Cities 56 (2016) 85–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

The citizen satisfaction index: Adapting the model in Argentine cities

Héctor Oscar Nigro, Sandra Elizabeth González Císaro ⁎
Computer Sciences and Systems Department, Exact Sciences Faculty, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The citizen satisfaction index is an important tool to determine citizens' opinion of the city they live in, which is
Received 18 August 2015 important to decision makers. However, this satisfaction may be different in different cities worldwide. Zenker
Received in revised form 15 March 2016 et al. (2013) argue that one's overall satisfaction with a city is explained by four main factors: “urbanity and di-
Accepted 18 March 2016
versity, nature and recreation, job opportunities and cost-efficiency.” According to these authors, these four fac-
Available online xxxx
tors explain 50% of the total variance of the overall citizen satisfaction with a city, sampled in German cities. In
Keywords:
this work, we adapted and tested the citizen satisfaction model in Argentine cities based on the recommended
Citizen satisfaction factors.
Structural equation model © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Place attachment
Place management
Place marketing
Environment perception as a facilitator of
parenting

1. Introduction
Which is the best place to live? What are the best features that inter-
est you to select a place? Which is the best place for parenting? These
are some of the typical questions determining citizens' ideal place to
live. The citizen satisfaction index (CSI) is an important tool to deter-
mine citizens' opinion of the city they live in, information that is impor-
tant to decision makers.
In the present study, the CSI model (Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt,
2013), which has been tested in German cities, was taken as the refer-
ence. According to this model, one's overall satisfaction with a city is ex-
plained by four basic factors, namely “urbanity and diversity, nature and
recreation, job opportunities and cost-efficiency,” which explain 50% of
the total variance of overall satisfaction.
The aim of this study was to test the CSI model in a different
cultural sample (medium-sized and small cities of Argentina with
70,000–150,000 inhabitants), through a structural equation model
(SEM) based on partial least squares. We simultaneously examined
place attachment, parental investment in parenting, and overall satis-
faction, using different predictors. We attempted to complement and
reinterpret the analysis based on concepts related to sociology of
human behavior and evolutionary and environmental psychology to ex-
tend the tentative model proposed. Interpretation of the results of the
proposed model may help promote future studies on the correlation be-
tween citizens and their physical environment.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sagonci@gmail.com (S.E. González Císaro).
Our model is consistent with the reference model. It measures the
perception of citizens and ignores objective quantitative indicators of
a city, such as the unemployment rate and transportation networks.
Thus, our work faces the same limitations as those of the reference
work. The results of the index do not necessarily imply the need for
changing a physical characteristic but for eliminating prejudices and
stereotypes, which occupy an important part in the city (Zenker et al.,
2013).
2. Adaption and expansion of the CSI model
Several constructs are available (satisfaction, commitment, loyalty,
attachment, etc.). To validate our model, we chose satisfaction, attach-
ment, and the perception of the city being suitable for parenting. There-
fore, we modeled the attachment to a city as a result of citizen
satisfaction, in line with the results of other models of satisfaction
(Florek, 2011). Some authors differentiated attachment from identifica-
tion with the city of residence (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010). Zenker and
Rütters (2014) discussed the role of citizen satisfaction, place attach-
ment, and place brand attitude in positive citizenship behavior.
Table 1 lists the factors, items, and differences between the CSI model
and our proposed model.
The survey respondents were asked to qualify 1–10 different fea-
tures of the city in terms of “I am very dissatisfied,” “dissatisfied,” “nei-
ther dissatisfied nor satisfied,” “satisfied,” or “very satisfied.” The items
were measured with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“very dissatisfied”)
to 10 (“very satisfied”). Other variables measured with the Likert scale
included “satisfaction with the city” (1 “very dissatisfied” to 10 “very
satisfied”), “quality of life to raise children” (1 “very bad” to 10 “very

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.010
0264-2751/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
86 H.O. Nigro, S.E. González Císaro / Cities 56 (2016) 85–90

Table 1
Factors, items, and differences.

