سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,225
تعداد مقالات67,685
تعداد مشاهده مقاله114,996,686
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,669,421
سلیمانی شیجانی, صدیقه, بمانیان, محمدرضا, رفیعیان, مجتبی, یگانه, منصور. (1401). تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر در دو سطح ابعاد و مؤلفه‌ها. , 10(4), 197-210. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2022.344082.1703
صدیقه سلیمانی شیجانی; محمدرضا بمانیان; مجتبی رفیعیان; منصور یگانه. "تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر در دو سطح ابعاد و مؤلفه‌ها". , 10, 4, 1401, 197-210. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2022.344082.1703
سلیمانی شیجانی, صدیقه, بمانیان, محمدرضا, رفیعیان, مجتبی, یگانه, منصور. (1401). 'تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر در دو سطح ابعاد و مؤلفه‌ها', , 10(4), pp. 197-210. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2022.344082.1703
سلیمانی شیجانی, صدیقه, بمانیان, محمدرضا, رفیعیان, مجتبی, یگانه, منصور. تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر در دو سطح ابعاد و مؤلفه‌ها. , 1401; 10(4): 197-210. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2022.344082.1703

تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر در دو سطح ابعاد و مؤلفه‌ها

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری
مقاله 12، دوره 10، شماره 4، بهمن 1401، صفحه 197-210    اصل مقاله (2.9 M)
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - کاربردی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jurbangeo.2022.344082.1703
نویسندگان
صدیقه سلیمانی شیجانی1؛ محمدرضا بمانیان* 2؛ مجتبی رفیعیان3؛ منصور یگانه2
1گروه معماری منظر، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس، تهران، ایران
2گروه معماری ، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس، تهران، ایران
3گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
چکیده
منظر با وجود تأثیرگذاری بر تصویر و هویت شهر، جایگاه درخوری در پژوهش‌های برندسازی مکان ندارد. تحقیق در برندینگ منظر در گرو شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر آن است. مشکلات ناشی از پراکندگی آرا در ادبیات برندسازی مکان و نبود اجماع پیرامون شاخص‌های اصلی، با ورود به حیطة برندسازی منظر دوچندان می‌نماید. هدف کلان پژوهش پیشرو تعیین شاخص‌های برندسازی منظر می‌باشد. در راستای دستیابی به هدف یادشده و باتوجه‌به ماهیت چندوجهی برندسازی منظر، ترکیبی از روش‌های تحقیق کیفی و کمی مورداستفاده قرار گرفته است. تحلیل محتوای نوشتاری و بررسی عمیق مطالعات پیشین به‌منظور شناسایی و دسته‌بندی اولیة ابعاد برندسازی منظر، انتخاب خبرگان، تنظیم پرسش‌نامه و در پایان غربالگری مؤلفه‌ها به کمک همپوشانی نتایج دلفی فازی و آزمون ناپارامتری فریدمن، روش‌ها و ابزارهای اصلی تحقیق حاضر را تشکیل می‌دهد. یافته‌های استخراج شده در مرحلة تحلیل محتوا، مجموعاً 8 بعد و 41 مؤلفة مؤثر در برندسازی منظر را مشخص نمود. پس از غربالگری مؤلفه‌ها از طریق دلفی فازی، بر اساس نظر خبرگان 8 بعد کالبدی، فرهنگی، سیاسی، اقتصادی، اجتماعی، تاریخی، زیست‌محیطی و رسانه‌ای به‌عنوان ابعاد شکل‌دهندة برندسازی منظر تأیید شدند، اما تعداد مؤلفه‌ها به 26 مورد کاهش یافت. در مرحلة آخر، محاسبات آزمون فریدمن همپوشانی مطلوبی با نتایج فازی سازی و فازی زدایی داشته و غربال مؤلفه‌ها را تأیید نمود. تفسیر یافته‌ها همچنین، بعد کالبدی را به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین بعد فرآیند برندسازی منظر مشخص نمود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
برند منظر؛ برندسازی شهری؛ برندسازی مکان؛ روش دلفی فازی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Determining landscape branding indicators at two levels of dimensions and components
نویسندگان [English]
Seddighe Soleimani Sheijani1؛ Mohammad Reza Bemanian2؛ Mojtaba Rafieian3؛ Mansour Yeganeh2
1Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Madras University, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Madras University, Tehran, Iran
3Department of Urban Design Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Madras University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Landscape, despite affecting the image and identity of the city, has no place in branding research. Research on landscape branding depends on identifying the factors that affect it. The purpose of this study is to determine the indicators of landscape branding. In order to achieve this goal, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods has been used. In-depth review of previous studies to identify and classify the dimensions of landscape branding, forming an expert panel, compiling a questionnaire and screening components using results from fuzzy Delphi and the nonparametric Friedman test are the main steps of the present study. The problems caused by the lack of consensus on the main indicators of place branding are doubled in the field of landscape branding. Therefore, the first stage was dedicated to identifying and categorizing the components of landscape branding by applying the method of written content analysis. The findings of this stage identified 8 dimensions and 41 components. The components were then screened through fuzzy Delphi. According to experts, 8 dimensions (physical, cultural, political, economic, social, historical, environmental and media dimensions) were approved as dimensions of landscape branding, but the number of components was reduced to 26. Finally, the Friedman test calculations had an acceptable overlap with the Delphi results and confirmed the screening of the components. Interpretation of the findings also identified the physical dimension as the most important dimension of the process.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Despite the importance of landscape elements in forming cities’ image and identity, and consequently in the process of city branding, landscape branding does not have a proper position among various place branding studies. In order to address the issues of landscape branding, it is necessary to identify the factors that affect it. Determining the dimensions and indicators is one of the most difficult topics in urban branding and this difficulty is more noticeable whilst focusing on landscape branding. The main purpose of this study, however, is to overcome the mentioned difficulty and specify the indicators of landscape branding.
 
Methodology
Due to the multi-dimensional essence of landscape branding, to achieve the research goal, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods has been used in the present study. First, a comprehensive review of previous studies made it possible to identify and categorize landscape branding indicators. The next phase was forming a panel of experts, using a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire, and gathering the experts’ opinions to determine the importance of each Indicator. Expert panel sampling was done intentionally and selectively with 15 experts(Professors of landscape architecture, architecture, urban planning and design, and tourism management). The validity of the questionnaire, which is also associated with reliability in the Delphi method (Danaeifar and Mozaffari, 2008), was checked with 5 criteria including researcher sensitivity, methodological coherence, adequacy of sampling, simultaneous data collection and analysis, and theoretical thinking (Dehghani and Baghiri, 2014) ). The threshold is typically 0/7 but it varies based on the researcher’s opinion in different studies(Habibi et al., 2015). The threshold was 0/75 in this research. Screening criteria based on fuzzy Delphi results, and Friedman's nonparametric test, as two parallel paths, was the third and last main step of the research.
Results and discussion
The findings of the first phase identified 8 dimensions and 41 components for landscape branding. The components were then screened through fuzzy Delphi. At this stage, according to experts, the 8 dimensions (physical, cultural, political, economic, social, historical, environmental and media) were all approved, but the number of components was reduced to 26. Based on the findings, social, physical and cultural dimensions, each with 5 components has the highest number of effective components in the process. This shows the importance of these dimensions compared to other effective dimensions according to the experts, and can be considered in line with the superiority of social, physical and cultural dimensions in branding studies. In addition, at the end of de-fuzzification and before screening, the crisp value for four components of the physical dimension was greater than 0/95. The components discussed are: landscape correlation (crisp value: 0/99), visual landscape (crisp value:0/98), infrastructure (crisp value: 0/97) and landmarks (crisp value: 0/97). These findings confirm the greater importance of the physical dimension among all the 8 dimensions (as emphasized in : (Vela et al., 2017), (Campelo et al., 2010), (Tobias & Wahl 2013), (Moratouski, 2012) and (Anholt, 2006)). In contrast, the environmental dimension, with only 2 components in the final table, has the lowest means and Crisp value in fuzzy and de-fuzzy calculations; with 0/77 (l = 0/27, m = 0/34, u = 0/5) for environmental health index and 0/79 (l = 0/19, m = 0/41, u = 0/54) for environmental diversity index. Although in the review of landscape branding studies, the ranking of factors related to this process has not been discussed, but due to the emphasis on the importance of environmental factors in various city / landscape branding studies (for example (Zavarato, 2014), (Julier (2005), (Merrilees, 2013) and (Porter, 2016)) This result was unexpected. Also, according to experts, the most important index of each of the eight dimensions was determined. Thus, according to the minimum, average and maximum means in the radar charts, in the political dimension "responsibility" (crisp value: 0/93), in the social dimension "unity and compatibility" (crisp value: 0/96), in the physical dimension "landscape correlation"(crisp value: 0/99), in the media dimension "indirect presentation" (crisp value: 0/98), in the environmental dimension "environmental diversity" (crisp value: 0/79), in the economic dimension "economic structure" (crisp value: 0/99), in the historical dimension "spiritual landscape heritage" (crisp value: 0/93) and in the cultural dimension "distinct identity" (crisp value:  0/98), will be considered the most important and will play a more prominent role in the process of branding the landscape. Significant differences between the most important components of the environmental dimension compared to the most important components of other dimensions are noticeable and the reasons can be investigated in future studies and general statistical communities.
 
Conclusion
The research findings highlight the importance of applying a holistic approach in the process of landscape branding. An approach that combines objective and subjective aspects. At the same time, the findings show that the most important dimension of the branding process is the physical dimension, and this reveals the superiority of the objective aspect of the process compared to the mental aspect. In the cultural dimension, the higher value of "distinct identity" compared to "unity identity" indicates the superiority of the external dimension of identity over its internal dimension in the process of landscape branding. This finding can be considered as an indication that, in the opinion of experts on the paradox of singularity-similarity, which is considered as one of the most important challenges of landscape branding (Porter, 2016), the first aspect is more important. Accordingly, in the role of landscape elements to turn cities into brands, differentiation indicators play a more prominent role than familiarity indicators. Therefore, in the intense competition of cities, paying attention to the external dimension of identity can increase the chances of each city, to be remembered for a long period of time, and consequently, to gain continuous attention from visitors.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.
 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Place Brand, City Branding, Landscape Branding, Fuzzi Delphi Method
مراجع
  1. امین‌زاده، بهناز. (1395). ارزش‌ها در طراحی منظر شهری. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات مهکامه.
  2. پرتانیان، ندا و جمعه پور، محمود. (1401). سنجش رضایتمندی شهروندان از محور غذا و تفریح در برندسازی شهری مطالعه موردی: شهرک توحید سبزوار. مجله پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 10(2)، 53-72.
  3. خاک زند، مهدی و سعیدی، مهدی (1401). تحلیل اثرگذاری کیفیت بعد منظر مکان بر ایجاد تصویر ذهنی برند محور تجاری - تفریحی. مجله پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 10(1)، 38-25.
  4. دانائی فر، حسن و مظفری، زینب. (1387). ارتقای روایی و پایایی در پژوهش‌های کیفی مدیریتی: تأملی بر استراتژی‌های ممیزی پژوهشی. پژوهش‌های مدیریت، 1(1)، 131-162.
  5. دهقانی فیروزآبادی، سید جلال و بغیری، علی. (1393). شناسایی عوامل کلیدی جنگ داخلی در خاورمیانه عربی با استفاده از روش دلفی فازی، فصلنامه آفاق امنیت،24(7)، 151-178.
  6. زاواتارو، استیسی‌ام. (1397). برندینگ مکان به‌واسطه مراحل تصویرسازی. ترجمه مسعود دادگر. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات سازمان زیباسازی شهر تهران.
  7. کارمونا, م. (1394). مکان‌های عمومی فضاهای شهری. ترجمه فریبا قرائی، زهرا اهری، اسماعیل صالحی، مهشید شکوهی. چاپ سوم. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه هنر.
  8. منصوریان، عباس؛ ابوئی اردکان، محمد؛ پورموسوی، سید موسی؛ رحیمیان، اشرف. (1392). مدل فرآیندی برندسازی شهری برای کلان‌شهرهای ایران. چشم‌انداز مدیریت دولتی، 13(4)، 41-63.
  9. یزدان‌پناه شاه‌آبادی، محمدرضا؛ سجادزاده، حسن؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی. (1398). تبیین مدل مفهومی برندسازی مکان: مروری بر ادبیات نظری، باغ نظر، 71(16)، 34 – 19.
  10. Acharya, A., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Place branding research: A thematic review and future research agenda. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 13(3), 289–317.
  11. Aminzadeh, B. (2016). Values in urban landscape design. Mahkameh pulication, Tehran. [In Persian].
  12. Andersson, I. (2014). Placing place branding: an analysis of an emerging research field in human geography. Journal of Geography, 1–13.
  13. Anholt, S. (2006) Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  14. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations: Cities and Regions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. Anttiroiko, A. (2014). The Political Economy of City Branding. New York: Routledge.
  16. Avraham, E., & Ketter, E. (2008). Media Strategies for Marketing Places in Crisis: Improving the Image of Cities, Countries, and Tourist Destinations. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
  17. Baker, B. (2007). Destination Branding for Small Cities: The Essentials for Successful Place Branding. Portland: Creative Leap Books.
  18. Barke, M. (1999). “City marketing as a planning tool”, in Pacione, M. (Ed.), Applied Geography: Principles and Practice. London; Routledge. 486-96.
  19. Braun, E. (2012). Putting City Branding into Practice. Journal of Brand Management, 19(4), 257-267.
  20. Burns, Peter; Novelli, Mariana. (2008). Tourism and Mobilities: Local Global Connections.UK: CABI.
  21. Celik, D., Gokce, A., & Koca, V.  (2013). The Urban Landscape Oriented Branding Strategies in Tourism: The Case of Bartin. International Caucasian Forestry Symposium. Turkey 24-26 Oct 2013, 846-855.
  22. Campelo, A. (2015). Rethinking Sense of Place: Sense of One and Sense of Many. In: Kavaratzis, M., Warnaby, G., Ashworth, G. (eds) Rethinking Place Branding. Springer Books, 51-60.
  23. Chan, Chung-shing; Marafa, Lawal M. (2013) A review of place branding methodologies in the new millennium. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(4), 236–253.
  24. Danaeifar, H., Mozaffari, Z. (2008). Promoting Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Management Research: A Reflection on Management Auditing. Strategies in Management Research, 3(1), 131-162. [In Persian].
  25. Daniel, T. (2001). Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment in the 21st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1). 267-281
  26. Dehghani Firoozabadi, J.& Bogheiri, A. (2014). Identifying the Key Factors of the Civil War in the Arab Middle East Using Fuzzy Delphi Method, Afagh-e-Amniat, 24(7), 151-178. [In Persian]
  27. Dinnie, K. (2011). City Branding: Theory and Cases. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Domosh, M. (2013). Consumption and Landscape. In N.C. Johnson, R.H. Schein & J. Winders (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography (pp. 198–208.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  29. Drugan, G. A. (2014). The development of an analytical framework for the measurement of city brands. A PhD thesis, Supervisor: Kang, J., Faculty of Humanities, Manchester Business School.
  30. Fernández, D., & Meethan, K. (2014). The Relationship of City Branding and Tourist Promotion: The Case of Plymouth (UK) and Malaga (Spain). Athens Journal of Tourism, 1(3), 217-226
  31. Florek, M., Insch, A. & Gnoth, J. (2006). City Council Websites as a Means of Place Brand Identity Communication. Place Branding, 2(22), 276-296.
  32. Friedman, Th. (2008). Hot, Flat and Crowded - Why We Need a Green Revolution - And How it Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
  33. Gertner, D. (2011). Unfolding and configuring two decades of research and publication on place marketing and place branding. Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(2), 91-106.
