Study of citizen satisfaction and loyalty in the urban area of Guayaquil: Perspective of the quality of public services applying structural equations.

This study investigates the satisfaction and adequacy of citizens through the expected quality and perceived quality in the areas of planning and territorial viability, experience in the provision of municipal services and citizen experience in environmental issues, in order to provide tools for territorial decision making for the citizens' well-being. In our research PLS software is used for the analysis of hypotheses. A questionnaire was delivered to a sample of 521 citizens, representing the spectrum of the population, and the statistical study of the responses yielded results on citizen satisfaction and loyalty. Our research includes the study of moderating effects on the causal ratio of perceived value and satisfaction in territorial planning and viability, the perceived quality in the provision of municipal services and the perceived quality in the citizen experience in the environmental management of the territory on the value relationship perceived by the citizen and general satisfaction. A second objective of the study is to see if there are significant differences in the hypotheses raised by gender by performing a multigroup analysis. This difference has been appreciated in two of the hypotheses. The study shows that the policies exercised by the territorial managers of the different areas have a significant influence on the value perceived by citizens, satisfaction and loyalty, which shape their general well-being. Areas for improvement in territorial policies and municipal services such as citizen security, air quality, public lighting and sports services have been identified. Knowing these shortcomings allows politicians to focus their efforts on improving the quality of life in cities.

Introduction

Territorial and environmental policies as well as public services in urban areas have become a decisive factor when it comes to attracting and arranging the population. Proper management of these policies is essential to achieve citizen satisfaction [1-3]. It is important to improve the expectations of the people who visit a city since it can be decisive in making the decision of establishing residence in the place [3-7]. The loyalty of citizens when establishing their residence in one city or another depends on the adequate provision of public services [5-9].

The correct planning of urban territorial policies, environment and municipal services promotes tourism, international sports activities and economic development [10, 11]. The expectations of citizens when establishing their residence is determined by the expectations of the standards of quality of life, the social welfare derived from public services, employment and entrepreneurship support, the preservation of cultural and heritage values and the environment [12, 13]. The construction of modern infrastructures, well dimensioned to the city and that solve the environmental impact problems, for which the territorial growth and infrastructures of urban areas must be balanced and compensated with environmental policies that reduce the pollution, noise and traffic that these infrastructures entail [14-16].

The citizen’s environmental experience is another important factor when deciding whether to establish residence in and recommend the city. Public institutions manage green spaces and the rules that regulate maximum noise levels (noise pollution), allocate funds for cleaning and green points for the selective collection of urban waste. These define what quality green space is [17, 18]. There are several definitions of quality in the literature. A set of characteristics, which when combined, shows the appeal of green areas [19]. Show the attractiveness of green areas through various attributes that include size, variety of landscapes, cultural and historical aspects, tranquility and peace, as well as the quality of the facilities [20]. Studied the dimensions of perceived quality and activities in green spaces, using a composite park attractiveness index (which describes quality green spaces), which incorporates quality, three amenity factors, and two safety factors as indicators.

For a citizen to want to establish his residence in a metropolis, he considers the quality of life in it. The literature indicates that the larger the cities, the lower the level of satisfaction, due to insecurity and stress. Despite this, most people live in cities, due to the public services they offer in terms of quality and quantity. Rural areas are neglected in terms of basic services, their citizens having to move to the cities to satisfy medical, leisure, specialized supplies, etc [21].

The literature indicates that in rich countries rural life is preferred, while in poor or developing countries life in urban areas is preferred [22] In general, citizens think about money, creativity, municipal and health services, they attract them to the city without taking into account negative aspects such as crime, stress, traffic, pollution, the lack of green spaces [23].

The quality of life in urban areas is increasingly linked to political decisions about public services, the performance of municipal services has been one of the main concerns of public administrators and, therefore, has attracted considerable attention by the municipal administration. [24-26]. In recent decades, there has been a growing effort by social scientists to assess the quality of good governance in the city and the services it provides. Various research institutes, such as the Urban Institute and the International City Management Association (1974) [27] They have pioneered improvements in the provision of public services by collaborating with metropolitan governments to improve municipal service delivery systems. Academics like [28, 29] They have developed tools for validated measurements of the utility of the service, improving knowledge about the functioning of municipal services in urban areas. Other studies have attempted to evaluate various public services in terms of public satisfaction [30, 31].

Within the public services we have to include the quality of public transport, urban security, public lighting, water quality, sewerage and sewerage, funeral services, fire fighting service, etc.; services that together make up the perceived quality of a reception comfortable and safe city where to establish residence [9, 10, 32, 33].

Our analysis is supported by an index used in satisfaction surveys around the world. The American Customer Satisfaction Index [34, 35].

Our research brings a new perspective to the previous literature in relation to loyalty and citizen satisfaction in urban areas, since the expected quality is separated in territorial planning, municipal services and citizen’s environmental experience [36, 37]. Once the citizens have decided to establish their residence in the urban area, the perceived quality is studied in the same dimensions. The internalized difference between perceived quality and expected quality leads citizens to shape the overall perceived value of the city in which they reside [38, 39]. The concept of moderator latent variable is also added to the classical theory of the Structural Equation Model [40, 41]. Three causal relationships study the modulating effect of the latent variables of perceived quality in territorial planning, municipal services and the citizen’s environmental experience on the relationship that exists between the perceived value of the city and satisfaction measured as citizen well-being. [42, 43].

There are various reasons why citizens decide to live in metropolises; despite sacrificing uses related to happiness and quality of life, such as air quality and environmental quality, to achieve other advantages such as professional satisfaction, culture, money and social mobility [21].

The literature provides various studies that analyze these causal relationships, although it is true that few investigations are found that include modulating causal relationships between latent variables. Table 1 includes reference authors who use the items proposed for each of the latent variables [44, 45].

Table 1

Scales used.

