| Literature DB >> 35978584 |
Feihan Sun1, Chongliang Ye1, Weirong Zheng2, Xumei Miao3.
Abstract
Ecological environment quality is increasingly becoming a critical priority in measuring the sustainable development of modern cities. Reflecting on the reality of contemporary urban development, we create a structural equation model with city image and ecological quality as the antecedents of sustainable urban development, reflect on and expand the existing models of sustainable urban development, and further explore the mechanisms of various urban marketing factors on the shaping of city image. The study found that the continuous improvement of city marketing assets contributes to the process of shaping sustainable city branding. City image has a direct and significant positive impact on city recognition, city reputation, and perceived quality. Ecological environment quality also has a direct effect on city recognition and no direct effect on perceived quality or city reputation. However, ecological environment quality can affect city's reputation by acting on perceived quality through city recognition and then enhance the competitiveness of city sustainable development. The case practice of shaping a city's image by ecological environment quality illustrates the pragmatic return of humanism in contemporary urban development. While the halo effect of city image still exists, a good city reputation becomes another important influence on perceived quality and sustainability. This study facilitates the development of urban sustainable development theory and the extension of urban branding innovation theory, which will promote international dialogue in the field of urban eco-environment in China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978584 PMCID: PMC9377843 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8096122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1Conceptual model of city marketing based on ecological environment quality.
Conceptual index system.
| Variable | Indicator |
|---|---|
| City recognition | CR1 |
| CR2 Whenever eco-city is mentioned, one can think of | |
| CR3 | |
|
| |
| City reputation | CP1 A city of ecology, preferred |
| CP2 I can hear the insects and birds chirping. | |
| CP3 I don't want to leave | |
|
| |
| Perceived quality | PQ1 |
| PQ2 | |
| PQ3 | |
| PQ4 I would recommend | |
|
| |
| Well-being & security | WS1 I am willing to live in |
| WS2 I'll probably stay in | |
| WS3 I always intend to develop in | |
| WS4 I am extremely likely to choose | |
| WS5 In order to settle in | |
|
| |
| City image | CI1 Green shared city |
| CI2 A city where people have a high quality of life | |
| CI3 Technologically advanced city | |
| CI4 A city with a high level of education | |
| CI5 Overall good feeling city | |
| CI6 City with less negative news | |
| CI7 A city with advanced ecological governance technology | |
| CI8 A city with sound ecological governance planning | |
| CI9 A city that has been successful in marketing eco-friendly concepts | |
|
| |
| Ecological quality | EQ1 A strong sense of personal satisfaction in living and working in a high-quality eco-friendly city |
| EQ2 Having a good ecological environment makes me feel that the city is more civilized | |
| EQ3 Eco-friendly becomes a daily lifestyle routine for individuals | |
Means and standard deviations of variables.
| variable | Indicator | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| City recognition | CRA | 3.946 | 0.742 |
| CRB | 3.611 | 0.958 | |
| City reputation | CPA | 3.491 | 0.787 |
| CPB | 3.101 | 0.860 | |
| Perceived quality | PQA | 3.206 | 0.931 |
| PQB | 3.051 | 1.011 | |
| Well-being & security | WSA | 3.071 | 0.984 |
| WSB | 3.501 | 0.891 | |
| City image | CIA | 3.559 | 0.841 |
| CIB | 3.574 | 0.851 | |
| Ecological quality | EQA | 3.436 | 0.879 |
| EQB | 3.251 | 0.915 |
Note. Each variable has two indicators, A and B. The relationship between each indicator and each scale in the questionnaire is as follows. Indicator value = Total score of items included in the indicator/number of items included in the indicator, e.g., CRA = (CR1 + CR3)/2.
Data reliability.
| Variable | Cronbach's | KMO |
|---|---|---|
| City recognition | 0.773 | 0.693 |
| City reputation | 0.821 | 0.714 |
| Perceived quality | 0.848 | 0.787 |
| Well-being & security | 0.858 | 0.818 |
| City image | 0.948 | 0.900 |
| Ecological quality | 0.805 | 0.656 |
| Total | 0.948 | 0.929 |
Factor loadings and significant levels of indicators.
| Variable | Indicator | Factor loading |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| City recognition | CR1 | 0.69 | 11.21 |
| CR2 | 0.75 | 11.17 | |
| CR3 | 0.82 | 11.92 | |
|
| |||
| City reputation | CP1 | 0.82 | 14.54 |
| CP2 | 0.81 | 14.85 | |
| CP3 | 0.75 | 13.59 | |
|
| |||
| Perceived quality | PQ1 | 0.68 | 11.66 |
| PQ2 | 0.75 | 11.61 | |
| PQ3 | 0.85 | 12.86 | |
| PQ4 | 0.84 | 12.75 | |
|
| |||
| Well-being & security | WS1 | 0.80 | 15.28 |
| WS2 | 0.60 | 10.64 | |
| WS3 | 0.85 | 16.33 | |
| WS4 | 0.71 | 12.91 | |
| WS5 | 0.78 | 14.70 | |
|
| |||
| City image | CI1 | 0.77 | 15.49 |
| CI2 | 0.77 | 15.74 | |
| CI3 | 0.80 | 16.54 | |
| CI4 | 0.85 | 18.09 | |
| CI5 | 0.78 | 15.91 | |
| CI6 | 0.81 | 16.94 | |
| CI7 | 0.88 | 19.27 | |
| CI8 | 0.88 | 19.12 | |
| CI9 | 0.89 | 19.36 | |
|
| |||
| Ecological quality | EQ1 | 0.86 | 17.02 |
| EQ2 | 0.85 | 16.58 | |
| EQ3 | 0.60 | 10.60 | |
Correlation coefficient and standard error of each latent variable.
| City image | Ecological quality | City recognition | City reputation | Perceived quality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological quality | 0.60 (0.05) | ||||
| City recognition | 0.53 (0.09) | 0.19 (0.08) | |||
| City reputation | 0.58 (0.08) | 0.15 (0.07) | 0.77 (0.10) | ||
| Perceived quality | 0.33 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.03) | 0.30 (0.06) | 0.39 (0.06) | |
| Well-being & security | 0.48 (0.07) | 0.09 (0.04) | 0.43 (0.08) | 0.56 (0.08) | 0.68 (0.13) |
Note. The numbers outside the parentheses are the unstandardized values of the correlation coefficients, and the numbers inside the parentheses are the magnitude of the standard errors.
Figure 2Fitting effect of structural equation model.
Standardized estimates.
| No. | Inter-variable relationship | Route | Standardized estimate |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City image⟶City recognition |
| 0.53 | 6.60 |
| 2 | City image⟶City reputation |
| 0.18 | 2.57 |
| 3 | City image⟶Perceived quality |
| 0.17 | 2.32 |
| 4 | Ecological quality⟶City recognition |
| 0.19 | 2.50 |
| 5 | City recognition⟶City reputation |
| 0.76 | 8.49 |
| 6 | City reputation⟶Perceived quality |
| 0.60 | 7.04 |
| 7 | Perceived quality⟶Well-being & security |
| 0.98 | 11.88 |
Indirect effects between latent variables in the structural model.
| City image | Ecological quality | City recognition | City reputation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City reputation | 0.08 (5.71) | 0.07 (2.47) | ||
| Perceived quality | 0.05 (5.52) | 0.03 (2.37) | 0.06 (5.94) | |
| Well-being & security | 0.07 (7.62) | 0.04 (2.38) | 0.08 (6.16) | 0.08 (7.40) |
Note. The number outside the parentheses indicates the standardized coefficient of indirect effects, and the number inside the parentheses indicates the T-value of this standardized coefficient.
Hypothesis results.
| Hypothesis | Result |
|---|---|
|
| N |
|
| Y |
|
| Y |
|
| N |
|
| Y |
|
| N |
|
| Y |
|
| Y |
|
| Y |
|
| Y |
|
| N |
|
| N |