken into consideration, the ranking of Hong Kong would be much higher (e.g. The Economist Intelligence Unit [EIU], 2012, for the ‘Best Cities’ rankings and Arcadis, 2015, for ‘Sustainable Cities’ rankings). Statistics on territory-wide urban green resources in Hong Kong also show that these resources are more widely available to the public and even have a higher coverage than many other cities in the world do (EIU, 2012). All this information supports the need for a common platform or framework to study and identify the distinctiveness of the urban green resources in each city. Although the green brand of an individual city (Chan, 2014) and the discrepancy between resident and visitor brand perceptions have previously been investigated (Chan & Marafa, 2016b; Chan et al., 2015), there is still a lack of comparison among cities on a global scale. This study examines the inbound visitor perception of the multidimensional green brand attributes of two cities. Visitor perception refers to a collective impression of a place understood and interpreted by the visitors (Rajesh, 2013), which contains (strong or weak) degree and (positive or negative) direction (Ukwayi, Eja, & Unwanede, 2012). Such a perception can be generated both through direct experience and other sources of brand information communication (Govers & Go, 2009; Rajesh, 2013). Through directly experiencing or indirectly forming expectations of the urban green resources in Hong Kong or Copenhagen, the respondents were able to express their overall perception of a green resource brand through a number of questions measuring different dimensions of the brand. To connect green resource attributes and green branding, it is essential to borrow a well-established place branding framework to structure and measure these attributes (Anholt, 2006; Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009). A scheme deconstructing and analyzing an urban green resource brand was established by scholars who proposed a hexagonal structure for a green brand: namely the Green Brand Hexagon (GBH) (Chan & Marafa, 2014). Based on the visitor perception in the two selected cities, this paper addresses two research questions corresponding to the above research problem. Firstly, is there any significant difference in visitor perception of the attributes between Hong Kong and Copenhagen? Secondly, do the green resource brands in Hong Kong and Copenhagen possess distinctive structures? Both questions will be answered through an analysis of the visitor ratings on the GBH's attributes. The research findings add a new perspective to city classification for place branding researchers, further suggest an alternative destination position for city marketers, and put forward a new option for decision-makers

1.1. Literature review Place branding is no longer purely destination-marketing focused because of the complexity of place which involves the structuring of spaces and the relationships among different users and stakeholders of the place (Ashworth & Kavaratzis, 2009; Hankinson, 2004). Geographers have become more and more involved in the study of place branding because it is related to the competition among different geographical locations (Kerr, 2006; Pike, 2011): their input is particularly valuable when a brand connects to the natural environment (Braiterman, 2011; Chan & Marafa, 2014), green cities (Birch & Wachter, 2008; Kahn, 2006), and sustainable development (Baycan, 2011; Dinnie, 2012). A particular aspect or a combination of aspects related to a green city, such as green spaces, urban forestry, biodiversity, energy, urban agriculture, waste management and recycling, may have the potential to become a strong and competitive advantage to attract target people. These people are usually inbound visitors in the first instance, before the brand and the experience of the brand influence their locational decision (van Gelder, 2003; Zenker, 2011). Among various green city aspects, the largely visible and publicly accessible green spaces, such as public parks, urban trees and natural landscapes, continue to play an important role in enhancing the attractiveness of cities (e.g. Chan & Marafa, 2016b; Chan et al., 2015; Evans & Bohrer, 2000; Gulsrud, Gooding, & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2013; Konijnendijk, 2008). This is the reason why many places promote their natural features such as native species, national parks and the scenic countryside as tourist attractions in an attempt to stand out from other regions (e.g. Forristal & Lehto, 2009; Gross, Poor, Sipos, & Solymossy, 2009). Many city governments also wisely utilize urban green resources like greening and tree planting in mega-events, community revitalization, and competitions (Beatley, 2000; Konijnendijk, 2010). Braiterman (2011), for instance, elaborated on a number of success stories from Seoul (a range of green initiatives from public transport to river revitalization), Tokyo (vertical greening) to New York (replacement of concrete structures by parks) and San Francisco (conversion of parking spaces to mini-parks). Gramon-Suba and Holt (2012) also provided a case of integrating green urban design in the branding strategy of Budapest. These are good practices where urban green resources not only improve the quality of the environment for urban dwellers but also create a brand for a city. Extending further from destination or place promotion, the creation of a green brand based on these visible green resources is a constructive way of post-modern urban development, which often integrates with multiple themes of sustainability (e.g. Chan & Marafa, 2018). City branding is more than a marketing campaign (Govers, 2013): it also links stakeholders’ interests with those of outsiders’ (Fok & Law, 2018). Branding urban green resources requires framing and structuring the visible and invisible attributes of these green resources. Green resource branding leads to an understanding of how stakeholders perceive this green brand identity. When targeting at tourists, for example, such an understanding of the green brand identity would then refer to tourists’ perception of the attributes measuring this green brand. Brand identity is a full set of unique characteristics or attributes of a theme (e.g. green) recognized by the target stakeholder group at a given point of time (Anholt, 2007; Avraham & Ketter, 2008; Bell & de-Shalit, 2011; Govers & Go, 2009). Chan and Marafa (2014, 2016b), for example, addressed the dearth

11

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 1 Attributes of the GBH. (Source: Chan & Marafa, 2014, p.7) Green status (GSt)

Familiarity as green city Enhancement of the quality of life in the form of a green living environment in the city Provision of parks and green spaces by city government Greening policy by city government Role of greening in city planning by city government Pleasant experience in parks and green spaces Trees and greenery beauty in urban areas of the city Landscape beauty of hillsides and slopes of the city Willingness to pay more for business investment Willingness to pay more for employment or job seeking Willingness to pay more for educational stay Willingness to spend more as tourists Educational experience in parks and green spaces Recreation opportunities in various types of parks and green spaces Valuable faunal and floral species in green spaces Old and valuable trees Greening-supportive citizenship Environmentally-friendly citizenship Communicable and friendly citizenship in parks and green spaces Safety in parks and green spaces Overall quality of parks and green spaces Quality of facilities of parks and green spaces Accessibility to green spaces

Green space (GSp)

Green potential (GPot)

Green pulse (GPul)

Green citizenship (GCiti)

Green prerequisites (GPre)

dimension in the GBH structure. Urban green resources are often used by both urban planners as a strategy to improve the urban quality of life and destination marketers as a strategy to improve the destination image (Riecken & Yavas, 2001; Rogerson, 1999). These two policy objectives are not conflicting but synergize to enhance the competitiveness of a city. This is why the GBH contains elements of both physical/visible and policy-related/intangible attributes. Chan and Marafa (2014, 2016b) also identified the differences in green brand structure between inbound visitors and local residents in Hong Kong. The newly formed structures are also different from that of the original GBH. However, there is no empirical study on how these attributes would look like in different cities. These green attributes often become the criteria for city ranking in which cities participate intentionally or unintentionally. Several observations from these ranking exercises are made. Firstly, many of these rankings, such as those collated in Table 2, are heavily related to the measurement of urban quality of life or liveability which plays a key role in promoting cities for tourism and attracting people to live there (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009). Biophysical green spaces are not the focus of ‘green’

of the theoretical development in this area through empirical researches into the potential of and perceptual gaps in green branding. They bridged the theoretical gap between city branding and urban green resources. The idea was to modify Anholt's (2006) City Brand Hexagon (CBH) and its variables to a green resource-oriented context that incorporates the environmental and green space elements of a city. The researchers modified the original CBH to form the GBH (Chan & Marafa, 2014) and derived a list of green brand attributes based on the original framework (Table 1). These attributes are not only related to a specific park or the quality of a particular green space but they also describe an overall condition of the urban green resources. This is justifiable because of the complexity of green resources available in a city with a large number of users involved. In many European cities, their green city status evolve through a long history of accumulation and the preservation of green resources from agriculture and gardening practices rather than solely through urban planning (Konijnendijk, 2008). For some newly developed cities, especially those in the Asia-Pacific Region, green cities are purposely planned, built and promoted, and so are their green brands (e.g. Acuto, 2012; Beck, 2009; Liu, 2008). This is why policy-related aspects is one

Table 2 Examples of city ranking. Source Rank

Mercer's (2015) quality of living survey

Arcadis (2015) Sustainable Cities Index

EIU's (2014) liveability ranking

EIU's (2013) city competiti-veness ranking

Monocle's (2013) quality of life survey

Reputation Institute's (2013) city report

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vienna Zurich Auckland Munich Vancouver Düsseldorf Frankfurt Geneva Copenhagen Sydney

Frankfurt London Copenhagen Amsterdam Rotterdam Berlin Seoul Hong Kong Madrid Singapore

Melbourne Vienna Vancouver Toronto Adelaide Calgary Sydney Helsinki Perth Auckland

New York London Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Sydney Paris Stockholm Chicago Toronto

Copenhagen Melbourne Helsinki Tokyo Vienna Zurich Stockholm Munich Sydney Auckland

Sydney Toronto Stockholm Vienna Venice Florence Edinburgh Zurich London Copenhagen

12

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 3 Hypotheses of the study. Research question 1: Is there any difference in visitor perception of the attributes between Hong Kong and Copenhagen?