Reference	Dimension	Indicators
[57, 58]	(EQTPR)	(EQTPR1) Expectations Zoning and urban planning, (EQTPR2) Expectations Roads and pavements, (EQTPR3) Expectations Traffic organization and crossing, (EQTPR4) Expectations Public Transport service, (EQTPR5) Expectations Parking services, (EQTPR6) Expectations Address information, (EQTPR7) Expectations Transport terminal services
[10, 25, 31, 35, 36, 59, 60]	(EQMS)	(EQMS1) Expectations Drinking water quality, (EQMS2) Expectations Wastewater and sewerage services, (EQMS3) Expectations Garbage collection and environmental cleaning service, (EQMS4) Expectations Parks and gardens, (EQMS5) Expectations Street and road lighting, (EQMS6) Expectations Preservation of historical and cultural structures, (EQMS7) Expectations Cultural activities, (EQMS10) Expectations Social activities, (EQMS11) Expectations Firefighting services, (EQMS12) Expectations Municipal Police Services, (EQMS14) Expectations Veterinary Services.
[13, 14, 16, 61, 62]	(EQCE)	(EQCE1) Expectations Noise minimization, (EQCE2) Expectations Air pollution, (EQCE3) Expectations Green areas, (EQCE4) Expectations Recycling points.
[63, 64]	(PQTPR)	(PQTPR1) Perception Zoning and urban planning, (PQTPR2) Perception Roads and pavements, (PQTPR3) Perception Organization of traffic and crossing, (PQTPR4) Perception Public Transport Service, (PQTPR5) Perception Parking services, (PQTPR6) Perception Information of directions, (PQTPR7) Perception Transport terminal services
[65, 66]	(PQMS)	(PQMS1) Perception Quality of drinking water, (PQMS2) Perception Wastewater and sewerage services, (PQMS3) Perception Garbage collection and environmental cleaning service, (PQMS4) Perception Parks and gardens, (PQMS5) Perception Public and road lighting, (PQMS6) Perception Preservation of historical and cultural structures, (PQMS7) Perception Cultural activities, (PQMS8) Perception Social and cultural facilities, (PQMS9) Perception Cemetery services, (PQMS10) Perception Social activities, (PQMS11) Perception Firefighting services, (PQMS12) Perception Municipal police services, (PQMS13) Perception Sports services, (PQMS14) Perception Veterinary services
[67, 68]	(PQCE)	(PQEC1) Perception Noise minimization, (PQEC2) Perception Air pollution, (PQEC3) Perception Green areas, (PQEC4) Perception recycling points
[39, 69]	(PV)	(PV1) Perceived value Public Transport Service, (PV2) Perceived value Parking services, (PV3) Perceived value Transport terminal services, (PV4) Perceived value Drinking water quality, (PV5) Perceived value Wastewater and sewerage services, (PV6) Perceived value Garbage collection and environmental cleaning service, (PV7) Perceived value Parks and gardens, (PV8) Perceived value Public and road lighting, (PV9) Perceived value Preservation of historical and cultural structures, (PV10) Perceived value Cultural activities, (PV11) Perceived value Social and cultural facilities, PV12) Perceived value Cemetery services(PV13) Perceived value Social activities,(PV14) Perceived value Firefighting services, (PV15) Perceived value Municipal police services, (PV16) Perceived value Sports services, (PV17) Perceived value Veterinary services
[70, 71]	(SATISFAC)	(S1) Satisfaction in the experience of territorial planning and road, (S2) Satisfaction in the experience of the provision of municipal services, (S3) Overall satisfaction in the user experience
[7, 29, 32, 72–74]	(LOYALTY)	(L1) Loyalty I would recommend to my friends or family to vote for the mayor of Guayaquil (L2) Loyalty I would vote again for the mayor of Guayaquil (L3) Loyalty I would recommend the services provided by the Municipality of Guayaquil (L4) Loyalty I would recommend to family or friends living outside the city to move to live in Guayaquil (L5) Loyalty I would recommend to family or friends who live outside the city to do tourism in Guayaquil

The latent variables that were studied are citizen satisfaction and loyalty [46, 47]. These are positively related and shows us the probability that a citizen has a high level of well-being measured as satisfaction in the set of municipal services and recommends the city as a place to live, attracting population to it, facing the problem of depopulation. from urban areas [48-69] and these affect the likelihood that citizens will stay and recommend the urban area, thus avoiding the dreaded depopulation [49].

The managers responsible for territorial policies in urban areas must have relevant information on the opinion of their citizens in order to plan actions that improve the expectations of potential new citizens attracted by them [9, 50, 51]. Those responsible for territorial policies in urban areas must have relevant information on the opinion of their citizens. These modify the behavior of citizens based on their municipal policies and services. [52, 53].

The city of Guayaquil is an appropriate territory to carry out this research: it is a port city, which opens doors to the beaches of the Pacific and the Galapagos Islands; it is the largest city and the city with the highest population density in the Republic of Ecuador, with 2’698,077 inhabitants, which corresponds to 15.6% of the Ecuadorian population. It is considered as the economic capital of the country for the dynamism generated in commercial, industrial, services and agricultural activity, it also has the largest municipal infrastructure in the country, responsible for providing public services to the citizens through 27 administrative and operational areas and public companies that do the work of providing services under municipal jurisdiction.

It is geographically divided into 16 urban and 5 rural areas. This research was carried out in the Tarqui urban parish, which houses 1’050,826 inhabitants, or 38.9% of the total population of Guayaquil and which is characterized by being a pole of urban development and greater economic growth, leading to a greater demand for quality public services.

This research studies the satisfaction of urban citizens measured as well-being derived from the decisions made by territorial and municipal managers. It also analyzes the loyalty of citizens residing in urban areas, measured as the recommendation of the quality of public services managed by the administrations and their managers, as well as the recommendation of residents to other citizens, whether they are residents of urban areas or residents of other urban areas. In this way satisfied and loyal citizens contribute to the fight against the depopulation of vast urban areas, a problem that greatly worries public administrations. This study is also innovative because it uses a model of structured equations with moderating variables. That is, given the different values taken by the variables of perceived quality (PQTPR, PQMS, PQEEC), how the direct relationship moderate between the perceived value of citizens in municipal services and citizen satisfaction measured as their well-being.

Materials and methods

The variables used to measure the fidelity of the citizens residing in Guayaquil, 1) expected quality territorial and road planning (EQTPR) 2) the expected quality provision of municipal services (EQMS), 3) expected quality experience of the environmental citizen (EQEEC), 4) perceived quality territorial planning and road (PQTPR), 5) perceived quality provision of municipal services (PQMS), 6) perceived quality experience of the environmental citizen (PQEEC), 7) the perceived value of the citizen (PV), 8) satisfaction (SATISFAC) and 9) loyalty (LOYALTY).

The theoretical hypotheses (Fig 1) are raised in accordance with the theoretical framework described:

Fig 1

Theoretical model.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). The expectation of citizens in urban areas regarding the experience in territorial and road planning (EQTPR) influences directly and significantly the perceived quality of the city’s territorial and road planning experience (PQTPR).

Hypothesis 2 (H2). The expectation of the experience of providing municipal services in urban areas (EQMS) influences directly and significantly the perceived quality of the experience of providing municipal services in the city (PQMS).

Hypothesis 3 (H3). The expectations of the environmental experience of the citizen of urban areas (EQCE) influences directly and significantly the perceived quality of the environmental experience of the citizen in the city (PQCE).

Hypothesis 4 (H4). The perceived quality of territorial and road planning in urban areas (PQTPR) influences directly and significantly the overall perceived value of the city (PV).

Hypothesis 5 (H5). The quality of municipal service provision in urban areas (PQMS) influences directly and significantly the overall perceived value of the city (PV).

Hypothesis 6 (H6). The perceived quality of the environmental experience of citizens in urban areas (PQCE) influences directly and significantly the general perceived value of the city (PV).

Hypothesis 7 (H7). The perceived quality of the territorial planning experience in urban areas (PQTPR) directly and significantly modulates the direct relationship between the perceived value of the urban municipality (PV) and citizen satisfaction (SATISFAC).

Hypothesis 8 (H8). The perceived quality of the experience in the provision of municipal services in urban areas (PQMS) directly and significantly modulates the direct relationship between the perceived value of the city (PV) and citizen satisfaction (SATISFAC).

Hypothesis 9 (H9). The perceived quality of the citizen’s environmental experience in urban areas (PQCE) directly and significantly modulates the direct relationship between the perceived value of the citizen (PV) and the general satisfaction of the citizen in the city. (SATISFAC).

Hypothesis 10 (H10). The global value perceived by the citizen in urban areas (PV) influences directly and significantly the general satisfaction of the citizen. (SATISFAC).

Hypothesis 11 (H11). General citizen satisfaction in the urban municipal service (SATISFAC) influences directly and significantly the general loyalty of the citizen (LOYALTY).

Data

This research is aimed at establishing the causal relationships between latent variables based on a study of the expected quality with respect to the perceived quality, perceived value, level of satisfaction and loyalty of municipal public services in the urban sector Tarqui, characterized by being the largest in terms of territorial extension, as well as population density and economic growth of the city of Guayaquil.

The data were obtained from an opinion, containing 80 questions, classified into 9 constructs, conducted at the household level. The universe of study is formed by 1′050.826 inhabitants that corresponds to the 38.9% of the total population of Guayaquil, and considering limitations of time and resources, we calculated a simple random sample representative of 528 households with a margin of error of 5% and level of confidence of 95%, achieving favorable responses of 521 families, surveying a representative from each household.

The data were collected by a group of qualified interviewers from October 5 to 11, 2020, obtaining relevant sociodemographic information, as well as the levels of quality expected (expectation), perceived, satisfaction and loyalty of the respondents in each item contained in the questionnaire, implementing a Likert scale ranging from one to seven for each proposed statement [54].

The sample covers the entire spectrum of age, level of education, professional category and income level [55]. The validity of the questionnaire was ensured using questionnaires of reference authors in the field of study of satisfaction [56].

Methodology

The questionnaire consists of five sections:

Section 1: Experience in territorial planning and road planning. Questions about Zoning and urban planning, Roads and pavements, Traffic organization and crossing, Public Transport Service, Parking services, Address information, Transport terminal services, Global satisfaction in the experience of territorial planning and road.

Section 2: Experience in the provision of municipal services. Questions about Quality/Price Ratio, Drinking Water Quality, Wastewater and Sewerage Services, Garbage Collection and Environmental Cleaning Service, Parks and Gardens, Street and Road Lighting, Preservation of Historical and Cultural Structures, Cultural Activities, Social and Cultural Facilities, Cemetery Services, Social Activities, Firefighting Services, Municipal Police Services, Sports Services, Veterinary Services, Global Satisfaction in the experience of the municipal service provision.

Section 3: Environmental experience of the citizen. Questions about Noise Minimization, Air Pollution, Green Areas, Recycling Points, Global Satisfaction in the User’s Environmental Experience.

Section 4: Loyalty of the citizen. Questions about whether they would recommend the services provided by the Municipality of Guayaquil, if they would recommend to family or friends who live outside the city to move to live in Guayaquil, if they would recommend to family or friends who live outside the city to do tourism in Guayaquil, if they would recommend my friends or family to vote for the mayor of Guayaquil, if they would vote again for the mayor of Guayaquil.

Section 5: Sociodemographic. Profile, Gender, age, level of education, professional category, level of family income.

At all times, respondents were informed about the academic purpose of the study, in the same way that their responses would be anonymous. Before starting the questions, they were asked permission for their answers to be part of the study. To carry out the research, questions with a Likert scale were set. The survey haved 80 items, the sample data was collected at different times of the day. The survey was given to residents of Guayaquil. The sociodemographic profile was completed with closed questions. 521 valid questionnaires were obtained in the sample, which had a confidence level of 95% and a sampling error of 3.25%. The Warl PLS program has been used for the validation of the model. Table 1 shows the reference authors, the latent variables and the items that make up each of these variables.

Results

Once the methodology of the proposed structural equation model has been applied, results have been obtained that will be validated one by one.

From the survey data, the sociodemographic profile has been calculated (Table 2). 46.9% of the interviewees were women, compared to 54.1% of the men.Most of those surveyed are young people under 30 years of age (44.7%) with secondary education (51.1%).

Table 2

Sociodemographic profile.

Variable	Category	Absolute frequency	Percentage
Gendern = 521)	Male	282	54.1
	Female	239	45.9
Age (n = 521)
	>30	233	44.7
	[30–39]	165	31.7
	[40–49]	67	12.9
	[50–59]	40	7.7
	60 or more	16	3.1
Studies (n = 521)
	Without Studies	1	0.2
	Primary School	36	6.9
	Secondary school	266	51.1
	University	207	39.7
	Postgraduate	11	2.2
Family Income (n = 521)
	Less than 400 dollars	367	70.4
	Between 400 and 2000 dollars	146	28
	Between 2001 and 5000 dollars	4	0.8
	Between 5001 and 10000 dollars	2	0.4
	More than 10001 dollars	2	0.4

Table 3 shows the structural coefficients of the items of each construct.

Table 3

Structural coefficients of the items and limit probability.