Factors Item Differences between CSI model and our model

Job opportunities: it relates to all issues relevant to
work such as the general level of salary.
Cost-efficiency: it expresses the perception of the cost of
living there.
Urbanity and diversity: it could be understood as the
urban and metropolitan characteristic of a place, for
example, a large city with a wide range of
opportunities, cultural events, or business. This
factor also describes a city open and tolerant to
different cultures and subcultures.
Nature and recreation: it expresses the need of citizens
to have low environmental, visual, and noise
pollution; parks and public open spaces; and a
peaceful place to live.
Quality of life in the city for parenting children and
preference for the city
Overall satisfaction
Attachment to the city: it is the emotional link between
people and a city. It is influenced by individual and
personal experiences. Therefore, a city has to be
significant enough, considering “thoughts, feelings,
memories and interpretations evoked by a landscape”
as “significant” and “the degree of taste for a landscape
compared to another” as “preference.”
General economic growth in the region. We condensed “job opportunities” and
Existence of good jobs and employment “Cost-efficiency,” which were originally presented in
opportunities. the CSI model as first-order latent variables, into one
The general level of wages. reflective construct of second order.
The general level of prices in the city/cost of living.
Availability of homes.
Housing market/cost of house rental or purchase.
Quantity and quality of cultural activities taking The “urbanity and diversity” construct is a
place in the city (theater, nightlife, etc.). second-order latent variable whose reflective
Cultural diversity, different cultures, and constructs of first order are “social relationship and
subcultures. esthetics and diversity of consumer goods and
Openness and tolerance on the part of citizens. services.” This construct was originally presented in
Coexistence, atmosphere, and positive energy the CSI model as first order.
conveyed by the city.
Availability of different services.
Are you satisfied with the urban visual image
provided and transmitted by the city?
Variety of shopping opportunities.
Natural and public green spaces. The “nature and recreation” construct is composed in
Number of parks and open spaces in the city. our case of the first-order latent variables
Options outdoors. “Peacefulness and green spaces” and “environmental
Peacefulness. care.” This construct was originally presented in the CSI
Environmental quality (degree of noise and model as first order.
environmental pollution).
Cleanness of the city.
Accessibility to running water networks at homes.
Do you think that this is a good city to raise your We added the variable “environment perception as a
children? facilitator of parenting”.
How satisfied are you with your city? In other
words, do you generally like to live in the city?
Do you plan to live in another city either for work Our research limits the meaning of “place attachment”
or to improve your quality of life? to the “intention to leave the city.”
Would you like to go and live in another city or
imagine living in another city if you run across
economic or job opportunity or just for fun?

Note: Some factors and items were taken from the work of Zenker et al. (2013) and the rest were designed by us.

good”), and “attachment” (1 “probably yes” to 10 “probably not”). The
questions were randomized across participants to prevent the effect
on context items.
Finally, the participants were asked about demographic attributes
such as age, educational background, and income.
3. Selection of the structural model: partial least square path model
versus covariance-based methods
To model the proposal, we preferred to use an SEM based on partial
least squares rather than covariance-based methods (CBMs). Both
methods show clear differences in their objectives. CBMs estimate
model parameters, such that the discrepancies between the initial em-
pirical covariance data matrix and the covariance matrix derived from
the model and the estimated parameters are minimized. The model is
used to explain the covariation of all indicators. This approach provides
global measures of goodness of fit that determine the extent to which
the hypothesized model fits the data available. CBMs are better suited
for confirmatory research. By contrast, the partial least square path
model (PLS-PM) aims to predict dependent variables (both latent and
explicit). This involves maximizing the explained variance (R2) of the
dependent variables, which in turn indicates that the parameter esti-
mates are based on the ability to minimize the residual variances of en-
dogenous variables. Compared with CBM, the predictive PLS-PM is more
suitable for exploratory theoretical development, but it can also be used
to confirm the theory via confirmatory analyses (Barclay, Thompson, &
Higgins, 1995).
These two approaches differ in their use of SEM either to develop
and evaluate a confirmed theory or to ensure predictive applications
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). When the former theory is sound and
can be developed and evaluated further, estimation methods based on
covariance (e.g., maximum likelihood or generalized least squares) are
more suitable.
This, the PLS model was used in this study as it was better suited for
predictive purposes (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). Indeed, Wold
(1979) stated that PLS is mainly used for predictive causal analysis in
situations of high complexity, but with underdeveloped theoretical
knowledge. Barclay et al. (1995) reported the general use of PLS in pre-
dictive models of research, with the focus on developing an emerging
theory.
4. Measuring overall satisfaction with the city
We referred to various work for the dimensions selected in this
study due to the large quantity of factors. The factors influencing a
person's choice of location include the physical perspective (Rodwin
Table 2
Global results of structural model.
Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.485, P b 0.001
Average R-squared (ARS) = 0.325, P b 0.001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) = 0.323, P b 0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF) = 1.242, acceptable if ≤5, ideally ≤3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) = 1.803, acceptable if ≤5, ideally ≤3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) = 0.526, small ≥0.1, medium ≥0.25, large ≥0.36
Simpson's paradox ratio (SPR) = 1.000, acceptable if ≥0.7, ideally =1
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) = 1.000, acceptable if ≥0.9, ideally =1
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) = 1.000, acceptable if ≥0.7
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) = 1.000, acceptable if ≥0.7
 H.O. Nigro, S.E. González Císaro / Cities 56 (2016) 85–90 87

Table 3
Coefficients of latent variables.

R-squared Adjusted R-squared Composite reliability Cronbach's alpha Average variances extracted Full collinearity VIFs Q-squared

Urbanity and diversity 0.267 0.266 0.884 0.738 0.792 2.525 0.269
Nature and recreation 0.465 0.464 0.819 0.557 0.693 1.990 0.466
Job and cost relation 0.855 0.662 0.747 1.373
Parenting 0.190 0.188 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.679 0.190
Overall satisfaction 0.509 0.507 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.010 0.510
Attachment 0.192 0.191 0.934 0.858 0.875 1.243 0.189

et al., 1981; Jensen, 2007; Hack, 2015), the diversity and prevailing tol-
erance in the city (Hofmann, Westermann, Kowarik, & van der Meer,
2012; Trueman, Cook, & Cornelius, 2008), cultural activities and enter-
tainment (Baker & Cameron, 2008; Evans, 2003; Muñiz Martínez &
Cervantes Blanco, 2010), and the economic growth in the region
(Hospers, 2003; Florida, 2004; Stolarick, 2005). Zenker and Gollan
(2010) showed that one's intention of leaving a place is reduced by
one's general satisfaction with it, as well as by one's place brand
attitude.
To analyze the structure underlying these factors, we
a) used exploratory factor analysis and
b) proved that these factors may function as explanatory variables in an
SEM.
connections (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Mesch & Manor, 1998), and
that the gender has a positive influence on local relationships (Prezza,
Amici, Roberti, & Tedeschi, 2001). Social relationships play a key role
in the development of attachment, and they are affected by gender. Sim-
ilar results suggest that women are linked to greater local interaction
because of their social role (Tartaglia, 2006) in caring for the home
and their children. Indeed, gender influences the presence of significant
relationships at the local level, which in turn contribute to city attach-
ment. Women show a greater tendency to develop and maintain social
ties in the area (Prezza et al., 2001; Tartaglia, 2006), which are strong
predictors of attachment to a city. In general, emotional links with
friends in a city create an emotional bond to that city. Therefore, social
relationships largely influence one's attachment to the city (Bonaiuto,
Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Lewicka, 2009; Mesch &
Manor, 1998).

4.1. Sample and technical sheet 5.2. Impact of age on satisfaction and attachment

A total of 649 surveys were carried out in the cities of Tandil, Tres Ar-
royos, and Chivilcoy (Buenos Aires province, Argentina) in a population
above the age of 16 (50.1% female), habitually residing in these cities. A
probability sample design was used. The sampling error was ±3.85%
with a significance level of 95%.
The same number of surveys was conducted in each of the three cit-
ies. The average age of the participants was 44.1 years (SD = 18.8),
28.5% of whom were aged ≤29 years, 23.7% between 30 and 44 years,
23.7% between 45 and 59 years, and 24% ≥ 60 years. Approximately
10.8% of the sample had a high socioeconomic level, 30.7% a medium so-
cioeconomic level, and 58.6% a low socioeconomic level. About 18.1%
had completed tertiary or university education, 46.4% had an average
educational level (i.e., at least completed high school), and 35.1% had
completed, at best, primary school (descriptive statistics can be found
in Appendix A).
The sample can be considered fully representative of the population
(National census in Argentina in 2010). The survey was completed in
December 2013 in Tandil, January 2014 in Tres Arroyos, and February
2014 in Chivilcoy.
5. Results
5.1. Impact of gender on satisfaction and attachment
In agreement with previous research (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010),
women showed higher levels of attachment to the city they lived in.
The findings suggest that women express stronger emotional
Age had a strong effect on attachment and a weaker effect on the
overall satisfaction. The highest scores of city attachment were obtained
in the elderly population (probably long-term residents). This corrobo-
rates the key role of age in one's attachment to a city (Ng, Kam, & Pong,
2005; Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003), although its effects are usual-
ly mediated by the duration of residence (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;
Knez, 2005; Lewicka, 2005). However, several studies have shown
that city attachment can also be developed for physical spaces with
which people have had recent contact (Bahi-Fleury, 1996; Bonaiuto
et al., 1999; Harris, Brown, & Werner, 1996).
5.3. Impact of education and socioeconomic level on satisfaction and at-
tachment to the city
In terms of education, individuals with lower levels of education
showed greater overall satisfaction and city attachment. Indeed, the
level of education, which is linked to age, influences both city attach-
ment and satisfaction (Lewicka, 2005; Tartaglia, 2009; Tartaglia &
Rollero, 2010). Subjects with low educational level are less likely to
be a part of different social groups with which they can identify
(Lewicka, 2005; Tartaglia, 2009; Tartaglia & Rollero, 2010; Abela,
2011). Similarly, we can also argue that people with high levels of for-
mal education are more likely to belong to dominant groups and there-
fore less motivated to identify with social groups based on local affairs;
in such cases, attachment to a city can vary depending on the group's
position in society (Brown & Williams, 1984; Ellemers, Kortekaas, &
Ouwerkerk, 1999).

Table 4
Correlations among latent variables with square roots of average variances extracted (AVEs).

Urbanity and diversity Nature and recreation Job–cost relation Parenting Overall satisfaction Attachment

Urbanity and diversity (0.890) 0.682 0.503 0.427 0.563 0.358

Nature and recreation 0.682 (0.833) 0.437 0.419 0.419 0.220
Job–cost relation 0.503 0.437 (0.864) 0.271 0.311 0.162
Parenting 0.427 0.419 0.271 (1.000) 0.606 0.305
Overall satisfaction 0.563 0.419 0.311 0.606 (1.000) 0.405
Attachment 0.358 0.220 0.162 0.305 0.405 (0.936)

Note: Square roots of AVEs shown on the diagonal.

88 H.O. Nigro, S.E. González Císaro / Cities 56 (2016) 85–90

Table 5
Total effects and P-values for total effects.

Urbanity and diversity Nature and recreation Job–cost relation Parenting Overall satisfaction Attachment

Urbanity and diversity 0.517

b0.001
Nature and recreation 0.682 0.353
b0.001 b0.001
Job–cost relation
Parenting 0.297 0.435 0.153
b0.001 b0.001 b0.001
Overall satisfaction 0.511 0.203 0.264 0.466
b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001
Attachment 0.224 0.089 0.116 0.204 0.439
b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001 b0.001

In the correlation between wealth and subjective well-being, the lat-
ter is not so much the absolute level of income and the relative perception
of the personal situation. Individuals tend to evaluate their economic sit-
uation in response to their environment. A person belonging to a family
of modest income is considered lucky if all of his/her neighbors have a
similar economic situation. As a corollary, people with low income will
experience poverty more intensely if they are surrounded by abundance.
However, the effect of the objective incomes on the level of subjective
well-being cannot be overlooked. In fact, people with greater income
have more opportunities to develop their socioeconomic condition,
hence its positive association with satisfaction (Abela, 2011).
5.4. Model fit and quality indices
Tables 2–4 list the important measures in the structural model and
their latent variables.
Tables 5 and 6 show the “total effects” and “sizes of effects.” These
are important index qualities according to Kock (2013): “having access
to indirect and total effects can be critical in the evaluation of downstream
effects of latent variables that are mediated by other latent variables, espe-
cially in complex models with multiple mediating effects along concurrent
paths. Indirect effects also allow direct estimations, via resampling, of the
P values associated with mediating effects that have traditionally relied
on non-automated and thus time-consuming calculations based on linear
and nonlinear (Hayes & Preacher, 2010) assumptions.”
In consequence, the construct “urbanity and diversity” had a strong
impact on “overall satisfaction” (β = 0.373), but not the greatest. Indeed,
the latent variable “environment perception as a facilitator of parenting”
mediates between “nature and recreation” and “overall satisfaction,”
with a strong impact (β = 0.466) on the overall satisfaction (see Fig. 1).
We hypothesized that the marginal utility of evaluating a city as a fa-
cilitator of parenting and parental investment is decreasing. In fact, the
relationship between this variable and “overall satisfaction” is not line-
ar. When basic parenting needs are covered for the majority of the pop-
ulation, further increases in the level of parental investment have a
decreasing effect on the subjective well-being. Other post-parental
needs, the satisfaction of which does not depend solely on the level of
parenting, begin to gain importance.
For the constructs “urbanity and diversity” and “nature and recrea-
tion,” we chose the second-order construct because the average variance
extracted (AVE) indicator with the original manifest variables was lower
in both cases (0.461 and 0.422, respectively) than the current value of 0.5.
We detected a satisfactory relationship between “job opportunities”
and “cost-efficiency,” and both were found to be strongly related to the
latent variable “urbanity and diversity.” A second-order construct in-
volving “job opportunities” and “cost-efficiency” can also be considered
to improve the relationship with “urbanity and diversity” and to explain
an increased amount of variance at the dependent variable.
The second-order construct “job opportunities and cost of living” is
strongly related to “nature and recreation” (path analysis 0.45), but
the mentioned relationship decreases to 0.14 when mediated by “ur-
banity and diversity.” Thus, we opted for the second alternative.
The relationship between “nature and recreation” and “overall satis-
faction” is strong (path analysis 0.43), but we opted for the relationship
between “urbanity and diversity” and “overall satisfaction,” which was
also strong (path analysis 0.682). This transforms the latter into a spuri-
ous relationship (path analysis 0.06).
The initial relationship between the original latent variables and the
overall satisfaction only explained 0.34 of the variance. Therefore, we
decided to incorporate the manifest variable “environment perception
as a facilitator of parenting” as a mediator between “nature and recrea-
tion” and “overall satisfaction,” which provided 0.51 of the explained
variance of overall satisfaction.
6. Discussion
The results of the present study showed that the cultural context of
the people surveyed may have influenced different aspects of their per-
ception of the city. As our model was based on that proposed by Zenker
et al. (2013), applied in Germany, it is important to note that the Ger-
man and the South American cultures, specifically Argentinian culture,
are different. Argentinian culture places stronger emphasis on family
values; thus, parenting is an important factor. The cultural difference
is also noted in the calculation of the parameters of the latent variables
representing the four dimensions postulated in the reference model. In
the following paragraphs, we discuss perspectives on future research
according to our experience with the model.
We proposed to simplify the model using the latent variable “cost-
efficiency” as a dependent variable (an indicator of “job opportunities”).
In our sample, we found that “cost of living” had no incidence over the
other variables, because it was implicit in “job opportunities.” The aim
was to expand the construct “perceptions of the generation and distri-
bution of resources of the habitat” as a second-order construct to

Table 6
Sizes of total effects.

Urbanity and diversity Nature and recreation Job–cost relation Parenting Overall satisfaction Attachment

Urbanity and diversity 0.267

Nature and recreation 0.465 0.154
Job–cost relation
Parenting 0.127 0.190 0.042
Overall satisfaction 0.295 0.085 0.082 0.293
Attachment 0.080 0.020 0.019 0.062 0.192
 H.O. Nigro, S.E. González Císaro / Cities 56 (2016) 85–90
Fig. 1. Proposed model.
measure “perception of economic value of the city,” with two first-order
latent variables:
• “Job opportunities” and “job satisfaction,” which are measured in ad-
dition to other factors such as “general working conditions,” “pay
and promotion potential,” “work relationships,” “use of skills and abil-
ities,” and “work activities.”
• “Perception of the competitive growth in the region”: “business at-
traction and retention,” “increase in property value,” “redevelopment
and renewal,” “tourism,” “events,” “industry value.”
We propose that the first-order latent variable “esthetics” and “di-
versity consumer goods and services” as a general evaluation of the per-
ception of the city facilitates consumption. In this case, the concept to be
explained is the presence of a rich variety of services and consumer
89
goods, esthetics and physical setting, good public services, and transport
speed. As a mediator variable, we propose using the construct “social co-
hesion,” by evaluating the city as a facilitator of social relations and cul-
tural diversity. “Collective efficacy,” defined as the perception of the
efficacy of a group to set and achieve their goals, is measured using
the consumer diversity and cohesion (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).
We suggest adding to the latent variable “evaluation of the city of
residence as a good place to raise children” other indicators such as
the classification of the city as a good place to make friends, to promote
personal growth and development, to grow and join the workforce, to
study and pursue a career, to find a couple, to live with the family, to
live in a peaceful and healthy way after retirement. These indicators
cover this latent variable at different stages of the lives of the respon-
dents (Florida, 2004). These variables evaluate the city as a facilitator
90 H.O. Nigro, S.E. González Císaro / Cities 56 (2016) 85–90

of reproduction: mating, parenting, and life history strategies in terms Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
Hack, G. (2015). Designing cities and the academy. Journal of the American Planning Asso-
of human behavioral ecology (Irons, 1979; Trivers & Willard, 1973; ciation, 1–9 (ahead-of-print).
Hill & Kaplan, 1999). Harris, P. B., Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1996). Privacy regulation and place attach-
Future works will be based on testing our model in other Argentine ment: Predicting attachments to a student family housing facility. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 287–301.
and Latin American cities with new proposed factors. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple me-
diation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral
Acknowledgments Research, 45(4), 627–660.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical ques-
tions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.
The authors thank the editor Ali Modarres and the anonymous re- Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1999). Life history traits in humans: Theory and empirical studies.
viewers for their helpful and respectful comments to enhance this work. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 397–438.
Hofmann, M., Westermann, J. R., Kowarik, I., & van der Meer, E. (2012). Perceptions of
parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry
Appendix A. Descriptive statistics & Urban Greening, 11(3), 303–312.
Hospers, G. (2003). Creative cities in Europe: Urban competitiveness in the knowledge
economy. Intereconomics (September/October), 260–269.
Irons, W. (1979). Cultural and biological success. In N. A. Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Evo-
Item Mean SD lutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective
(pp. 284–302). North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
Quantity and quality of cultural activities taking place in the city 7.0 1.92
Jensen, O. (2007). Culture stories: Understanding cultural urban branding. Planning
(theater, nightlife, etc.) Theory, 6, 211–236.
Cultural diversity, different cultures, and subcultures 6.7 1.81 Kasarda, J., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American So-
Openness and tolerance on the part of citizens 6.0 1.94 ciological Review, 39, 328–339.
Coexistence, atmosphere, and positive energy conveyed by the city 7.1 1.73 Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate.
Availability of different services 7.4 1.86 Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207–218.
Variety of shopping opportunities 7.3 1.98 Kock, N. (2013). WarpPLS 4.0 user manual, ScriptWarp Systems™. TX: Laredo.
Are you satisfied with the urban visual image provided and 7.7 1.72 Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: the role of place attachment,
transmitted by the city? cultural capital, and neighbourhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
Accessibility to the running water network in homes 7.7 1.64 381–395.
Nature and public green spaces 8.1 1.80 Lewicka, M. (2009). What makes neighbourhood different from home and city? Effects of
place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmenta Psychology, 30(1), 35–51.
Peacefulness 8.0 1.97
Mesch, G., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attach-
Number of parks and open spaces 7.5 2.18
ment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504–520.
Free outdoor activities 7.2 2.07
Muñiz Martínez, N., & Cervantes Blanco, M. (2010). Marketing de ciudades y “place
Environmental quality (degree of noise and environmental pollution) 6.5 2.03 branding”. Pecvnia: Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales,
Cleanness of the city 6.9 1.64 Universidad de León 0 (Monogr) (pp. 123–149). http://dx.doi.org/10.18002/pec.
General economic growth in the region 7.8 1.68 v0iMonogr.767.
Existence of good jobs and employment opportunities 6.4 2.02 Ng, S., Kam, P., & Pong, R. (2005). People living in ageing buildings: Their quality of life
General level of the wages 5.7 1.88 and sense of belonging. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 347–360.
Availability of homes 4.9 2.13 Pretty, G., Chipuer, H., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and
Housing market/cost of house rental or purchase 6.0 2.21 adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment,
The general level of prices in the city/cost of living 4.7 2.12 sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of
Do you think this is a good city for parenting children? 8.1 1.57 Environmental Psychology, 23, 273–287.
How satisfied are you with your city? In other words, do you 8.3 1.59 Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. (2001). Sense of community referred to
generally like to live in the city? the whole town: Its relations with neighbouring, loneliness, life satisfaction and
area of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 29–52.
Do you plan to live in another city either for work or to improve your 8.1 2.66
Rodwin, L., Evans, H., Hollister, R., Lynch, K., Southworth, M., & Susskind, L. (1981). Cities
quality of life?
and city planning. US: Springer.
Would you like to go and live in another city or imagine living in 7.2 3.09 Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment per-
another town if you run across economic or job opportunity or just ception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 198–205.
for fun? Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology,
105, 603–651.
References Stolarick, K. (2005). The “soft” factors of regional growth: Technology, talent and
tolerance. In F. Thießen, O. Cernavin, M. Führ, & M. Kaltenbach (Eds.), Weiche
Abela, J.A. (2011). El Análisis Multinivel: Una Revisión actualizada en en Ámbito Standortfaktoren: Erfolgsfaktoren regionaler Wirtschaftsentwicklung (pp. 73–100). Ber-
Sociológico, Departamento de Sociología. Universidad de Granada. Metodología de lin: Duncker & Humblot.
Encuestas, Volumen 13, 161–176 2011. Tartaglia, S. (2006). A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community. Journal
Anderson, & Gerbing (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and rec- of Community Psychology, 34(1). (pp. 25–36). Wiley InterScience.
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin the American Psychological Asso- Tartaglia, S. (2009). A comparison between theoretical and naïve definitions of communi-
ciation, 103(3), 411–423. ty. In M. F. Hindsworth, & T. B. Lang (Eds.), Community participation and empower-
Bahi-Fleury, G. (1996). Histoire, identite´ re´ sidentielle et attachement au quartier actuel. ment. Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Doctoral thesis. Paris: Universite´ Rene´ Descartes. Tartaglia, S., & Rollero, C. (2010). Different levels of place identity: From the concrete ter-
Baker, M. J., & Cameron, E. (2008). Critical success factors in destination marketing. ritory to the social categories. In J. Valentin, & L. Gamez (Eds.), Environmental psychol-
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(2), 79–97. ogy: New developments. Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Barclay, D., Thompson, R., & Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex
causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use an illustration. Technology ratio of offspring. Science, 179(4068), 90–92.
Studies, 2(2), 285–309. Trueman, M., Cook, D., & Cornelius, N. (2008). Creative dimensions for branding and re-
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimension- generation: Overcoming negative perceptions of a city. Place Branding and Public
al perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in Diplomacy, 4, 29–44.
the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331–352. Wold, H. (1979). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is
Brown, R., & Williams, J. (1984). Group identification: The same thing to all people? scarce: An example of the use of partial least squares. Cahiers du Département
Human Relations, 37, 547–564. D'Économétrie. Genève: Faculté des Sciences Économiques et Sociales, Université de
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable Genève.
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Zenker, S., & Gollan, T. (2010). Development and implementation of the resident migra-
simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information tion scale (ReMiS): Measuring success in place marketing. In E. H. Witte, & T.
Systems Research, 14, 189–217. Gollan (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie und Ökonomie (pp. 156–172). Lenger: Pabst Verlang.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to Zenker, S., & Rütters, N. (2014, Junee). Is satisfaction the key? The role of citizen satisfaction,
the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. place attachment and place brand attitude on positive citizenship behavior. Cities, 38.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389. (pp. 11–17). Elsevier, 11–17.
Evans, G. (2003). Hard-branding the cultural city — From Prado to Prada. International Zenker, S., Petersen, S., & Aholt, A. (2013, Aprill). The citizen satisfaction index (CSI): Evidence
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 417–440. for a four basic factor model in a German sample. Cities, 31. (pp. 156–164). Elsevier,
Florek, M. (2011). No place like home: Perspectives on place attachment and impacts on 156–164.
city management. Journal of Town & City Management, 1(4), 346–354.