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

Hypothesis

Justification

Green status (GSt) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong. Green space (GSp) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green potential (GPot) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green pulse (GPul) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green citizenship (GCiti) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong. Green prerequisites (GPre) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong.

Green reputation is more positive in Copenhagen than in Hong Kong (Table 2). Coverage of urban green resources is higher in Hong Kong than in Copenhagen (Appendix A). The economic prosperity of Hong Kong is stronger than that of Copenhagen (Florida, 2015). Coverage and diversity of urban green resources is higher in Hong Kong than in Copenhagen (Appendix A). Liveability is higher in Copenhagen than in Hong Kong (Table 2). Quality of urban green resources is higher in Copenhagen than in Hong Kong (Table 2).

are the advantageous attributes that have conditioned the cities. Parkerson and Saunders (2005) believed that "if some elements (of a city) are weak, difficult or impossible to improve, other elements can be developed to compensate" (p. 261). City marketers have to decide on brand positioning and architecture (Dooley & Bowie, 2005; Kerr, 2006; Turok, 2009) because brands are utilized for multiple purposes and marketed to different groups of city users, i.e. people who have utilized or may potentially use the resources or services provided by a city (Hankinson, 2001). These arguments articulate the fact that when the green spaces and resources of a city are rich, outstanding and distinctive, the green attributes available for the city brand will be strong. The subsequent marketing of the city will lead to a continuous improvement of its urban quality of life and liveability. These advantages can further enhance the competitiveness of the city to attract its target groups of visitors and residents. In the long term, the green brand and the city itself can be sustainable (Chan & Marafa, 2014). Green spaces and resources, which have distinctive characteristics, possess a certain degree of uniqueness that can fulfil the key conditions for the sustainable competitive advantages of tourism destinations proposed by Barney (1991). These conditions denote that the attributes or resources of a brand must be: valuable to visitors, rare among the destination's current and potential competitors, unique, and have no strategically equivalent substitute for the assets or skills. As a result, a comparative study on visitor perception of the green attributes of two (competing or complementary) cities is relevant to the understanding of the position of a specific city when creating a green brand. The role of visitors is important because they are the potential residents of a city in the branding process (Zenker, 2011). When looking at cities from another perspective by considering them as geographical locations under investigation and competition, there can be platforms for comparing the performance of cities as individual brands (e.g. Anholt, 2006). According to Boisen, Terlouw, and Bouke (2011), "prosperous neighbourhoods, the city center, business districts and research campuses fit the dominating discourse on inter-

measurement in most cases, but climate is used as a key criterion for liveability and quality of life measurement (e.g. EIU, 2013, 2014; Mercer, 2015). When public green spaces and access to nature are taken into account, the results of the rankings could be very different (e.g. EIU, 2011, 2012). Appendix A, for example, shows the attributes of green spaces and urban green resources in various cities that are often top-ranked green cities. Consequently, the subjectivity in criteria selection and expert ratings often generate different results. As many ranking exercises have largely neglected local and visitor perceptions, it is necessary to take public understanding into consideration, especially when creating a theme or a brand for a city. Secondly, some of the city rankings have diverse titles, definitions, aspects, interpretations and judgments related to the environmental attributes measured. In Mercer's (2015) quality of living survey, for instance, the environmental characteristic of a city used for reputation ranking was solely defined by the perception of ‘a beautiful city’, whereas the aspect of ‘climate and record of natural disasters’ was considered as the representation of the notion of natural environment of a city. Regardless of the reliability of these rankings, in an era of increasing globalization, they have naturally attracted public interest and compelled cities to pay attention to their image management or revitalization (Ooi & Stöber, 2010) and to direct city marketing or brand building based on their strengths in the rankings. This evokes a research need for the development of a framework that assesses the distinctive green attributes of cities for green branding. Thirdly, the different positions of Hong Kong in these rankings indicate that the ranking of a traditional urban destination like Hong Kong can override cities strongly perceived as being ‘green’ like Copenhagen (and even others such as Stockholm and Singapore) when criteria change. A fairly constructed and evaluated scheme is therefore important to allow policy-makers to understand the specific conditions of a city and to compare different cities to identify an appropriate branding process. The factors that resulted in the top ranking of some of these cities

Table 4 Target respondents and data collection processes. Segment

Data collection process

Locations

No. of questionnaires collected

Visitors in Hong Kong

Questionnaire survey in 6 different locations in daytime on weekdays and at weekends Questionnaire survey in 2 different locations in daytime on weekdays and at weekends

Central, Wan Chai, Tsim Sha Tsui, Shatin, Tung Chung and Lok Ma Chau Den lille Havfrue (Little Mermaid) and Nyhavn

395

Visitors in Copenhagen

13

217

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 5 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Gender

Age

Education level

Country of origin

Number of visit

Number of visit to public green spaces

Male Female Total 20 or below 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71 or above Missing Total None or don’t know Primary or elementary Secondary or post-secondary University or above Missing Total Asia Europe North America South America Australia and New Zealand Africa Missing Total 1 2 3–5 6–10 Over 10 Total 0 1 2–5 6–10 Over 10 Total

Visitors in Hong Kong (n = 395)

Visitors in Copenhagen (n = 217)

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

206 189 395 44 133 108 59 37 13 0 1 395 16 8 175 174 22 395 271 76 14 3 16 0 15 395 142 96 75 33 46 395 148 109 64 25 46 395

52.2 47.8 100.0 11.1 33.7 27.3 14.9 9.4 3.3 0.0 0.3 100.0 4.0 2.0 44.3 44.1 5.6 100.0 68.6 19.2 3.5 0.8 4.1 0.0 3.8 100.0 36.2 24.5 19.1 8.5 11.7 100.0 37.8 27.8 16.3 6.4 11.0 100.0

108 109 217 7 65 79 55 11 0 0 0 217 1 10 94 112 0 217 46 106 28 12 17 0 8 217 123 67 23 4 0 217 70 86 59 2 0 217

49.8 50.2 100.0 3.2 30.0 36.4 25.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.5 4.6 43.3 51.6 0.0 100.0 21.2 48.8 12.9 5.5 7.8 0.0 3.8 100.0 56.7 30.9 10.6 1.8 0.0 100.0 32.3 39.6 27.2 0.9 0.0 100.0

(Jamison & Baark, 1999), and the city has in turn become an eco-brand regionally and globally (Clark, 2013). The green brand of Copenhagen is an all-round image that embraces multi-dimensional ecological and environmental aspects such as green spaces, energy consumption and pollution control (Clark, 2013). Unlike the well-known parks and green spaces in Copenhagen and other Danish municipalities (Gulsrud et al., 2013), urban green spaces in Hong Kong are comparatively less prominent than in other mega-cities worldwide (Tan, Wang, & Sia, 2013). Nevertheless, Hong Kong's green coverage increases tremendously to over 40% of its total land area when the Country Park system, which is very close to the urban areas in Hong Kong, is included. These green resources become a set of outstanding and competitive assets to promote Hong Kong as a ‘green city’ or the ‘best city’ (e.g. The EIU, 2011, 2012). When compared with other cities that are frequently listed at the top of the rankings (Table 2), Hong Kong indeed possesses abundant and varied green assets (Appendix A). As a result, Copenhagen and Hong Kong are not selected arbitrarily but are comparable examples that show how the starting condition of a green brand can be different among cities. Furthermore, different studies on green branding that involved interviewing government officials in both cities reveal that biophysical green spaces in Hong Kong and Copenhagen are not a primary focus of

urban competitiveness and are more likely to be represented and strengthened by place branding than other parts of a city" (p. 144). As a result, tangible and accessible green spaces, especially those with high proximity to urbanized areas, are particularly effective in catching the attention of visitors (Avraham & Ketter, 2008; Hankinson, 2004). Following these findings, the green brand structure of each individual city can be different regardless of its characteristics and background, although there is a lack of empirical support on this point. Specifically, this study has set up a set of six hypotheses to cope with the first research question. These hypotheses and their justifications are illustrated in Table 3. 2. Study areas and methods 2.1. Hong Kong and Copenhagen Hong Kong and Copenhagen, both major cities in their regions, possess very different geographical, historical, cultural and development backgrounds. As shown in Table 2, Copenhagen frequently finds itself in a higher position in liveability and quality of life rankings than Hong Kong does. With continuous support from the national government, Copenhagen has been a forerunner of ecological sustainability

14

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 6a Rating of Green Brand Hexagon's attributes by visitors in Hong Kong and Copenhagen. Rank

Visitors in Hong Kong (n = 395)

Mean

SD

Visitors in Copenhagen (n = 217)

Mean

SD

Mann-Whitney U

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pleasant experience in parks Park safety Trees and greenery beauty in the city Landscape and hillside beauty Overall quality of parks Willingness to spend as tourists

4.11 4.09 4.06 4.03 4.01 3.95

1.21 1.25 1.21 1.24 1.21 1.25

5.03 4.79 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.40

0.97 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.97 0.89

13,003.5 15,546.5 18,782.0 18,187.5 17,031.5 13,817.5

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Willingness to seek education Willingness to seek employment Quality of park facilities Greening-supportive citizenship Willingness to seek investment Park accessibility Communicable and friendly citizenship in parks Recreation opportunities in parks Environmentally-friendly citizenship Familiarity as green city Provision of parks Enhancement of the quality of life by green environment Role of greening in city planning Educational experience in parks Greening policy Old and valuable trees Valuable fauna and flora Average

3.94 3.93 3.92 3.92 3.91 3.89 3.95 3.76 3.70 3.68 3.66 3.64

1.23 1.20 1.15 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.18 1.17 1.24 1.23 1.13 1.14

Pleasant experience in parks Park safety Trees and greenery beauty in the city Overall quality of parks Park accessibility Enhancement of the quality of life by green environment Familiarity as green city Environmentally-friendly citizenship Quality of park facilities Willingness to spend as tourists Role of greening in city planning Greening-supportive citizenship Landscape and hillside beauty Provision of parks Greening policy Communicable and friendly citizenship in parks Willingness to seek employment Recreation opportunities in parks

4.37 4.20 4.19 4.15 4.10 4.10 4.02 3.86 3.84 3.80 3.75 3.74

1.02 1.03 0.87 1.30 0.90 0.96 1.07 0.79 0.90 1.03 1.22 0.98

15,459.5 17,391.5 19,999.0 20614.5 17,330.5 21,045.0 22,940.5 20,360.5 19,293.0 22,580.5 21,078.5 22,775.0

0.000 0.000 0.024 0.075 0.046 0.140 0.971 0.005 0.000 0.698 0.148 0.873

3.62 3.60 3.56 3.52 3.51 3.82

1.17 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.17

Willingness to seek education Educational experience in parks Willingness to seek investment Valuable fauna and flora Old and valuable trees Average

3.63 3.26 3.09 3.06 2.99 3.99

1.19 1.00 1.14 1.09 1.01

19,882.5a 18,831.0a 14,725.0a 17,817.5a 16,572.5a

0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000

19 20 21 22 23

a

A statistically significant higher score for Hong Kong over Copenhagen; others vice versa.

the questionnaire included statements on the 23 GBH's attributes (as shown in Table 2). These were posed in the form of a six-point Likert scale, which scaled from 1 (strongly disagree with the statement) to 6 (strongly agree with the statement), in order to minimize the risk of central tendency (Chang, 1994). The entire datasets included ratings on all of the 23 items by the respondents in both cities and went through a reliability test computing the Cronbach's alpha. Data in both respondent groups obtained large values of alpha, 0.873 (Copenhagen) and 0.921 (Hong Kong) respectively, and thus corresponded to a significantly high level of data reliability (Kline, 2000). The method of data analysis mainly comprised of parallel observation and statistical application (the Mann-Whitney U test and factor analysis) between groups. The study applied explanatory factor analysis (EFA) instead of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) because the researchers aimed at neither ‘confirming’ the reconstruction of the GBH in the two cities nor proving a consistent theoretical structure, but at identifying the distinctive green brand structures in the two cities. EFA is used interchangeably with CFA when the consistency of variables is tested against a prior theoretical basis (Xiao & Smith, 2006); such method was employed by Chan (2014). CFA also requires defining the individual constructs (Statistics Solutions, 2013). This meant the researchers needed to make presumptions about the number of factors generated in both cities for comparison. In this regard, there was no prior theoretical or knowledge basis to define the exact number of factors or set the same number applicable in both cities. As a result, EFA was believed to be a suitable tool in this case. The application of factor analysis in this study followed the researchers’ decision to omit the data normality assumption (Stewart, Barnes, Cote, Cudeck, & Malthouse, 2001), to use a varimax rotation (Beerli & Martín, 2004), and to adopt the Kaiser-Guttman's rule of element extraction within a range of factor loading of > 0.5 (Horng, Hu, Teng, Hsiao, & Liu, 2013).

their city branding strategies (Chan & Marafa, 2014; Chan, 2014; Gulsrud et al., 2013). The study of Danish cities by Gulsrud et al. (2013) reported that green spaces in Danish cities show great potential to be branded because of a strong local community attachment to the local park resources though the municipal governments tended to develop other aspects such as creativity. In the case of Hong Kong, the city possesses large coverage of vegetated land (approximately 70% of the land area) and protected areas (over 40% of the land area are Country Parks) (Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department [AFCD], The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR], 2013; Planning Department [PlanD], The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR], 2012). These urban green resources are visible and usable assets for local residents and visitors. These findings, therefore, show huge potential for the cities to develop a green resource brand or to incorporate green resource attributes into their existing umbrella brand, thus supporting the need for investigating the attributes of a green brand in both places. 2.2. Research design and methods This study used a questionnaire survey as a reliable data-collection method (Vaske, 2008). Two surveys were conducted in Hong Kong (between October 2012 and January 2013, and additionally between July and August 2013) and Copenhagen (between March and April 2013) respectively to collect responses from inbound visitors in the two cities. Interviews in Hong Kong were conducted at six different locations and tourist attractions in both urban areas and new towns. Interviews in Copenhagen were conducted at two major tourist attractions. The surveys were conducted in the daytime on weekdays and at weekends so that a more diverse combination of visitors could be obtained. Finally, 395 and 217 completed responses were collected from visitors in Hong Kong and Copenhagen respectively (Table 4). Following the research approach adopted by Chan & Marafa (2014),

15

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 6b Comparison between respondents with and without prior city and park experience. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Attribute

Familiarity as green city Enhancement of the quality of life by green environment Greening policy Provision of parks Role of greening in city planning Pleasant experience in parks Trees and greenery beauty in the city Landscape and hillside beauty Recreation opportunities in parks Educational experience in parks Valuable fauna and flora Old and valuable trees Environmentally-friendly citizenship Greening-supportive citizenship Communicable and friendly citizenship in parks Park safety Overall quality of parks Quality of park facilities Park accessibility Willingness to seek investment Willingness to seek employment Willingness to seek education Willingness to spend as tourists

Prior visit to the destination (t-value)

Prior visit to any park (t-value)

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

NA NA NA NA 2.332* 2.226* 3.309** 2.255* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.089* NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.101*

Copenhagen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.326* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

*

2.324 3.385** 2.420* 2.388* 2.068* 5.432** 3.619** NA 3.044** 3.305** NA NA NA NA 2.072* 3.327** 2.903** NA 3.019** NA NA 2.355* NA

Copenhagen NA NA NA NA 2.165* NA NA NA 2.907** 3.099** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Remarks: Bolded figures refer to statistically significant higher scores for having prior experience; others vice versa;’NA’ indicates an insignificant result. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

example, the ease of discovering valuable faunal and floral species as well as old and valuable trees. The poor perception of these items is shared by both groups. Through a parallel observation of the ranking, the two groups show a divergent pattern mainly concerning several aspects of the green brand attributes. Firstly, visitors in Hong Kong gave higher ranking to the beauty of slope and hillside landscapes [4] (m = 4.03) than the Copenhagen visitors did [13] (m = 4.02), although the scores of both groups are almost equivalent. The higher ranking of landscape and hillside beauty can be explained by Hong Kong's mountainous characteristic, whereas Copenhagen has flat terrain. Secondly, the ranking of park and green space accessibility is higher in Copenhagen than in Hong Kong. However, the Country Parks in Hong Kong are locally recognized sites and are externally promoted as highly accessible attractions to the public (The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR], 2013). This finding reveals an information and perceptual gap among inbound visitors in Hong Kong that points to the necessity of stronger promotion by Hong Kong to highlight the unique accessibility of its natural areas. Thirdly, visitors in the two cities seem to possess contrary views on the attributes in the ‘green potential’ component (as highlighted in italics in Table 6a). Visitors in Hong Kong gave higher scores to the attributes related to the willingness to spend money on or pay for improved green spaces and environment [6−8, 11] (m = 3.91–3.95). Copenhagen visitors rated these attributes much lower except for the willingness to spend more as tourists [13, 17, 19] (m = 3.09–3.75). This indicates that visitors in Hong Kong perceive a stronger connection between improved urban green resources and environment and the associated economic benefits (such as increasing business investment, attracting employees and students, and increasing income for the tourism sector). Since Hong Kong has presented a salient impression as

3. Results and discussions The socio-demographic and visitation characteristics of the (Hong Kong and Copenhagen) respondents, which are shown in Table 5, generally demonstrated a similar profile in terms of gender distribution, age range (mainly between 21 and 60 years old), and education level (mostly secondary level or above). Visitors in Hong Kong and Copenhagen mainly came from Asian and European countries respectively. Because of the cities’ geographical location, nearly 70% of the responding visitors in Hong Kong came from Asia, while almost half of Copenhagen's inbound visitors came from the rest of Europe. More than one-third of the respondents were first-time visitors in Hong Kong; the percentage of that was about 60% in Copenhagen. 3.1. Ratings, ranking and comparison of green brand attributes The ratings of different green brand attributes given by the two respondent groups in Hong Kong and Copenhagen are shown in Table 6a. The overall average scores of all attributes in the two groups in both cities do not exceed 4.0. No single element receives a mean score of over 5.0 except the attribute ‘pleasant experience in parks and green spaces’ in Copenhagen, which the visitors rated as outstanding (m = 5.03). The ratings of green attributes given by visitors in Copenhagen show a greater range (from 2.99 to 5.03) than those given by visitors in Hong Kong (from 3.51 to 4.11). The three best-scored attributes in both groups are the same, indicating that visitors believed that the attributes related to the feeling of pleasant experience in parks and green spaces, park safety, and the beauty of trees and plants are the prominent attributes associated with a green brand in both cities. On the contrary, the worst-scored attributes are items related to the GBH's ‘green pulse’ component, for

16

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 7 Results of hypotheses.

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

Hypothesis

Findings from Mann-Whitney U tests

Decision

Green status (GSt) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong. Green space (GSp) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green potential (GPot) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green pulse (GPul) of Hong Kong is significantly higher than that of Copenhagen. Green citizenship (GCiti) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong. Green prerequisites (GPre) of Copenhagen is significantly higher than that of Hong Kong.

Copenhagen shows significantly higher scores in 4 items; 1 insignificant item Copenhagen shows significantly higher scores in 2 items; 1 insignificant item Hong Kong shows significantly higher scores in 2 items; 2 insignificant items Hong Kong shows significantly higher scores in 3 items; 1 insignificant item Copenhagen shows significantly higher scores in 2 items; 2 insignificant items Copenhagen shows significantly higher scores in 2 items

Accept Reject Accept Accept Accept Accept

and ‘green prerequisites’ components, leading to the confirmation of the postulations and thus the acceptance of H1, H5 and H6. Copenhagen also receives significantly higher scores in two out of four attributes in the ‘green space’ component, which does not coincide with the inventory statistics about the urban green resources of the two cities listed in Appendix A. The findings therefore reject H2. The items in the ‘green pulse’ and ‘green potential’ components, on the other hand, receive significantly higher scores in Hong Kong. These results support the existence of differences in visitor perception of the attributes between Copenhagen and Hong Kong, and thus both H3 and H4 are accepted.

a commercial and financial center to both the region and the world, the findings in this respect could indicate the effect of people's stereotype of a city on their perception of the city's different facets. Furthermore, the attributes related to the ‘green status’ component that connect with green city reputation and green resource policy are among the lowest in the ranking by Hong Kong's visitors [15, 16, 18, 19, 21] (m = 3.56–3.70). Most of these attributes have a much higher ranking among visitors in Copenhagen [6−8, 11] (m = 4.10–4.40), denoting the possibility that the effort exerted by the public sector is more appreciated and has higher potential to be associated with a green brand there. These items are in bold in Table 6a. The datasets then went through the ordinal Mann-Whitney U test to reaffirm the geographical differences by statistical testing. The results are shown in the last two columns of Table 6a, which follow the sequence of the items for Copenhagen. Among the list of GBH's attributes, the inter-group difference is apparent as 17 out of 23 items have statistically significant differences between the two cities. Most of the attributes (18 out of 23 items) have statistically higher ratings in Copenhagen, indicating a ‘greener’ perception and thus a greater potential of establishing a green brand there. Further analysis was also conducted to differentiate respondents with and without prior experience to the city and any of its parks. The two-sample independent t-test findings are presented in Table 6b. The results revealed that prior visit to Hong Kong does have a stronger influence in visitors’ perception of the green brand attributes than it does in Copenhagen, especially in terms of visitors’ feelings towards greenery and landscape beauty. In overall terms, however, the influence of prior visit to the city is not very strong in both destinations. Comparatively speaking, respondents who are more experienced in visiting Hong Kong gave lower ratings on the significant green brand attributes, whereas frequent visitors to Copenhagen perceive an improved environmentally-friendly citizenship. The difference in perception is more noticeable regarding prior visit to parks than to the cities themselves in each destination. The ratings of a larger number of green brand attributes are affected by the presence of prior park experience by visitors in Hong Kong when compared with that affected by their prior city experience. In this case, it is observed that park visit experience does significantly improve the perception of a green brand by visitors. All the attributes in both cities obtained better scores from responded visitors who frequently visited the cities’ parks. Based on the results in Table 6a, the six hypotheses were verified accordingly (Table 7). Copenhagen significantly triumphs over Hong Kong in most of the attributes in the ‘green status’, ‘green citizenship’

3.2. Green brand structures The tests against the reliability of responses and the appropriateness of factor analysis all yielded satisfactory results. The Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.874 to 0.940, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling ranged from 0.810 to 0.933, and the Bartlett's test of sphericity had significant results for the groups. These results support the use of factor analysis as a reliable analytical tool in this study (Kaiser, 1974; Lee & Crompton, 1992). The datasets in Hong Kong and Copenhagen went through EFA independently. Each factor was identified and labeled according to the resultant combination and the nature of the attributes. As seen in the EFA results in Tables 8a, 8b, there are four and six factors in the green brand structures of Hong Kong and Copenhagen respectively. The green brand structures in Hong Kong and Copenhagen represent how visitors in the two cities perceive the attributes associated with a brand for green spaces and resources from a multi-dimensional perspective (i.e. inclusion of both tangible and intangible green aspects). In Hong Kong, the analysis extracts 16 attributes (out of 23) organized in four factors, while 14 attributes generate six factors in Copenhagen. Compared with the original GBH, the green brand structure in Hong Kong demonstrates a ‘square’ pattern, but it maintains a hexagonal structure in Copenhagen. On the whole, the factors represent approximately 56% and 50% of the variances of respondents in the two cities respectively. Although the green brand structures in the two places demonstrate very different forms, several dimensions share common attributes. Both locations share the entire set of the ‘willingness to pay/cost’ attributes from the GBH's ‘green potential’ component. This finding concurs with another study in Hong Kong, which provided evidence to show the existence of a relationship between visitors’ willingness to stay in a city

17

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 8a Factor analysis of the green brand dimensions of Hong Kong (n = 395). Factor loading Green governance and citizenship Greening policy Enhancement of the quality of life by green environment Provision of parks Role of greening in city planning Environmentally-friendly citizenship Familiarity as green city Greening-supportive citizenship Green aesthetic experience, park safety and accessibility Trees and greenery beauty in the city Landscape and hillside beauty Pleasant experience in parks Park safety Park accessibility Green economic and creative benefits Willingness to seek employment Willingness to seek education Willingness to seek investment Green peculiarity Valuable fauna and flora

Table 8b Factor analysis of the green brand dimensions of Copenhagen (n = 217).

Cumulative % of variance

Factor loading Green heritage and education Valuable fauna and flora Old and valuable trees Educational experience in parks Green citizenship and park accessibility Environmentally-friendly citizenship Park accessibility Green economic benefits Willingness to seek education Willingness to seek employment Willingness to seek investment Willingness to spend as tourists Green policy Greening policy Green aesthetics Trees and greenery beauty in the city Landscape and hillside beauty Park quality Overall quality of parks Quality of park facilities

20.747 0.726 0.705 0.682 0.672 .631 0.616 .553 37.862 0.753 0.720 0.711 0.594 0.515 50.725 0.797 0.770 0.647 56.475

Cumulative % 10.406

0.750 0.665 0.654 20.017 .707 0.588 29.488 0.723 0.720 0.644 0.619 36.947 0.757 43.435 0.587 0.523 49.853 0.722 0.641

Cronbach's alpha = 0.874; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy = 0.810; Bartlett's test of sphericity (p = 0.000). Extraction method: Principle axis factoring. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Eigenvalue of each factor > 1; Factor loading of each element > 0.5. Attributes loading on more than one factor with a loading score of ≧ 0.5 on each factor eliminated.

0.661

Cronbach's alpha = 0.940; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy = 0.933; Bartlett's test of sphericity (p = 0.000). Extraction method: Principle axis factoring. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Eigenvalue of each factor > 1; Factor loading of each element > 0.5. Attributes loading on more than one factor with a loading score of ≧ 0.5 on each factor eliminated.

brand associated with green spaces and resources in Copenhagen. Consequently, urban green resources may be further linked to green tourism and eco-leisure as visitors, out of their innate curiosity and playfulness, may be attracted by the distinctive features of the green resources facilitated by creative urban design (Donoff & Bridgman, 2017). Secondly, visitors in Copenhagen consider the greening policy implemented by the municipal government as a distinct factor connected to a green brand. Thirdly, they believe that the aesthetic value of green resources such as trees and landscape as well as the quality of parks and green spaces are important dimensions associated with a green brand. The reconfiguration of the brand structure explains the underlying attributes that contribute to an attractive green brand in both cities. However, some of the associated attributes carry a negative perception as they were being rated lowly by the respondents. Some of the attributes with an exceptionally high score may not possess significant potential in establishing a green brand. For instance, the attributes of ‘pleasant experience in parks’, ‘park safety’ and the attributes related to public policy received the highest ratings in Copenhagen, but they are detached from its green brand structure. On the other hand, those attributes related to public policy in Hong Kong (from the GBH's ‘green status’ component) are among the lowest-scored items. They are, nevertheless, included in the ‘green governance and citizenship’ dimension of Hong Kong. The attribute of ‘valuable fauna and flora’ in both cities was within the green brand structure though this attribute received a bottom ranking on the list. A further analysis of the eventual interrelationship among the green brand dimensions was conducted. This interrelation was analyzed through a correlation analysis of all the extracted attributes across the dimensions in each city. The results are presented in Table 9. The presence of the interrelationship is determined by the magnitude of the correlation coefficients which ranged from weak (r = 0.1–0.3),

and the green brand (Chan & Marafa, 2016a). The results in the preceding study showed that some of the dimensions in a green resource brand positively perceived by visitors did determine and increase the willingness of the visitors to stay in a city, but the green brand attributes only played a small part in determining the said willingness. There must be other more influential non-environmental factors affecting the locational decisions of people. This study further reveals that Hong Kong's visitors considered an improved green environment as a factor not significantly associated with or influential in affecting their tourist spending when compared with other purposes of their stay. This finding implies that being a tourist in Hong Kong is somewhat detached from the green environment, or that simply proposing a green brand in Hong Kong may not be able to encourage visitors to spend more, for example, in certain forms of green or nature-based tourism. In the case of Copenhagen, however, the green brand does encourage visitors to spend or cost more for all sorts of purposes of stay. Another finding is that the green brand structure is more complicated and complexly blended as perceived by Hong Kong's visitors than by Copenhagen's visitors. The former is inclined to consider elements of public policy and citizen quality concurrently and incorporate some attributes of ‘green status’ and ‘green citizenship’ into a newly integrated dimension. On the other hand, visitors in Copenhagen perceive the city to have a more sophisticated green brand structure although the composition of each dimension is simpler and more clear-cut. The resultant brand association appears to be distinctive. Firstly, the respondents in Copenhagen tend to recognize valuable vegetation and animals and their associated educational function. These attributes form a specific factor that constitutes an important dimension of a

18

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

Table 9 Spearman's correlation analysis of the extracted GHB's attributes in each city. Hong Kong Green governance and citizenship

Green aesthetic experience, park safety and accessibility Green economic and creative benefits Green peculiarity Copenhagen Green heritage and education

Green citizenship and park accessibility

Green economic benefits

Green policy Green aesthetics Park quality

Magnitude of correlation (No. of Spearman's rho) Green Green Green Green Green Green –

aesthetic experience, park safety and accessibility economic and creative benefits peculiarity economic and creative benefits peculiarity peculiarity

Green citizenship and park accessibility Green economic benefits Green policy Green aesthetics Park quality Green economic benefits Green policy Green aesthetics Park quality Green policy Green aesthetics Park quality Green aesthetics Park quality Park quality –

Moderate (12 weak; 18 moderate; 0 insignificant) Weak (18 weak; 3 moderate; 0 insignificant) Moderate (1 weak; 6 moderate; 0 insignificant) Moderate (2 weak; 13 moderate; 0 insignificant) Weak (3 weak; 2 moderate; 0 insignificant) Weak (3 weak; 0 insignificant) – Magnitude of correlation Weak (1 weak; 5 insignificant) Weak (6 weak; 3 moderate; 3 insignificant) Weak (2 weak; 1 moderate; 0 insignificant) Weak (6 weak; 0 insignificant) Weak (1 weak; 5 insignificant) Weak (6 weak; 1 moderate; 1 insignificant) Weak (1 weak; 1 insignificant) Weak (2 weak; 2 insignificant) Weak (2 weak; 2 moderate; 0 insignificant) Weak (1 weak; 3 insignificant) Weak (3 weak; 5 insignificant) Weak (2 weak; 1 moderate; 5 insignificant) Weak (2 weak; 0 insignificant) Weak (1 weak; 1 insignificant) Weak (4 insignificant) –

Remarks: All Spearman's rho values reported are statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05); insignificant coefficients are excluded.

the willingness to pay or spend more) is relatively stronger than that with the other dimensions. This highlights an opportunity in which high quality urban green resources can generate economic values to the green brand and the city. For example, park quality has a relatively strong correlation with visitors’ willingness to spend more (r > 0.33). This implies a chance to promote more nature-based tourism attractions and activities to Copenhagen visitors. Furthermore, the moderate correlation that appears between Copenhagen's ‘green heritage and education’ and ‘green economic benefits’ dimensions is related to investment seeking. In reality, the Copenhagen municipal government has incorporated six dimensions to boost its business and growth policy (City of Copenhagen, 2015), where some of the aspects in these dimensions reflect the economy-related factors of green brand structure examined in this study, such as the willingness to stay for education and other purposes. There are also itemized areas of green resource-related policies, such as green root development (State of Green, 2018) and urban planning (Ministry of Environment, Denmark, 2015). This indicates that precious urban green resources such as faunal and floral species and a city's specialty are able to attract investors’ interests and attention. The Danish government has also attempted to promote its green image to the world (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2014). Such an attempt is noticed by inbound visitors, some of whom may become the city's potential business and investment seekers. It is, however, necessary to note that such relation is more apparent in Hong Kong than in Copenhagen.

moderate (r = 0.4–0.6) to strong (r = 0.7–0.9) (Dancey & Reidy, 2011). All the reported correlation coefficients are statistically significant where the majority of the items of Hong Kong have moderate values (39 weakly correlated items and 42 moderately correlated items out of 81 coefficients). This indicates that the green brand dimensions and their attributes possess stronger correlations in Hong Kong than in Copenhagen, as most of the correlations of the latter city are weak (36 weakly correlated items, eight moderately correlated items and 35 insignificant items out of 79 coefficients). In Hong Kong, the interrelationship between green brand dimensions is largely seen in the ‘green governance and citizenship’ dimension as it carries a greater number of moderate correlation coefficients than other green brand dimensions. This reveals a stronger and topdown role of the Hong Kong Government and its policies on parks and urban green resources that greatly influences visitors’ perception of a green resource brand. For instance, there is an all-round policy initiative and framework that captures these urban green resources territory-wide (Development Bureau, the HKSAR Government, 2016). A climate change action plan was also formulated, which included aspects of blue-green infrastructure, conservation and biodiversity (Environment Bureau, 2017). These aspects are related to urban green resources but are separated from city branding. Similarly, the Hong Kong Tourism Board, as the destination marketing organization, promotes green tourism in outdoor environments and Country Parks (Hong Kong Tourism Board, 2017, 2018). These initiatives, however, are focused on tourism only rather than green branding. Such policy orientation is not seen in Copenhagen where the policy dimension is not strongly associated with green branding by the visitors. It is nevertheless important to note that the attributes related to government policy (the GSt dimension in the original GBH) have low ratings in Hong Kong. From Copenhagen's data, it is observed that the association of attributes with the ‘green economic benefits’ dimension (represented by

4. Conclusion and recommendations The findings of this paper have responded to the two research questions. Firstly, the statistical comparison demonstrated that the difference in visitor perception of the attributes between Hong Kong and Copenhagen is significant. Secondly, the results ascertained a

19

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

to an extent that they are not replicable elsewhere. An obstacle to establishing a successful brand is a complex city user combination. Tourists represent only one group of city users. They largely ‘catch’ a city and its image through the information provided by a destination marketing authority, while green attributes may not be the primary focus of a cosmopolitan city like Hong Kong. On the contrary, local residents are often an important type of city user who truly understand the city's authenticity (Insch & Florek, 2010). They play multiple roles in place marketing and branding (Braun, Kavaratzis, & Zenker, 2013). An effective way of green branding should, therefore, incorporate residents’ views and knowledge (Hankinson, 2004; Ooi & Pedersen, 2010; Zavattaro, 2010) although place branding is often regarded as a political exercise of target market selection (Boisen et al., 2011). One important area that deserves further study is the strengthening of the GBH concept through the investigation into the perceptions of GBH by respondents from a number of cities worldwide (Freire, 2006). CFA would then be an appropriate method to draw conclusions to a solid GBH structure that is generic enough to be used in other contexts. There is also the need to study resident perceptions in confirming a green resource brand with local support (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2002). Specifically, urban green environments carry latent potentials that offer ample opportunities for nurturing the innate playfulness of local residents and visitors, which deserve more investigation (Donoff & Bridgman, 2017). Furthermore, this study reveals that the ‘hard’ facts coincide with visitor perception as most of the hypotheses were accepted and they were formed on the basis of visitor-based ‘objective’ data (Table 7). As a result, it would be valuable to conduct further research to verify the consistency of visitor perception over time, which takes into account the branding efforts of each destination. The study has two major limitations. Firstly, the two cities may not be ideal cases for comparison. Perceptual divergence in the green brand attributes was expected in the findings due to the different environmental and physical characteristics of the cities. However, as with what have appeared in many city ranking exercises over the years, such as those shown in Table 2 among others, both Hong Kong and Copenhagen have championed in their ‘greenness’ or urban green spaces. Urban green resources are very different in definitions and interpretations across cities. Even if the authors are able to list out all the cities that are recognized by their liveability or their reputation of urban green resources (e.g. Appendix A), it is still difficult to locate a ‘perfect’ pair of cities for comparison. As the surveys were conducted independently in the two cities, the respondents were inclined to focus solely on the attributes of the respective city. This condition shows that the ratings reflect the distinctive condition of the city and can minimize the effect of geographical comparison. However, the sampled respondents were not local residents but visitors to each destination. This could have minimized such negative impact methodologically as visitors do not stay or reside in either city but can make relatively relevant responses from an ‘outsider’ perspective. Secondly, the sample size of Copenhagen was much smaller than that of Hong Kong due to a shorter available period of data collection. The difference in sample size may cause some deviations in statistical application though the reliability tests have confirmed the applicability of the respective datasets. This comparative study between two cities serves as a pioneering and pilot study for further research on multiple-city comparison.

distinctive green brand structure in the two cities respectively and therefore gave a positive answer to the second question. Several policy recommendations are given to the decision-makers of both cities. Firstly, constructed on the green brand framework (i.e. the GBH) from previous studies, this paper investigated how the same set of green attributes is perceptually different in two geographical locations. The differences represent the ‘starting conditions’ for the two cities to (re)create a green space or resource brand. The attributes strongly associated with a green brand that are positively perceived by and well recognized among the target audience can contribute to the construction of a successful, effective and positive green resource brand. Secondly, Hong Kong's green resource brand has a square structure that contains inter-connected green resource attributes such as the one embracing policy and quality of citizens, and the one with a mixture of aesthetics, park safety and accessibility. The priority of Hong Kong's decision-makers should therefore be the identification of the unique features of the urban green resources in the city and the articulation of these characteristics to the public. In contrast, Copenhagen has a hexagonal brand structure (which has more dimensions than that of Hong Kong), and the composition of each dimension is simpler and more clear-cut. This represents the possibility that visitors have a multi-faceted and higher expectation on the Danish urban green resources. However, Danish researchers have discovered earlier that their municipal governments did not concentrate on branding ‘green concepts such as environmentally sustainable policies as well as biophysical assets such as green spaces’ (Gulsrud et al., 2013, p. 330). This reveals a ‘branding strategy gap’ from the perspective of visitor perception (Govers & Go, 2009). Moreover, the two cities in the study demonstrate different historical and evolutionary developments in planning and branding strategies that are related to green aspects. Copenhagen has been strong in longterm environmental sustainability and maintaining a high level of liveability over the years (Confederation of Danish Industry, 2016), while Hong Kong has only focused on piecemeal policies or administrative tactics of greening and conservation (Development Bureau, the HKSAR Government, 2016). Such a situation is reflected in the findings of the study by the comparison of the green brand attributes. The results show that Copenhagen is stronger than Hong Kong in all the policyrelated attributes in the GBH though these attributes are not recognized by the government as the branding focus (Gulsrud et al., 2013). Although Hong Kong and Copenhagen are inherently different in many aspects, this pioneering paper shows an example of a comparative study which may be applied to examine other cities with similar characteristics or used to compile a regional branding strategy for a cluster of cities. The top three attributes in both cities are related to the provision of a pleasant experience, safe environment and beautiful landscape across urban green resources. To many city governments, this condition may easily be imitated by other places. Nevertheless, ‘the use and perception of space varies dramatically for different user groups. There was no one single experience or meaning of a park space’ (Campbell, Svendsen, Sonti, & Johnson, 2016, p. 36); this idea is also echoed by GomezBaggethun et al. (2013). The key to success is to search for the unique characteristics of a city as suggested, for example, by Chan et al. (2015). There are many possibilities of themes that cities may choose to lay the brand upon when creating a city brand, such as culture, history, creativity and smartness. The availability of ‘green resources’ is one of the many possibilities for setting the starting condition. Nevertheless, it is essential that the selection of any theme and its attributes is unique to a city. Even having the same theme, cities should have their own starting conditions as these are what would eventually make a brand strong or weak. A green city brand, for example, may even play a special role for a particular city if some of its green resources are unique

Acknowledgement Part of the tourists’ data from Hong Kong used in this paper has been used for publications in other journals, but the tourists’ data from Copenhagen and the analysis conducted in this paper have never been reported in any publication.

20

21

N/A Parks and gardens of national significance, local parks and squares

4.22 (admin. area) Actively maintained park land, sports parks land, premier parks

Marine National Park, Marine Sanctuaries

N/A N/A

0.89 (city area) Over 2.0 (Stockholm region) 188 (city area)

Stockholm

Neighbour-hood parks

61.34 8.6

Toronto

Natural areas including ravines and woodlands

641

10

Aquatic Reserves

N/A N/A

180 28.1

46 N/A (15 +16 +6 +9)

21.65 (city area) 12,368 (metro area) National Parks, Nature Reserves, State Conser. Areas, Regional Parks

2.62 (2011 0.18 (city area) 4.39 (metro area, census) 2011 census)

Sydney

3.17 Public parks Public parks Major parks, and green local parks, off- and green spaces leash parks, and spaces playgrounds

7 (surrounded by 219 reserves) 15.22 8.1 (40% from official information) Nature Reserve (on water) N/A

Regional Park sand Nature Nature Reserves Reserves

69 62 (5 + 2 + 19 + 8 + 35)

National Parks, State Parks, smaller parks, Reservoir Parks, and other protected areas

5 (1 + 4)

2.43 Major urban parks

5.2

Singapore

37.7 (city area) 9990.5 714.3 (metro area)

0.11 (city area) 4.25 (metro area)

Melbourne

600 (including urban green spaces) 5 (4 + 1)

Marine Park and Reserve

Natural park land

Quantity (No.) Area (km2) Urban green spaces

442.39 40.1

22.6 (admin. area) 26.5 (admin. area)

46 (24 + 22)

Country Parks and Special Areas

Area (km2) % of land area

Green area (garden facilities, parks, nature areas, small parks and areas, sports facilities, allotments and cemeteries)

Types of Protected area

1108.0

N/A

85.0 (admin. area) 3821.4 (metro. area)

Land area (km2)

7.18

Hong Kong

Quantity (No.)

1.95

Population (million)

Copenhagen

Appendix A. Information about green spaces and resources in Copenhagen, Hong Kong, and other cities that are often top-ranked green cities

Urban green spaces

N/A 35.4 (from official information)

National parks, nature preserves, landscape protection areas, protected parts of landscapes, ecological development areas and protected biotopes, natural monuments, wetland N/A

414.87

1.74

Vienna

C.-S. Chan et al.

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

22

1517

Hong Kong Global Geo-park China, Hong Kong Wetland Park, hiking trails, nature trails, tree walks, waterworks, heritage trails, old and valuable trees, Fung Shui woods

(2012) 21,918 street trees provided (2012/13) 557,000 annual plants, 1800 trees, and 2.27 millions of shrubs planted

16.29 25.0 (7.65 +0.54 +2.67 +0.06 +5.37) (area of playgrounds not available) 19.2 (admin. area) 0.54 (metro. 2.3 area)

126

3.2

23.0

Parks, playgrounds open spaces, fitness corners and park connectors N/A

255

Heritage parks, HortPark and the Southern Ridges, riverine parks, community parks, nature parks, Singapore Botanical Gardens, coastal parks, offshore islands, heritage trees

(2013) 35,000 trees in (2010/11) roadside city area greenery of 26.6 km2

13.6 (city area)

5.14 (all parks in city area included)

12

Small parks / Major parks, gardens gardens / sitting-out and waterways areas

Playgrounds, planted beds, maintained grass areas

N/A

26

600 (including protected area)

1.88

400

Historic Sites, and Aboriginal Areas

(2013) 2688 trees (277 as important ones)

30 (official 8.7 (city area) information)

N/A

1000

189.12 (from official information) 12.5 (13% from 45.6 (from official official information) information) (2013) 4 million public trees, 0.6 million street trees, 3.5 millions in parks 7500 ha of woods, Trails of a 1,000-year old 600 km; Lake yew tree (Taxus Ontario shoreline, city baccata) parks with beaches, playgrounds, sports fields, gardens, conservatories ice rinks

80

1600

(Sources: A complete reference list of the following sources of statistics and information is available from the corresponding author upon request. Copenhagen – European Commission, 2013; Statistics Denmark, 2013; Yardstick, 2012 Hong Kong – Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), 2013; Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), 2013; Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), 2013; Planning Department (PlanD), 2012. Melbourne – City of Melbourne, 2013a, 2013b; Federparchi, 2013. Singapore – National Parks Board, Singapore, 2011; Statistics Singapore, 2012. Stockholm – City of Stockholm, 2013; Statistics Stockholm, 2013. Sydney – City of Sydney, 2013; Federparchi, 2013. Toronto – City of Toronto, 2013a, 2013b. Vienna – Lukacsy & Fendt, 2013; Stribl, 2013.

Examples of other city green resources

Plantation

% of land area

Quantity (No.) Area (km2)

Quantity (No.)

C.-S. Chan et al.

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

References

growth and sustainability (pp. 187–194). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Donoff, G., & Bridgman, R. (2017). The playful city: Constructing a typology for urban design interventions. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 294–307. Dooley, G., & Bowie, D. (2005). Place brand architecture: Strategic management of the brand portfolio. Place Branding, 1(4), 402–419. Environment Bureau (2017). Hong Kong climate action plan 2030+. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/ClimateActionPlanEng. pdf〉. Evans, G. L. & Bohrer, J. (2000). Urban parks and green space: Quality of life and LA21. In J. F. Benson & M. H. Roe (Eds.), Urban lifestyles: Spaces, places, people: Proceedings of an International Conference on Cities in the New Millennium (pp. 147-154), Rotterdam; Brookfield, VT.: A.A. Balkema. Fairweather, J. R., & Swaffield, S. R. (2002). Visitors' and locals' experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: An interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(4), 283–297. Florida, R. (2015). Sorry, London: New York is the world’s most economically powerful city. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/03/sorrylondon-new-york-is-the-worlds-most-economically-powerful-city/386315/〉. Fok, K. W. K., & Law, W. W. Y. (2018). City re-imagined: Multi-stakeholder study on branding Hong Kong as a city of greenery. Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 1039–1051. Forristal, L. J., & Lehto, X. Y. (2009). Place branding with native species: Personality as a criterion. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(3), 213–225. Freire, J. R. (2006). ‘Other tourists': A critical factor for a geo-brand-building process. Place Branding, 2(1), 68–83. van Gelder, S. (2003). Global brand strategy: Unlocking brand potential across countries, cultures & markets. London and Sterling, VA: Kogan Page. Giovanardi, M. (2012). Haft and sord factors in place branding: Between functionalism and representationalism. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 8(1), 30–45. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Barton, D. N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P., Kramer, P., ... (2013). Urban ecosystem services. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.). Urbanization biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 175–251). The Netherlands: Springer. Govers, R. (2013). Why place branding is not about logos and slogans. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(2), 71–75. Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009). Place branding: Global, virtual and physical identities, constructed, imagined and experienced. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gramon-Suba, I., & Holt, C. (2012). Turning a gemstone into a diamond: A green design and branding strategy for the city of Bucharest. In F. Go, & R. Govers (Eds.). International place branding yearbook 2012: Managing smart growth and sustainability (pp. 132–144). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gross, A. C., Poor, J., Sipos, Z., & Solymossy, E. (2009). The multiple mandates of national park systems. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(4), 276–289. Gulsrud, N. M., Gooding, S., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C. (2013). Green space branding in Denmark in an era of neoliberal governance. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), 330–337. Hankinson, G. (2001). Location branding: A study of the branding practices of 12 English cities. Journal of Brand Management, 9(2), 127–142. Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109–121. Hong Kong Tourism Board (2017). Invitation to ‘Green Tourism Pilot Scheme’ application. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://partnernet.hktb.com/en/industry_news/ circulars/index.html?Id = 2753〉. Hong Kong Tourism Board (2018). Great outdoors. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/see-do/great-outdoors/index.jsp〉. Horng, J.-S., Hu, M.-L., Teng, C.-C., Hsiao, H.-L., & Liu, C.-H. (2013). Development and validation of the low-carbon literacy scale among practitioners in the Taiwanese tourism industry. Tourism Management, 35, 255–262. Hui, T. K., & Wan, T. W. D. (2003). Singapore's image as a tourist destination. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(4), 305–313. Insch, A. (2011). Branding the city as an attractive place to live. In K. Dinnie (Ed.). City branding: Theory and cases (pp. 8–14). Basingstoke and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2010). Place satisfaction of city residents: Findings and implications for city branding. In G. Ashworth, & M. Kavaratzis (Eds.). Towards effective place branding management: Branding European cities and regions (pp. 191–204). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jamison, A., & Baark, E. (1999). National shades of green: Comparing the Swedish and Danish styles in ecological modernization. Environmental Values, 8(2), 199–218. Kahn, M. E. (2006). Green cities: Urban growth and the environment. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. Kerr, G. (2006). From destination brand to location brand. Journal of Brand Management, 13(4–5), 276–283. Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London and New York, NY: Routledge. Konijnendijk, C. C. (2008). The forest and the city: The cultural landscape of urban woodland. Dordrecht: Springer. Konijnendijk, C. C. (2010). Green cities, competitive cities: Promoting the role of green space in city branding. Paper presented at the 22nd IFPRA World Congress, 15-18 November 2010, Hong Kong, China. Retrieved 01.04.13. from: 〈http://www.ifpra2010.lcsd. gov.hk/download/paper/cecil.pdf〉. Lee, T.-H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 732–751. Liu, L. (2008). Status and prospects for urban green structure planning in China: Weihai city as

Acuto, M. (2012). Ain’t about politics? The wicked power-geometry of Sydney's greening governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36, 381–399. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). (2013). Hong Kong: The facts – country parks and conservation. Retrieved 01.04.15. from: 〈http://www.afcd.gov. hk/english/country/cou_lea/the_facts.html〉. Anholt, S. (2006). The Anholt-GMI city brands index: How the world sees the world's cities. Place Branding, 2(1), 18–31. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Arcadis (2015). Sustainable cities index: Balancing the economic, social and environmental needs of the world’s leading cities. Retrieved 01.03.16. from: 〈https://s3.amazonaws. com/arcadis-whitepaper/arcadis-sustainable-cities-index-report.pdf〉. Ashworth, G., & Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal of Brand Management, 16(8), 520–531. Avraham, E., & Ketter, E. (2008). Media strategies for marketing places in crisis: Improving the image of cities, countries and tourist destinations. Oxford and Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Baycan, T. (2011). Creative cities: Context and perspectives. In L. F. Girard, T. Baycan, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.). Sustainable city and creativity: Promoting creative urban initiatives (pp. 15–53). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, D.C: Island Press. Beck, H. (2009). Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management and Development, 2(3), 240–248. Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681. Bell, D. A., & de-Shalit, A. (2011). The spirit of cities: Why the identity of a city matters in a global age. NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Birch, E. L., & Wachter, S. M. (2008). Introduction: Urban greening and the green city ideal. In E. L. Birch, & S. M. Wachter (Eds.). Growing greener cities: Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century (pp. 1–8). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005). Unmanageable place brands? Place Branding, 1(4), 388–401. Boisen, M., Terlouw, K., & van Gorp, Bouke (2011). The selective nature of place branding and the layering of spatial identities. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(2), 135–147. Braiterman, J. (2011). City branding through new green spaces. In K. Dinnie (Ed.). City branding: Theory and cases (pp. 70–81). Basingstoke and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M., & Zenker, S. (2013). My city – my brand: The different roles of residents in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(1), 18–28. Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., Sonti, N. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 34–44. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2016.01.014. Chan, C. S. (2014). Green resources for city brand in Hong Kong: Potential and gaps (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chan, C. S., & Marafa, L. M. (2014). Rebranding Hong Kong ‘Green’: The potential for connecting city branding with green resources. World Leisure Journal, 56(1), 62–80. Chan, C. S., & Marafa, L. M. (2016aa). How a green city brand determines the willingness to stay in a city? The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 34(6), 719–731. Chan, C. S., & Marafa, L. M. (2016bb). The green branding of Hong Kong: Visitors' and residents' perceptions. Journal of Place Management and Development, 9(3), 289–312. Chan, C. S., & Marafa, L. M. (2018). Knowledge-perception bridge of green-smart integration of cities: An empirical study of Hong Kong. Sustainability, 10(1), 107–126. Chan, C. S., Peters, M., & Marafa, L. M. (2015). Public parks in city branding: Perceptions of visitors vis-à-vis residents in Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 1157–1165. Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205–215. City of Copenhagen (2015). The City of Copenhagen’s business and growth policy 2015–2020. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈https://international.kk.dk/sites/ international.kk.dk/files/uploaded-files/Business_and_Growth_Policy.pdf〉. Clark, E. (2013). Green sustainable Øresund region: Or eco-branding Copenhagen and Malmo? In I. Vojnovic (Ed.). Urban sustainability: A global perspective (pp. 591–610). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Confederation of Danish Industry (2016). Climate-adapted cities: Solutions from Copenhagen. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/ 838037/Climat%20Adapted%20Cities_WEB.pdf〉. Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2011). Statistics without maths for psychology (5th ed.). Harlow and New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Development Bureau, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government (2016). Greening: People, trees, harmony (Parks, Country and Marine Parks). Retrieved 10 January 2018 from 〈https://www.greening.gov.hk/en/home/ index.html〉. Dinnie, K. (2012). Improved public infrastructure and sustainable place branding. In F. Go, & R. Govers (Eds.). International place branding yearbook 2012: Managing smart

23

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 10 (2018) 10–24

C.-S. Chan et al.

all/en/pdf/report_asia.pdf〉. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2012). Best cities ranking and report 2012. Retrieved 01.04.14. from: 〈http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/EIU_BestCities. pdf〉. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2013). Hot spots 2025: Benchmarking the future competitiveness of cities. Retrieved 01.09.15. from: 〈http://www.citigroup.com/citi/ citiforcities/pdfs/hotspots2025.pdf〉. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2014). A summary of the liveability ranking and overview. Retrieved 01.09.15. from: 〈http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/ WhitepaperHandler.ashx?Fi = Liveability-rankings-Promotional-August-2014.pdf& mode = wp&campaignid = Liveability2014〉. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2013). Policy Address 2013: Seek change, maintain stability, serve the people with pragmatism. Retrieved 01.04.14. from: 〈http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2013/eng/pdf/ PA2013.pdf〉. Turok, I. (2009). The distinctive city: Pitfalls in the pursuit of differential advantage. Environment and Planning A, 41, 13–30. Ukwayi, J. K., Eja, E. I., & Unwanede, C. C. (2012). Assessment of tourist perception on service quality in the hospitality industry in cross river state. Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jsr.v3i2.2217. Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and human dimensions. State College, PA.: Venture Publishing Incorporation. Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2006). Case studies in tourism research: A state-of-the-art analysis. Tourism Management, 27(5), 738–749. Zavattaro, S. M. (2010). Municipalities as public relations and marketing firms. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(2), 191–211. Zenker, S. (2011). How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 40–52. Zhang, L., Tan, P. Y., & Diehl, J. A. (2017). A conceptual framework for studying urban green spaces effects on health. Journal of Urban Ecology, 3(1), jux015. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/jue/jux015.

a case study (Forest and Landscape Research No. 41-2008). Frederiksberg: Forest and Landscape, University of Copenhagen. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 7–19. Mercer (2015). 2015 Quality of living rankings: 2015 city rankings. Retrieved 01.03.16. from: 〈http://www.imercer.com/uploads/GM/qol2015/e9526qol2015/index.html〉. Ministry of Environment, Denmark (2015). The finger plan. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/sites/default/files/fp-eng_31_13052015. pdf〉. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (2014). Copenhagen: Inviting the world to see how it’s done. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/ copenhagen/green-capital/〉. Moilanen, T., & Rainisto, S. (2009). How to brand nations, cities and destinations: A planning book for place branding. Basingstoke and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Monocle (2013). Quality of life survey 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈http:// monocle.com/film/affairs/quality-of-life-survey-2013〉. Ooi, C.-S., & Pedersen, J. S. (2010). City branding and film festivals: Re-evaluating stakeholder's relations. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 316–332. Ooi, C.-S., & Stöber, B. (2010). Authenticity and place branding: The arts and culture in branding Berlin and Singapore. In B. T. Knudsen, & A. M. Waade (Eds.). Re-investing authenticity: Tourism, place and emotions (pp. 66–79). Bristol and Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications. Parkerson, B., & Saunders, J. (2005). City branding: Can goods and services branding models be used to brand cities? Place Branding, 1(3), 242–264. Pike, A. (2011). Introduction: Brands and branding geographies. In A. Pike (Ed.). Brands and branding geographies (pp. 3–24). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Planning Department (PlanD), The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) (2012). Land utilization in Hong Kong. Retrieved 01.04.14. from: 〈www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/landu.html〉. Rajesh, R. (2013). Impact of tourist perceptions, destination image and tourist satisfaction on destination loyalty: A conceptual model. Revista Délelőtt Tourismo York Patrimonio Cultural, 11(8), 67–78. Register, R. (2006). Rebuilding cities in balance with nature. Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers. Reputation Institute (2013). Reputation Institute topline report(s): 2013 city report. Retrieved 01.09.15. from: < 〈http://www.reputationinstitute.com/thoughtleadership/complimentary-reports-2013〉 > . Riecken, G., & Yavas, U. (2001). Improving quality of life in a region: A survey of area residents and public sector implications. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(7), 556–568. Rogerson, R. J. (1999). Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 969–985. State of Green (2018). Green roofs in Copenhagen. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from: 〈https://stateofgreen.com/en/profiles/city-of-copenhagen/solutions/green-roofs-incopenhagen〉. Statistics Solutions (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis. Retrieved 01.04.14. from: 〈http://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic-solutions/resources/directory-ofstatistical-analyses/confirmatory-factor-analysis/〉. Stewart, D., Barnes, J., Cote, J., Cudeck, R., & Malthouse, E. (2001). Factor analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1–2), 75–82. Tamanini, J. (2012). Do national green reputations matter? The global green economy index and implications for stakeholders in the green economy. In F. Go, & R. Govers (Eds.). International place branding yearbook 2012: Managing smart growth and sustainability (pp. 164–173). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tan, P. Y., Wang, J., & Sia, A. (2013). Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of Singapore. Cities, 32, 24–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.001. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2011). Asian green city index. Retrieved 01.04.13. from: 〈http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/

Chung-Shing Chan is a Research Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His doctoral research investigates the potential of green resources for city branding in Hong Kong. His teaching and research interests include place branding and marketing, sustainable tourism and eco-tourism. Lawal M. Marafa is an Associate Professor at the Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His teaching and research interests cover leisure and eco-tourism, tourism and environment, and recreation planning and management. Cecil C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch is a Professor in Urban Forestry at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Prof. Konijnendijk van den Bosch is a well-known scholar in urban forestry and urban greening. His main research interests relate to urban green space governance and policies, green city marketing, the changing role of green space in modern society, relations between people and urban nature, socio-cultural values of green space, and the assessment of green space benefits. Thomas Barfoed Randrup, is a Professor in Urban Open Space Management in the Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. He leads the department’s Landscape Governance and Management theme group. Thomas has a background as Landscape Architect, and has a special interest in the overall planning and management of urban open spaces, including green space strategies and policies, functions and uses of green space, as well as the actual organization and maintenance related to urban open spaces.

24