Latent variable	Observed variable	Standardized coefficient	p-Value	Latent variable	Observed variable	Standardized coefficient	p-Value
EQTPR	EQTPR1	0.414	<0.001	PQMS	PQMS1	0.420	<0.001
	EQTPR2	0.424	<0.001		PQMS2	0.444	<0.001
	EQTPR3	0.438	<0.001		PQMS3	0.394	<0.001
	EQTPR4	0.415	<0.001		PQMS4	0.420	<0.001
	EQTPR5	0.445	<0.001		PQMS5	0.426	<0.001
	EQTPR6	0.435	<0.001		PQMS6	0.433	<0.001
	EQTPR7	0.398	<0.001		PQMS7	0.409	<0.001
EQMS	EQMS1	0.400	<0.001		PQMS8	0.419	<0.001
	EQMS2	0.412	<0.001		PQMS9	0.472	<0.001
	EQMS3	0.403	<0.001		PQMS10	0.427	<0.001
	EQMS4	0.409	<0.001		PQMS11	0.462	<0.001
	EQMS5	0.403	<0.001		PQMS12	0.478	<0.001
	EQMS6	0.409	<0.001		PQMS13	0.402	<0.001
	EQMS7	0.412	<0.001		PQMS14	0.374	<0.001
	EQMS10	0.416	<0.001	PQEC	PQEC15	0.458	<0.001
	EQMS11	0.420	<0.001		PQEC16	0.587	<0.001
	EQMS12	0.431	<0.001		PQEC17	0.469	<0.001
	EQMS13	0.413	<0.001		PQEC18	0.517	<0.001
	EQMS14	0.416	<0.001	PV	PV1	0.363	<0.001
EQCE	EQCE1	0.449	<0.001		PV2	0.371	<0.001
	EQCE2	0.445	<0.001		PV3	0.381	<0.001
	EQCE3	0.432	<0.001		PV4	0.434	<0.001
	EQCE4	0.441	<0.001		PV5	0.399	<0.001
PQTPR	PQTPR1	0.454	<0.001		PV6	0.415	<0.001
	PQTPR2	0.479	<0.001		PV6	0.393	<0.001
	PQTPR3	0.509	<0.001		PV8	0.424	<0.001
	PQTPR4	0.454	<0.001		PV9	0.429	<0.001
	PQTPR5	0.413	<0.001		PV10	0.434	<0.001
	PQTPR6	0.396	<0.001		PV11	0.490	<0.001
	PQTPR7	0.408	<0.001		PV12	0.438	<0.001
LOYALTY	L1	0.616	<0.001		PV13	0.419	<0.001
	L2	0.644	<0.001		PV14	0.417	<0.001
	L3	0.619	<0.001		PV15	0.443	<0.001
	L4	0.580	<0.001		PV16	0.402	<0.001
	L5	0.519	<0.001		PV17	0.399	<0.001
	L4	0.580	<0.001	SATISFAC	S1	0.500	<0.001
					S2	0.533	<0.001
					S3	0.537	<0.001

Individual reliability of the observed variables

The proposed model was validated by studying the validity and reliability of the latent variables.

The factor loadings and the limiting probability of the observed variables are shown in Table 4. Once the individual reliability of the items had been analyzed, the validity and reliability of the latent variables of the model was studied.

Table 4

Indicator loading of the observed variables.

Latent Variable	Observed variables	Indicator loading	p-Value
EQTPR	(EQTPR1) Expectations Zoning and urban planning	0.864	<0.001
	(EQTPR2) Road and Pavement Expectations	0.904	<0.001
	(EQTPR3) Expectations Traffic organization and crossing	0.911	<0.001
	(EQTPR4) Expectations Public Transport Service	0.901	<0.001
	(EQTPR5) Expectations Parking Services	0.884	<0.001
	(EQTPR6) Expectations Address Information	0.895	<0.001
	(EQTPR7) Expectations Transport terminal services	0.903	<0.001
EQMS	(EQMS1) Expectations Drinking water quality	0.881	<0.001
	(EQMS2) Expectations Wastewater and Sewerage Services	0.884	<0.001
	(EQMS3) Expectations Garbage collection service and environmental cleaning	0.865	<0.001
	(EQMS4) Expectations Parks and gardens	0.865	<0.001
	(EQMS5) Expectations Street and road lighting	0.902	<0.001
	(EQMS6) Expectations Preservation of historical and cultural structures	0.879	<0.001
	(EQMS10) Expectations Cemetery Services	0.899	<0.001
	(EQMS11) Expectations Social activities	0.886	<0.001
	(EQMS12) Expectations Firefighting Services	0.838	<0.001
	(EQMS14) Expectations Sports services	0.879	<0.001
EQCE	(EQCE1) Expectations Noise minimization	0.897	<0.001
	(EQCE2) Expectations Air pollution	0.932	<0.001
	(EQCE3) Expectations Green Areas	0.920	<0.001
	(EQCE4) Expectations Recycling points	0.915	<0.001
PQTPR	(PQTPR1) Perception Zoning and urban planning	0.805	<0.001
	(PQTPR2) Perception Roads and pavements	0.770	<0.001
	(PQTPR3) Perception Organization of traffic and crossing	0.734	<0.001
	(PQTPR4) Perception Public Transport Service	0.780	<0.001
	(PQTPR5) Percepción Parking services	0.733	<0.001
	(PQTPR6) Perception Information of direction	0.758	<0.001
	(PQTPR7) Perception Transport terminal services	0.808	<0.001
PQMS	(PQMS1) Perception of drinking water quality	0.655	<0.001
	(PQMS2) Perception Wastewater and sewerage services	0.650	<0.001
	(PQMS3) Perception Garbage collection and environmental cleaning service	0.739	<0.001
	(PQMS4) Perception Parks and gardens	0.707	<0.001
	(PQMS5) Perception of public and road lighting	0.679	<0.001
	(PQMS6) Perception Preservation of historical and cultural structures	0.766	<0.001
	(PQMS7) Perception Cultural activities	0.775	<0.001
	(PQMS8) Perception Social and cultural facilities	0.799	<0.001
	(PQMS9) Perception Cemetery Services	0.690	<0.001
	(PQMS10) Perception Social activities	0.758	<0.001
	(PQMS11) Perception of firefighting services	0.767	<0.001
	(PQMS12) Perception Municipal police services	0.573	<0.001
	(PQMS13) Perception Sports services	0.745	<0.001
	(PQMS14) Perception Veterinary services	0.651	<0.001
PQEC	(PQEC1) Perception Noise minimization	0.778	<0.001
	(PQEC2) Perception Air pollution	0.800	<0.001
	(PQEC3) Perception Green areas	0.823	<0.001
	(PQEC4) Perception recycling points	0.798	<0.001
PV	(PV1) Perceived value Public Transport Service	0.759	<0.001
	(PV2) Perceived value Parking services	0.747	<0.001
	(PV3) Perceived value Transport terminal services	0.634	<0.001
	(PV4) Perceived value Drinking water quality	0.758	<0.001
	(PV5) Perceived value Wastewater and sewerage services	0.797	<0.001
	(PV6) Perceived value Garbage collection service and environmental cleaning	0.788	<0.001
	(PV7) Perceived value Parks and gardens	0.606	<0.001
	(PV8) Perceived value Public and road lighting	0.775	<0.001
	(PV9) Perceived value Preservation of historical and cultural structures	0.695	<0.001
	(PV10) Perceived value Cultural activities	0.730	<0.001
	(PV11) Perceived value Social and cultural facilities	0.557	<0.001
	(PV12) Perceived value Cemetery services	0.629	<0.001
	(PV13) Perceived value Social activities	0.646	<0.001
	(PV14) Perceived value Fire extinguishing services	0.641	<0.001
	(PV15) Perceived value Municipal police services	0.762	<0.001
	(PV16) Perceived value Sports services	0.529	<0.001
	(PV17) Perceived value Veterinary services	0.634	<0.001
SATISFAC	(S1) Satisfaction in the experience of territorial planning and road	0.842	<0.001
	(S1) Satisfaction in the experience of the provision of municipal services	0.901	<0.001
	(S3) Overall user experience satisfaction	0.891	<0.001
LOYALTY	(L1) Loyalty I would recommend to my friends or family to vote for the mayor of Guayaquil	0.907	<0.001
	(L2) Loyalty I would vote again for the mayor of Guayaquil	0.887	<0.001
	(L3) Loyalty I would recommend the services provided by the Municipality of Guayaquil	0.905	<0.001
	(L4) Loyalty I would recommend to family or friends living outside the city to move to live in Guayaquil	0.834	<0.001
	(L5) Loyalty I would recommend to family or friends who live outside the city to do tourism in Guayaquil	0.806	<0.001

In order to study coliniality, the value of the variance of the inflation factor (VIF) was verified, whose value must be greater than five (Table 5).

Table 5

Individual VIF of the indicators.

Latent Varible	Observaded Varible	VIF	Latent Varible	Observaded Varible	VIF
EQTPR	EQTPR1	3.101	PQMS	PQMS1	0.420
	EQTPR2	4.124		PQMS2	0.444
	EQTPR3	4.389		PQMS3	0.394
	EQTPR4	4.195		PQMS4	0.420
	EQTPR5	3.569		PQMS5	0.426
	EQTPR6	3.868		PQMS6	0.433
	EQTPR7	4.248		PQMS7	0.409
EQMS	EQMS1	4.488		PQMS8	0.419
	EQMS2	4.820		PQMS9	0.472
	EQMS3	4.069		PQMS10	0.427
	EQMS4	3.623		PQMS11	0.462
	EQMS5	4.560		PQMS12	0.478
	EQMS6	4.217		PQMS13	0.402
	EQMS7	3.882		PQMS14	0.374
	EQMS10	0.416	PQEC	PQEC15	0.458
	EQMS11	0.420		PQEC16	0.587
	EQMS12	0.431		PQEC17	0.469
	EQMS13	0.413		PQEC18	0.517
EQCE	EQCE1	0.449	PV	PV1	0.363
	EQCE2	0.445		PV2	0.371
	EQCE3	0.432		PV3	0.381
	EQCE4	0.441		PV4	0.434
PQTPR	PQTPR1	0.454		PV5	0.399
	PQTPR2	0.479		PV6	0.415
	PQTPR3	0.509		PV6	0.393
	PQTPR4	0.454		PV8	0.424
	PQTPR5	0.413		PV9	0.429
	PQTPR6	0.396		PV10	0.434
	PQTPR7	0.408		PV11	0.490
LOYALTY	L1	0.616		PV12	0.438
	L2	0.644		PV13	0.419
	L3	0.619		PV14	0.417
	L4	0.580		PV15	0.443
	L5	0.519		PV16	0.402
SATISFAC	S1	0.500		PV17	0.399
	S2	0.533	SATISFAC	S3	0.537

The analysis of all these values validates the variables used, the factorial loads have values equal to or greater than 0.505 according to [75].

The study of all these items does not show statistically significant loads at 99.99%, therefore we have considered the model valid and reliable.

Analysis of composite reliability of constructs

In order to measure whether the observed items strictly and appropriately measure the latent variable of which they are part, the composite reliability values as well as Cronbach’s Alpha are studied, verifying if they are greater than / equal to 0.7 (Table 6).

Table 6

Composite reliability and cronbach’s alpha.

	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha
PV	0.939	0.930
SATISFAC	0.910	0.851
LOYALTY	0.939	0.918
EQTRP	0.966	0.958
PQTRP	0.911	0.911
EQMS	0.973	0.973
PQMS	0.935	0.935
EQCE	0.954	0.954
PQCE	0.877	0.877
PQTRP*PV	1.000	1.000
PQCE*PV	1.000	1.000
PQMS*PV	1.000	1.000

Convergent validity

The convergent validity of a set of items is measured with the mean variance extracted (AVE) (Table 7). Fornell and Larcker (1981) [104] determined that the minimum value of the AVE must be greater than 0.5, which means that the indicators are shared more than half of the variance of constructs [75].

Table 7

Average variance extracted.

Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
EQTRP	0.800
PQTRP	0.593
EQMS	0.769
PQMS	0.509
EQCE	0.840
PQCE	0.640
PV	0.479
SATISFAC	0.771
LOYALTY	0.755
PQTRP*PV	1.000
PQMS*PV	1.000
PQCE*PV	1.000

Hypothesis testing

Table 8 shows the various contrasts of the parameters used in order to verify the adequate fit of the proposed model.

Table 8

Goodness-of-fit.

Average path coefficient (APC)	0.427	P<0.001
Average R-squared (ARS)	0.559
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)	0.558
Average block VIF (AVIF)	3.008	acceptable if < = 5, ideally < = 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)	4.807
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF)	0.653	small > = 0.1, medium > = 0.25, large > = 0.36
Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR)	0.909	acceptable if > = 0.7, ideally = 1
Standardized threshold difference count ratio (STDCR)	0.984
Standardized threshold difference sum ratio (STDSR)	0.922
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR)	0.992	acceptable if > = 0.9, ideally = 1
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR)	1.000	acceptable if > = 0.7
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)	0.909
Standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR)	0.081	acceptable if < = 0.1
Standardized mean absolute residual (SMAR)	0.061

After having analyzed all the latent variables, considering their validity, as well as an adequate adjustment, it can be confirmed that the results obtained are reliable and justify their applicability.

To finalize the hypothesis test, the factor loadings of each causal relationship were calculated (Table 9).

Table 9

Hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Effect	Path Coefficient	p-Value	Supported?
H1: EQTRP-PQTRP	+	0.752	<0.001***	YES
H2: EQMS-PQMS	+	0.771	<0.001***	YES
H3: EQCE-PQCE	+	0.614	<0.001***	YES
H4: PQTRP-PV	+	0.128	0.002**	YES
H5: PQMS-PV	+	0.755	<0.001***	YES
H6: PQCE-PV	+	0.100	0.010**	YES
H7: PQTRP->PV-SATISFAC	+	0.072	0.050*	YES
H8: PQMS-> PV- SATISFAC	+	-0.020	0.322	NO
H9: PQCE-> PV-SATISFAC	+	0.121	0.003**	YES
H10: PV-SATISFAC	+	0.648	<0.001***	YES
H11: SATISFAC—LOYALTY	+	0.719	<0.001***	YES

a = 0,001 (***),

a = 0,01 (**),

a = 0,05 (*).

The hypotheses (H1), (H2), (H3), (H4), (H5), (H6), (H7), (H9), (H10) and (H11) were confirmed by the contract carried out. The factorial loads of the causal relationships, both direct and modulating, are shown in Fig 2. The p-value of each one allows us to ascertain whether a hypothesis is supported or not.

Fig 2

Loading factor and limiting probability of the proposed causal relationships.

Discussion and conclusion

The satisfaction of citizens residing in urban areas is a determining factor for loyalty and is rooted in their territory. These urban citizens recommend and share their experience in this type of environment with family, friends and co-workers. In this way, the depopulation of urban areas can be fought with actions aimed at increasing the satisfaction of resident citizens in the various areas that the territory managers serve, in territorial planning and viability, in the experience as a user of municipal services and in the field of environmental policies carried out. The public administration has, among others, the objective of preserving urban areas, maintaining the sustainable value of these residential destinations that it manages and establishing and becoming attractive for new residents. In this way, the resources available to improve municipal services and policies to improve citizen satisfaction would be increased [9].

The analysis of the fidelity of citizens in urban areas is important for the design and strategic planning of the territory. In this analysis, a model of structural equations was implemented in which modulating causal relationships were included on the relationship between satisfaction and perceived value. The Fidelity of the resident citizens in the urban residential destination of Guayaquil was analyzed. The results obtained in our analysis confirmed most of the causal relationships in the proposed model and can be used to improve the quality of life of citizens in urban areas. When citizens choose an urban population as a residential destination, once installed, they evaluate the gap between the expected quality of all areas of their population (territorial planning and roads, municipal services, and the environment) and their perceived quality. To choose an area for residence, before setting up residence in a city, the citizen is informed about the quality of life in it, the services they offer and with all this information generates an idea of what life is like in the residential destination. If the perceived quality in your urban city is equal to or higher than the quality expected before choosing this destination to establish your residence, the perceived value in the set of municipal public services, and your experience as a user of territorial and environmental policies is high. This set of experiences, experiences and perceptions lead us to satisfaction measured as the well-being of the urban citizen, which leads us to recommend the urban area as a residential destination to other citizens [76, 77].

Citizens of urban areas have very high expectations of public services, territorial planning and viability, as well as environmental experience, obtaining the maximum position in all measured dimensions. Once citizens have decided to establish their residence and have experienced, enjoyed and used the various public services, they perceive their quality. The main reasons why citizens of urban areas are satisfied and recommend family and friends to establish their residence in the urban area have been parking services, firefighting service, quality of drinking water, services wastewater and sewage, city cleaning and garbage collection, parks and gardens, preservation of historical and cultural monuments, cultural activities, social activities, sports services and air quality [78-81].

Hypothesis 1. The quality expected in the territorial planning and the roads of the citizen residing in an urban area has a directly and significantly influence on their perceived quality of life. In Fig 3 the causal relationship between the two variables can be observed. For very high quality values expected by citizens, their perceived quality decreases. This result is in agreement with studies. The managers of planning and territorial viability should try to carry out policies in urban areas that aim at social welfare, avoid inequality and generate sustainable employment. The items in which they can be improved in the opinion of the Yu et al., (2018) and Afacan (2015) [82, 83].

Fig 3

Hypothesis 1, EQTRP-PQTRP.

Hypothesis 2. The expected quality of municipal services for citizens living in urban areas directly and significantly influences their perceived quality. Fig 4 shows that very high values of expected quality have a positive influence on perceived quality. This result is in the same line of studies by Municipal services administrators that meet the necessary quality as a whole so that residents do not decide to migrate to another residential destination. The items that stand out especially for their low score, and therefore clearly improvable by municipal and state managers, are firstly the municipal police services, followed by air pollution and noise pollution [81, 84].

Fig 4

Hypothesis 2, EQMS-PQMS.

Hypothesis 3. The expected quality of the user experience of the environmental citizen residing in urban areas has a directly and significantly influence on its perceived quality. Fig 5 shows the flattened sinusoidal behavior to the right of this variable, and it is shown that for very high values of expected quality the trend is change. Environmental policy managers must guide them to turn urban cities into sustainable destinations, and benchmarks in recycling, noise reduction, clean points, green areas and pollution that meet the necessary quality as a whole so that residents do not decide to emigrate to another residential destination [85-87].

Fig 5

Hypothesis 3, EQCE-PQCE.

Hypothesis 4. The perceived quality of territorial planning and the viability of the citizen residing in an urban Area directly and significantly influences the The perceived quality of territorial planning of the destination as a whole [87-89]. Fig 6 shows the direct influence of quality in urban planning and viability on the total perceived value. The administrators of planning and territorial feasibility must be aware that investment in infrastructure for public use must be adequate and proportionate to the locality in which it is located, always promoting accessibility and comfort for the residents of the destination, causing a feeling of comfort and well-being that makes citizens feel proud and thus recommend the city [89, 90].

Fig 6

Hypothesis 4, PQTRP-PV.

Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5. The perceived quality of municipal services by citizens living in urban areas has a directly and significantly influence on the perceived value of the destination as a whole [91-93]. Fig 7 shows the direct influence of perceived quality in municipal public services on the total perceived value. This result is in agreement with the research of Oriade, A and Schofield, P (2019) [94]. Municipal service managers must provide adequate public services to their population and estimate future demand so as not to collapse services, providing satisfaction, well-being and roots for citizens [95, 96].

Fig 7

Hypothesis 5, PQMS-PV.

Hypothesis 6. The perceived quality of the environmental experience by citizens living in urban areas has a directly and significantly influence on the perceived value [97-99]. Fig 8 shows the positive influence of perceived quality on the perceived value, for very high values of perceived quality in municipal services the influence is decreasing. This result is in agreement with the research of [96]. Municipal service managers must provide adequate public services to their population and estimate future demand so as not to collapse services, providing satisfaction, well-being and roots for citizens [100, 101].

Fig 8

Hypothesis 6, PQCE-PV.

Hypothesis 7 (Fig 9A.) The perceived quality of land and road planning by citizens in urban areas directly and significantly modulates causal relation between perceived value and satisfaction measured as well-being in the resident’s locality [102, 103]. Fig 9B shows a sinusoidal shape in which intensity is lost in the external areas, in the relationship between perceived value and quality, both for high values and when the low values of the moderating variable (perceived quality in territorial planning and viability). Confirmation of this hypothesis means that by increasing the quality of territorial planning and viability, not only the perceived value is influenced but also the relationship between the perceived value and satisfaction, thus increasing the quality of territorial planning. This helps increase overall satisfaction of the citizens residing in urban areas with the experience.

