Search results

This paper aims to connect green spaces with city branding by introducing a proposed Green (Resource) Brand Hexagon (GBH).

This study empirically tested the principles of the GBH with samples of Hong Kong residents (n = 301) and visitors (n = 395). Surveys were carried out to investigate the perceptions of the 23 elements in the GBH by both respondent groups.

A comparison of the results via factor analysis identified two green brand structures preferred by local residents (a brand pentagon) and by visitors (a brand square). The findings suggest different associations of green resource elements in their brand perceptions, which were partly reflected in the governmental Brand Review exercise in Hong Kong in 2008. Inter-group differences in the ranking of GBH’s elements also indicate a knowledge gap between visitors and residents.

The modification process of the GBH from Anholt’s City Brand Hexagon framework involved researchers’ interpretations and understanding of green resources in Hong Kong; it inevitably produced some degree of subjectivity. The working definition of “green resources” in this study perceptually excluded certain features in public parks, such as the geological landscapes and beaches that are, in principle, part of the Hong Kong Geopark.

The findings of this paper offer an indicative green brand framework for destination marketers and brand managers whose cities enjoy attractive green resources. The ratings of GBH’s elements provide useful references for local brand management through an understanding of strong green brand attributes and structures by local residents and visitors. The inter-group comparison of the green brand structures also informs policymakers and city marketers about the divergent associations of brand elements for possible brand extension. Finally, the results are also very beneficial because they provide an opportunity for regional green brand development.

This paper aims to present an approach by which to assess the potential of branding a particular type of place resource or feature.

A review was conducted to analyse three key periodicals (Journal of Brand Management, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy and Journal of Place Management and Development) in the field of branding and place branding between 2000 and 2011. These three periodicals are recognized as the three leading periodicals of place branding, and they followed the clear establishment and development of the field of place branding.

Familiarity, favourability and uniqueness are the three dimensions that give a quick indication of the level of place brand equity, and in turn they represent the level of place brand potential.

In the literature, brand potential is not well conceptualized. This paper identifies this knowledge gap through a review of place branding studies, and it closes the gap by connecting brand potential with place brand equity.

This paper suggests practical and research directions by which to study these three dimensions to generate valuable brands for places.

This chapter explores the concept of branding in a contemporary competitive arena of places. The multi-dimensional interpretations of places offer a variety of possibilities to better understand the true essence of destination branding. One of the common interpretations of places is through the study of their images, as destination branding requires a thorough understanding of destination image. The important foundation and relation of destination image are specified and explained. The notion of destination branding has evolved from the fields of marketing and urban studies and has become a cross-disciplinary research area. Thus, the researchers explain that destination branding as well as ‘place branding’ are dynamic concepts that are being continuously being explored in academia for the benefit of practitioners in travel and tourism. This chapter suggests that the use of brand equity is also one of the frontier areas of study in ‘place branding’ as it emphasises the need to thematise destinations (e.g. for their historical heritage, cultural value, natural attractions, etc.) and places for residence (e.g. as green cities, creative cities, smart cities, etc.).