  34. Go, F., & Govers, R. (2011). International place branding yearbook 2011: Managing reputational risk. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  35. Govers, R. & Go, F. (2009). Place Branding: Glocal, Virtual and Physical Identities, Constructed, Imagined and Experienced. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  36. Green, A., Grace, D. & Perkins, H. (2016). City branding research and practice: An integrative review. Journal of Brand Management, 23(3), 252–272.
  37. Gulsrud, N., Gooding, S. & van Den Bosch, C. (2013). Green space branding in Denmark in an era of neoliberal governance. Urban forestry & urban greening, 12(3), 330- 337.
  38. Gulsrud, N. (2015). The Role of Green Space in City Branding: An Urban Governance Perspective. PhD thesis. Supervisor: Cecil C. Konijnendijk. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen
  39. Habibi, A., Firouzi Jahantighb, F., & Sarafrazic, A. (2015). Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 5(2), 130-143.
  40. Hagens, Janneke E. (2010). Performance of landscape concepts in spatial planning branding, bonding and bringing about. PhD. Thesis, Supervisor: A.J.J. vander Valk, School of Social Sciences, Wageningen University
  41. Hankinson, G. (2004). The brand images of tourism destinations: A study of the saliency of organic images. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(1), 6–14.
  42. Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2008). An analysis of terminology use in place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 61–75.
  43. Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2011). Towards a strategic place brand-management model. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5–6), 458–476.
  44. Karmona, M. (2015). places urban spaces the dimensions of urban design. Translators: Qaraei, F; Ahari, Z.; Salehi, E.; Shokouhi, M. University of Arts. Tehran.Public. [In Persian].
  45. Kasapi, Irisi; Cela, Ariana (2017). Destination Branding: A Review of the City Branding Literature, Mediterranean. Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (4), 129-142
  46. Kavaratzis, M. (2004). From city marketing to city branding: towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding, 1(1), 58-73.
  47. Kavaratzis, M. (2005). Place Branding: A Review of Trends and Conceptual Models. The Marketing Review, 5(4), 329-342
  48. Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. (2008). Place marketing: how did we get here and where are we going? Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), 150-165.
  49. Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Cities and their brands: Lessons from corporate branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(1), 26 – 37.
  50. Kavaratzis, M., & Kalandides, A. (2015). Rethinking the place brand: the interactive formation of place brands and the role of participatory place branding. Environment and Planning , 47(6), 1368 – 1382.
  51. Kavaratzis, M., Warnaby, G., & Ashworth, G. (2015). Rethinking Place Branding, Comprehensive Brand Development for Cities and Regions, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  52. Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. (2013) The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69-86
  53. Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. (2019) The Elusive Destination Brand and the ATLAS Wheel of Place Brand, Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 3–15
  54. Khakzand, M., & Saidi, M. (2021). Analysis of the Effect of Place Landscape Qualities on Creating a Brand Mental Image of Urban Commercial-Recreational Axis, Case study: Sarsabz axis of Tehran. Journal of Geographical Urban Planning Research, 10 (1), 23-38, [In Persian].
  55. Konijnendijk, C.C., (2010). The role of forestry in the development and reform of green belts. Planning Practice and Research, 25(2), 239-252
  56. Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nation. New York: The Free Press.
  57. Lucarelli, A., & Berg, P. (2011). City Branding: A State-of-the-art Review of the Research Domain, Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 9-27
  58. Lucarelli, A., & Brorström, S. (2013). Problematising place branding research: A meta-theoretical analysis of the literature, Marketing Review, 13(1), 65-81.
  59. Markmann, C., Spickermann, A., von der Gracht, A., & Brem, A. (2020). Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behaviour. Futures & Foresight Science, 3(2), 1-20
  60. McKendry, C., & Janos, N. (2015). “Greening the industrial city: equity, environment, and economic growth in Seattle and Chicago.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 15(3), 45-60.
  61. Maessena, R., Wilmsb, G., & Jones-Waltersc, L. (2008), Branding our landscapes: some practical experiences from the LIFESCAPE project, 8th European IFSA Symposium, 6 - 10 July 2008, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  62. Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C (2009). Antecedents of residents' city brand attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 362–367.