Fig 9

a. Hypothesis 7 3D, PQTRP->PV-SATISFAC. b. Hypothesis 7 2D, PQTRP->PV-SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 8 (Fig 10A) This hypothesis is not met, it is not significant, so we cannot say that the perceived quality of municipal services by citizens living in urban areas positively and significantly modulates the direct relationship between the general perceived value of the city and citizen satisfaction.

Fig 10

a. Hypothesis 8 3D, PQMS-> PV- SATISFAC. b. Hypothesis 8 2D, PQMS-> PV- SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 9 (Fig 11A) The perceived quality of the environmental experience of the resident citizen in an urban area directly and significantly moderates the causal relation between perceived value and satisfaction [104, 105]. Fig 11B shows that when the values of the moderating variable (perceived quality in the environmental experience) are low, there is a direct causal relation between perceived value and satisfaction. When the moderating variable is high, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction has a sinusoidal shape, flattened at the extremes, where the intensity of moderation of the environmental experience loses on the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction. The confirmation of this hypothesis means that by increasing the quality of the environmental experience of citizens living in urban areas, not only the perceived value is influenced but also the relationship between the perceived value and satisfaction, which means that increasing the quality of environmental services helps to increase the satisfaction and general well-being of the citizens residing in urban areas.

Fig 11

a. Hypothesis 9 3D, PQCE-> PV-SATISFAC. b. Hypothesis 9 2D, PQCE-> PV-SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 10 The value perceived by the resident citizen in an urban Area influences the satisfaction and well-being of the resident [106, 107]. Fig 12 shows a flattened sinus shape in the extreme right, in which the perceived value decreases its direct influence on the satisfaction of the citizen residing in urban Areas. This result has also been observed by other researchers. For the case under study, and for the expectations of the citizens of urban areas in general, the satisfaction of the residents can be increased by providing a set of experiences and sensations derived from territorial policies, viability, services public. and environmental orientation practiced by the municipality. This can be done by planning in an orderly manner in space in time a set of decisions and political measures that can generate the satisfaction of the resident in urban Areas, social well-being that fixes the population to the territory, avoiding the serious problem for the citizens. authorities of the territorial depopulation of these areas.

Fig 12

Hypothesis 10, PV–SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 11 was also confirmed, which shows the direct influence of citizen satisfaction in the urban areas in which they establish their residence on their loyalty, recommending relatives, friends and acquaintances, whether they reside in a rural area or in a different urban area [97, 108–110]. In this way, citizen loyalty not only fixes the population in the urban area, but also acts as a pole of attraction for other citizens to increase the population of the residential destination. Public managers have to find the right combination that maximizes public resources in the application of territorial policies, public and environmental services that maximize the satisfaction and loyalty of citizens in urban areas. Fig 13 shows the direct relationship of this relationship. The results show that citizen satisfaction, the quality of life and the expectations that each person has of their city, are positive factors that influence the decision-making of a citizen at the time of establishing their residence in an urban area, thus how to recommend said residential destination. This result is consistent with various studies of the literature. This study confirmed the relationship between high citizen satisfaction in the urban area of Guayaquil and the willingness of citizens to recommend Guayaquil as a residential destination. Deficiencies that affected the perceived quality in the municipal services area were also detected. These deficiencies included a lack of perceived quality in municipal police services. Citizen security is a fundamental factor that can attract or cause population movements. Likewise, the environmental experience of the citizen can be clearly improved in terms of air quality, noise pollution, green areas and recycling points. Deficiencies that affect the general perceived value of residents in Guayaquil were also found. These included the quality of the parks and gardens, adequate public lighting, and sports services. The satisfaction of the citizens was acceptable in general, although there were some irregularities to achieve a high fidelity levels.

Fig 13

Hypothesis 11, SATISFAC–LOYALTY.

This study outlines an achievable goal for public managers, who are in charge of territorial and viability planning, the municipal public services and the offer of public actions for an environmental experience of the citizen. If these elements improve, the experience of establishing their residence in an urban area can be maximized. This means that having satisfied urban citizens and well-being becomes one of the main actors in attracting and retaining people in urban areas. The results of this study are consistent with those found in previous researches that indicate that satisfaction positively influences the fidelity of citizens who establish their destination in an urban area and encourages them to recommend it. This study raises the most important factors to achieve the loyalty of the citizens of urban areas, generating positive synergies in the area, generating employment in various sectors, increasing demand by increasing the population that is installed in the urban destination.

This study identifies several factors that citizens living in urban areas consider important when determining their residence in an urban destination. Firefighting services were the most valued. Urban spaces must be capable of combining municipal public policies that link the citizen with the metropolis. The brand created by this urban destination, together with the perceived quality of the different municipal service areas, are factors that can be used to attract people who want to settle in these places.

The principal limitation of this study was related to the used sample with was obtained from the urban area of Guayaquil. It means this study is not generalizable to other populations. It would be desirable to study elsewhere where you can make comparisons of the results of the questionnaires. Another limitation is to carry out the study in a short period of time, and it would be convenient to do it periodically in order to analyze evolution.

16 Nov 2021

Submitted filename: It is an interesting paper that focuses on the citizens.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Dec 2021

Revision required [PONE-D-21-28034] - [EMID:847aab6a5cba99f6]

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please consider changing the title so as to meet our title format requirement (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). In particular, the title should be "Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough

Dear editor and reviewers, thank you very much for allowing us revising and resubmitting our article to the PLOS ONE. We have found your comments to be highly helpful in improving the article in terms of the introduction, the theoretical background, the research methodology, and the theoretical contributions. After carefully reading your comments, we have introduced some changes in the manuscript to address your concerns. Following your recommendation, as shown in the new version of the manuscript. We present our detailed comments below.

Following the editor's recommendations, we have proceeded to rewrite paragraphs that were similar to previous works by the authors, these changes can be checked in "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes"

The new title is STUDY OF CITIZEN SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY IN THE URBAN AREA OF GUAYAQUIL: PERSPECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES APPLYING STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS.

After following the editor's recommendations, we detail the changes made by following the reviewers' comments

Reviewers

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much for the review. The authors agree in their comments in particular, we greatly appreciate their contributions to improve the manuscript.

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

I read with interest your paper, although, after assuring the p-value and VIF were ok, I slightly "jumped" here and there the more technical parts trusting your academic reliability.

I like the differences you mentioned between expected and perceived and I thought that some literature within this recent publication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877916621000059 would be of interest for your paper, especially for the introduction and conclusion when linking with the state of the art.

Your paper appears to me well structured even if some improvements in the theoretical parts related with quality of life in general, and the urban quality of life in particular would be beneficial.

Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion. The suggestion to include references to the article Preferring or Needing Cities? (Evolutionary) psychology, utility and life satisfaction of urban living. It is really interesting and improves our manuscript.

The following paragraphs have been introduced in the introduction and in the conclusions:

Introduction:

For a citizen to want to establish his residence in a metropolis, he considers the quality of life in it. The literature indicates that the larger the cities, the lower the level of satisfaction, due to insecurity and stress. Despite this, most people live in cities, due to the public services they offer in terms of quality and quantity. Rural areas are neglected in terms of basic services, their citizens having to move to the cities to satisfy medical, leisure, specialized supplies, etc [21].

[21] L. S. D’Acci, “Preferring or Needing Cities? (Evolutionary) psychology, utility and life satisfaction of urban living,” City, Culture and Society, vol. 24, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100375.

The literature indicates that in rich countries rural life is preferred, while in poor or developing countries life in urban areas is preferred [22]. Citizens have the belief that all these wonderful things (money, creativity ...) attract them to the big cities without taking into account negative aspects (crime, stress, congestion, pollution, lack of nature,….) [23].

[22] M. das Gupta, J. Zhenghua, L. Bohua, X. Zhenming, W. Chung, and B. Ha-Ok, “Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea,” The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 153–187, 2003.

[23] Kahneman, D., Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Experienced utility and objective happiness: A moment-based approach. 2000, 673-692.

Conclusions:

There are various reasons why citizens decide to live in metropolises; despite sacrificing uses related to happiness and quality of life, such as air quality and environmental quality, to achieve other advantages such as social mobility, money, culture and professional satisfaction [21].

[21] L. S. D’Acci, “Preferring or Needing Cities? (Evolutionary) psychology, utility and life satisfaction of urban living,” City, Culture and Society, vol. 24, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100375.

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting paper that focuses on the citizens’ satisfaction, the expected quality, and perceived quality. The method and results show credible. However, there are some questions that I think should be stated again.

1. How is the state of arts of your research issue? There is no related works review.

The state of the art of this research focuses on the importance of the adequate provision of public services in urban areas analyzed from the causal relationship between expected quality and perceived quality, whose difference establishes a perceived value, in order to influence the level of citizen satisfaction, which generates loyalty or rootedness to the territory, as well as improvement in the quality of life.

Thank you for this important remark. Next, we add reviews of related works.

[7] S. P. M. Pereira and P. M. A. R. Correia, “Sustainability of portuguese courts: Citizen satisfaction and loyalty as key factors,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 23, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su122310163.

[8] I. Almarashdeh, “The effect of recovery satisfaction on citizens loyalty perception: A case study of mobile government services,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v10i4.pp4279-4295.

[9] A. Alkraiji and N. Ameen, “The impact of service quality, trust and satisfaction on young citizen loyalty towards government e-services,” Information Technology and People, 2021, doi: 10.1108/ITP-04-2020-0229.

[16] X. mei Fu, J. hua Zhang, and F. T. S. Chan, “Determinants of loyalty to public transit: A model integrating Satisfaction-Loyalty Theory and Expectation-Confirmation Theory,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 113, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.012.

[24] L. Ma, “Performance Management and Citizen Satisfaction With the Government: Evidence From Chinese Municipalities,” Public Administration, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 39–59, 2017, doi: 10.1111/padm.12275.

[32] S. Parnell and E. Pieterse, “The ‘right to the city’: Institutional imperatives of a developmental state,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 146–162, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00954.x.

[50] G. van Ryzin, “The Measurement of Overall Citizen Satisfaction,” Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 27, no. 3, 2004, doi: 10.1080/15309576.2004.11051805.

[51] M. H. Tammubua, “ANALISA PENGARUH SELF IMAGE CONGRUITY, RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY, DAN CUSTOMER PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY TERHADAP CUSTOMER LOYALTY YANG DIMEDIASI CUSTOMER SATISFACTION URBAN SURF/DISTRO DI JAYAPURA,” Jurnal Organisasi dan Manajemen, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017, doi: 10.33830/jom.v13i2.68.2017.

2. We have much research about citizens’ perception and satisfaction with urban management. What are your contributions, especially the theoretical contributions? Though you have shown in the section of the introduction, what’s the difference between yours and others?

Thank you for your comment. Although it is true that there are various studies of citizen satisfaction, most of them start from expectations and perceived quality in general, we have segmented into three dimensions this analysis of causal relationships between Expected Quality and Perceived Quality, which are: territorial planning and roads, Municipal services and environmental management in order to determine the level of satisfaction and loyalty independently based on constructs formed by items of the analyzed dimension, which show different coefficients between dimensions, which can be comparable and even generate future research. In this way, specific tools can be made available to public managers to improve the quality of life of citizens.

Also, we propose an analysis based on moderating variables of the proposed causal relationships in order to know if there is a degree of influence by dimension of the constructs of perceived quality within the causal relationship that determines the degree of satisfaction.

The results of this research by dimension generate theoretical contributions related to the importance of measuring the level of satisfaction and rootedness for each area that makes up public management, whose contributions will also be included in the conclusions as you rightly indicate.

3. What’s the meaning of ‘experience in territorial and road planning’? Is it pointed to someone who has participated in the territorial and road planning of the urban?

Thank you for your comment, theexperience in territorial and road planning, is the general result of the construct formed by a set of items that address issues related to the level of satisfaction in the provision of services inherent to territorial planning and roads. Some of the items that make up this construct are: Zoning and urban planning, Roads and pavements, Traffic organization, Public Transport Service, Parking services, Address information, Transport terminal services. The results of the set of items proposed for this construct in the citizen surveys generate a degree of general experience on the part of the citizens surveyed.

4. The part of ‘Multigroup Analysis’ seems no direct relationship with your research. While you just show the multigroup in gender, and how are other groups (education? Work? Income?) So, maybe you can give up this part.

Thank you very much for your support. In the multigroup analysis, we expected to find more significant differences between men and women.

Following your recommendation, we have proceeded to delete the multi-group analysis paragraph.

Submitted filename: response to Reviewer 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Jan 2022

Study of citizen satisfaction and loyalty in the urban area of guayaquil: perspective of the quality of public services applying structural equations

PONE-D-21-28034R1

Dear Dr. Vergara-Romero ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

26 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-28034R1

Study of citizen satisfaction and loyalty in the urban area of Guayaquil: perspective of the quality of public services applying structural equations

Dear Dr. Vergara-Romero:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Mancy Mosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE