| Title |
Empirical Study on Developing Evaluation Factors and Scales of City Branding: A Case Study of Seoul’s ‘SEOUL MY SOUL |
| Authors |
양수진(Yang, Soojin) ; 이건원(Lee, Gunwon) |
| DOI |
https://doi.org/10.38195/judik.2025.02.26.2.43 |
| Keywords |
도시브랜드; 브랜드 아이덴티티; 평가 요인; 척도 개발; 서울시; 서울 마이 소울 City Brand; Brand Identity; Evaluation Factors; Scale Development; Seoul City; Seoul MY Soul |
| Abstract |
This study identifies key factors for evaluating urban brands based on a comprehensive review of previous research and establishes an evaluation framework through statistical validation. During the empirical analysis phase, a survey was conducted among urban branding experts to assess the relevance of each factor. These factors were then refined based on reliability and validity analyses to enhance the robustness of the evaluation system. Subsequently, statistical procedures were employed to verify the significance of the identified factors, resulting in the selection of the final evaluation components. A regression model was used to examine the influence of five urban brand factors on overall brand evaluation. The results indicated that four factors?physical attributes, urban image, commercialization, and smart city components?had a statistically significant impact, whereas the governance factor did not demonstrate a meaningful effect. Further regression analyses revealed the specific sub-components contributing to each factor: for physical attributes, redevelopment, natural environment, and cultural spaces were significant; for urban image, design elements and the evaluation system; for commercialization, tourism resources and marketing promotion; for governance, organizational structure and community engagement; and for smart city components, platform infrastructure and IT content. In the case of the comprehensive brand evaluation of “SEOUL MY SOUL,” the physical, image, commercialization, and smart city factors were found to significantly contribute to the development of the city brand. These four dimensions are expected to warrant continued investment. In contrast, the governance factor exhibited limited influence, suggesting a lower priority in future resource allocation. |