  63. Misiura, H. (2006). Heritage Marketing. London: Routledge Publication.
  64. Monavarian, A., Abuei Ardakan, M., Pourmousavi, M., Rahimian, A. (2013). Urban Branding Process Model for Iranian Metropolises, Public Management Perspective, 13(4). 41-63. (In Persian)
  65. Moratouski, G. (2012). The role of architecture and integrated design in city branding. Journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 8(3), 195 – 207.
  66. Moya, A. (2011). The phenomenological experience of the visual landscape. In Nijhuis S., van Lammeren R., & van der Hoeven, F. (eds) Exploring the visual landscape. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 57–71. 
  67. Ntounis, N., & Kavaratzis, M., (2017). Re-branding the High Street: the place branding process and reflections from three UK towns, Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(4), 392-403.
  68. Ode Sang, Å., Hägerhäll, C., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing Visual Landscape Complexity: Theory and Application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111-131.
  69. Oguztimur, S., & Akturan, U.(2015). Synthesis of City Branding Literature (1988–2014) as a Research Domain, International Journal of Tourism Research 18(4), 357-372.
  70. Partanian N., & Jomehpoor, M. (2022). Assessing Citizens' Satisfaction with the Food and Entertainment Axis in Urban Branding A Case Study the Shahrak-Tohid of Sabzevar. Journal of Geographical Urban Planning Research, 10 (2), 53-72. [In Persian].
  71. Porter, N. (2016). Landscape and Branding, The promotion and production of place. London: Routledge
  72. Skálová E. & Peruthová, A. (2016). Quality in rural tourism services. Journal of Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, 13(7), 1058-1065
  73. Rainisto, S. (2003). Success Factors of Place Marketing; A Study of Place Marketing Practices in North Europe and THe US.Doctoral Dissertation. Helsinki: University of Technology.
  74. Rehan, R.M. (2013). Urban branding as an effective sustainability tool in urban development. Housing and Building National Research Center Journal, 9(2), 173-186
  75. Ruzinskaite, J. (2015). Place Branding: The Need for an Evaluative Framework; Doctoral thesis. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
  76. Tobias, S., & Wahl, P. (2013). Can place branding support landscape conservation in cityregions? A case study from Switzerland. Journal of Land Use Policy, 30(1), 266-275.
  77. Vanolo, A. (2008). Image of the creative city: Reflections on urban branding in Turin. Cities, 25(6), 370-382.
  78. Vela, J., Nogué, J., & Govers, R. (2017). Visual landscape as a key element of place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(1), 23-44.
  79. Virgo, B., & Chernatony, L. (2006). Delphic brand visioning to align stakeholder buy-in to the city of Birmingham brand. brand management, 13(6), 379-392.
  80. Vuignier, R. (2016). Place marketing and place branding: A systematic (and tentatively exhaustive) literature review. Switzerland: University of Lausanne, HAL archive.
  81. Yazdan Panah Shahabadi, M., Sajjadzadeh, H., & Rafieian, M. (2019), Developing a Conceptual Model for Place Branding: A Review of Theoretical Literature. Bagh Nazar Magazine, 71(16), 19-34. [In Persian].
  82. Yuksel, Z. (2016). Toward an Understanding of an Inside Out Perspective on City Branding. PHD thesis. Bradford: School of Management, University of Bradford.
  83. Zavattaro, S, (2018). Place Branding Through Phases of the Image. translator: Dadgar, M. Tehran: City Beautification Organization of Tehran. (In Persian)
  84. Zhang, L. & Xiaobin Zhao, S. (2009).City branding and Olympic effect: Case of Beijing Cities, 26(1), 245–254.
  85. Zenker, S., & Rütter, N. (2014). Is satisfaction the key? The role of citizen satisfaction, place attachment and place brand attitude on positive citizenship behavior. Cities, 38(1), 11–17.
  86. Zenker, S., Braun, E.(2017), Questioning a “one size fits all” city brand Developing a branded house strategy for place brand management. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10 (3), 270-287.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 447
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 220


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب