Introduction

Cities nowadays often thematize themselves on the global stage where the creation of a positive setting is important for cities to become attractive tourist destinations and places of residence (Firat and Ulusoy 2009; Richards and Wilson 2006; Ulusoy and Firat 2009). Although the concept of place thematization has not received as much scholarly attention as place branding, the two concepts are somewhat related. City (as one of the spatial contexts of places) thematization involves patterning spaces and producing images that symbolize experiences and/or senses from a special or a specific past, present, or future form (Firat and Ulusoy 2009, p. 777). Connecting to city or destination branding, city thematization can be regarded as the process of brand positioning, which aims at “translating” or “projecting” brand identity into desired brand image. The success of city thematization is determined by place characteristics, the realization of its potential and the responses from existing place users such as residents, tourists and other stakeholders. The provision of city themes, such as cultural city, heritage destination, 24-h city, future city, shopping paradise and festival town, opens up opportunities for these places to become attractive and renowned across different parts of the world and different groups of place users. Through the selection of a specific theme or a combination of these, cities are able to project an appropriate image and position themselves on the global stage of place competition. These themes may also include those that project a great variety of city styles for urban development, such as greenness, creativity and smartness, which should be characterized by their respective features and attributes they possess.

City themes may be neutral as they merely represent certain characteristics or reflect certain local identities of the respective cities, but these themes may turn into valuable brands with the effort of destination marketing agencies, tourism authorities or other government units. A city theme may contribute to the ultimate goal of city branding when the theme is constructed on an advantageous, competitive and distinctive characteristic of a city (Chan et al. 2015; Kerr 2006). Often, policy makers in the government would propose and actualize more than one theme in its policy agenda, as is the case with Hong Kong. The city government’s decision to brand Hong Kong as “Asia’s World City” in 2001 was met with both positive and negative responses from citizens. At the same time, the Hong Kong government has initiated a number of directions for urban development, including green city, creative economy, creative capital, cultural and creative industries, smart city and digital city, in its Policy Addresses over the past decade. These ideas can be grouped into three main themes: “green city”, “smart city” and “creative city”, which not only govern the trajectory of urban development but also influence the attributes of the city associated with its image and branding strategy in the long term. Although they are vigorous ideas in the discussion about sustainable urban development (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017; Glaeser 2011), their suitability for and compatibility with a particular city are still questionable (Chu 2010; de Jong et al. 2015; Parkerson and Saunders 2005; Wood and Landry 2008). In recent years, tension has arisen between the diversity and the distinctiveness of Hong Kong’s city-branding strategy. Most importantly, the support of local residents will determine the likelihood that a given theme will become a successful brand. On the one hand, the Hong Kong Government has mentioned the three city themes as part of the directions for urban development separately in the policy agenda in the past decade. On the other hand, the city brand of Hong Kong, “Asia’s World City”, as the primary destination brand, does not explicitly incorporate these themes in its brand identity. It is thus necessary to borrow a concept from the place branding literature to bridge the gap between thematization and branding.

The difference between “place theme” and “place thematization” is considered similar to the distinction between “place brand” (the combined outlook of place identity and place image that generate brand value) and “place branding” (the process of matching expectations of place identity, projected image and perceived image by different place stakeholders and users). One possible approach to verify the potential of elevating a city theme to a brand is to study the presence of brand equity, i.e. whether a theme carries added value to its target market, and how the underlying elements of a theme indicate such value to the people (Gartner and Ruzzier 2011; Zenker 2011). This study uses the concept of city brand equity to determine which city theme adds the most value to Hong Kong. City brand equity will be measured through a combination of attributes and core dimensions. When a place brand is created, it naturally carries certain brand value regardless of whether such equity is an asset or a liability to the place (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). There were scholarly discussions about how to define, understand, interpret and deconstruct the concept of place brand equity (e.g. Chan and Marafa 2016; Florek 2015; Jacobsen 2012; Konecnik and Gartner 2007; Morgan et al. 2002; Zenker 2014). The idea of assessing or quantifying place brand equity is supported by a number of researchers who identified its underlying components in previous studies (e.g. Buil et al. 2013; Gartner and Ruzzier 2011; Zavattaro et al. 2015). Supported by some scholars such as Florek (2015), Pike (2007) and Pike and Scott (2009), these studies have brought forward the need to change the brand equity concept to a measurable entity so that destination and place decision makers are able to realize the power of their established place brands.

When a theme possesses strong brand equity, this theme is suggested to have a high potential of becoming a competitive brand (Keller 2008). In the context of geographical locations like cities, there are several equity-connected dimensions that measure the awareness, perceived quality, associations and loyalty of brand (Zavattaro et al. 2015), which were also suggested by scholars in the areas of place marketing and place branding (Chan et al. 2016; Jacobsen 2012; Konecnik and Gartner 2007; Morgan et al. 2002; Zenker 2014). There is a list of existing knowledge gaps that quest for more empirical information to, for example, evaluate different brand positioning strategies among destinations and measure destination brand performance effectiveness over time (Pike 2009).

With this approach, this paper undertakes an empirical study in Hong Kong, where a pool of scholarly discussions about its city brand is present (e.g. Chan and Marafa 2016; Chan et al. 2015; Chu 2010; Shen 2010). However, the connection between branding, thematization and urban development in Hong Kong has yet been fully researched. This study selects the three abovementioned themes of green city, creative city and smart city as they are interrelated under theoretical consideration (Deakin 2014; Hatzelhoffer et al. 2012) and initiated strategically by the government (The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR] 2007, 2016).

The study investigates the local perception of Hong Kong as a green, creative and smart city as defined by scholars from different domains as shown in Table 1. Based on the literature review, a set of brand equity dimensions of green city, creative city and smart city is identified and then presented to a sample of Hong Kong residents for rating. Local residents are the focal target of this study because they are especially influential as resource users, impact recipients of urban governance, representatives of overall city satisfaction, and the city’s ambassadors to the world (Braun et al. 2013; Insch and Florek 2010; Zenker and Beckmann 2013). Residents and visitors as local communities also determine the success of destination and place branding (Pike 2007; Pike and Scott 2009).

Table 1 Definitions of green, creative and smart cities
Full size table

This paper has two objectives: (1) to compare the level of brand equity of green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong as perceived by local residents, and (2) to identify the determinants of brand equity for Hong Kong to become a locally recognized successful green, creative or smart city. The first objective is achieved by a comparative observation through descriptive statistics of the attribute ratings, whereas the second objective results in three models that reveal the construct of and factors leading to a successful city theme as perceived by Hong Kong residents. This study provides an empirically tested approach for verifying the compatibility of a particular theme with a city. In the local context of Hong Kong, the findings also inform policy makers about which city theme has gained wider support from the local residents (Insch and Florek 2010), and allow them to understand the underlying factors of the equity dimensions that contribute to a stronger city brand (Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos 2018; Pike 2007; Pike and Scott 2009).

This study is especially significant in contributing to the theoretical development of city thematization, place branding and sustainable urban development as cities nowadays struggle with the tension between the diversity and the uniqueness of its position on the global stage. Greenness, creativity and smartness are three very popular directions of urban development though they emerged and overlap in complicated ways (Chan and Marafa 2018; Glaeser 2011; Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos 2018; Romão et al. 2017). The empirical case in this study offers a useful reference to decision makers and place marketers to integrate urban studies (searching for a suitable urban development path) and marketing (positioning the city in its desirable theme and valuable brand).

Literature review

Since the instigation of entrepreneurial governance and urban boosterism in the 1970s, few researchers have considered place branding alongside forms of city development because the former concept was originated from marketing (Govers and Go 2009; Hankinson 2010) that only merged with urban studies afterwards (Govers 2013). In many examples, a specific theme that decision and policy makers follow becomes a city brand constructed upon the characteristics which these decision makers believe are strong or positive (Chang 1999; O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2000; Richards and Wilson 2006). The definitions of place branding reflect a noticeable trend in the evolution of the city branding concept from a more proactive approach of image creation or overt positioning of cities (e.g., Anholt 2007) to a process of multi-stakeholder consideration and understanding (e.g., Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2009; Trueman et al. 2007). Place branding is no longer purely destination-marketing focused because of the complexity of places which involves the structuring of spaces and relationships among different users and stakeholders of the place (Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2009; Hankinson 2010). Relatively recent convergence of marketing and urban studies in the arena of place branding (Govers 2013) tends to stimulate wider scopes of themes such as eco-, green, creative and smart to develop, visualize and promote urban sustainability.

A suitable theme may become a strong and advantageous place brand when the translation or projection of the theme characteristics (through, for example, marketing communication and local recognition) to a desired brand. This is similar to the process of brand positioning, which aims at transforming brand identity into desired brand image by place marketers or marketing organizations. The gap between a place theme and a place brand lies on the availability or unavailability of the value that the theme may generate. This is especially possible when attributes in the theme are value-laden and positively associated with the perception of local residents. Green, creative and smart city themes each correspond to a certain value to satisfy the locals, although such value may vary in its potential of becoming a strong brand or an integrated city brand. Specifically, the concepts of green city, creative city and smart city have been thoroughly explored in recent decades. These domains have their own contexts of discussion and major areas of concern.

Green city, creative city and smart city

The concept of green city has flourished (alongside the concepts of sustainable city and eco-city) after decades of environmental and sustainability movements (e.g., Low et al. 2005; Register 2006). Although its conceptualization is complex, a green city is generally accepted as one that has attained or is moving towards long-term environmental sustainability in all areas of urban development (Lindfield and Steinberg 2012). “Greenness” has been extended from a purely environmental concept to one with a holistic emphasis on the synergy, interdependence and mutual reinforcement of environmental and economic sustainability in the urban context across sectors (Kearns 2012; The World Bank 2011). Greenness also contributes to urban attractiveness (Chan et al. 2015; Hammer et al. 2011). Scholars have addressed this concept in relation to a number of topical areas, such as air, water, biodiversity, urban agriculture, land use, transportation, architecture, green spaces, waste, energy, population, consumption, disease and urban governance (e.g. Beatley 2012; EIU 2011; Hammer et al. 2011; de Jong et al. 2015; Kahn 2006; Lehmann 2011; White 2011).

While greenness has come to encompass a wider meaning, the idea of creativity has also been expanded to integrate with society and the city following Landry and Bianchini’s (1995) and Richard Florida’s (2002) propositions. A dichotomy seems to have arisen between culture-centric and econo-centric conceptions of a creative city (Hall 2000; Smith and Warfield 2008). A creative city is considered to be a composite of the creative class, cultural industries, an experience economy and urban governance (e.g. Baycan 2011; Richards and Wilson 2006; Scott 2006). A creative city exhibits inclusivity, artistry and imagination (Smith and Warfield 2008), which are driven by a flourishing arts and cultural industry with creative and diverse expressions. The conditions required for the development of a creative city are both tangible (e.g. educational institutions) and intangible (e.g. value system, lifestyle and local identity) (Landry 2011).

A smart city, then, is an urban development form that strategically utilizes information and communication technologies (ICTs) and connects them to quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness in an inter-generational and sustainable manner (ITU 2014). In addition to optimizing ICT assets and efficiently deploying urban resources (de Jong et al. 2015; Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos 2018; Lindfield and Steinberg 2012; Neirotti et al. 2014), decision makers of a smart city must initiate and facilitate inter- and intra-generational interaction and direct the resulting human capital towards full human-technology urban integration (Deakin 2014). Scholars have produced various models of a smart city, such as Cohen’s (2014) six-dimensional “Smart City Wheel” and Dameri and Rosenthal-Sabroux’s (2014) “land-people-infrastructure-government” model. These models provide measurable variables of city smartness.

The idea and advocacy of city themes are not free from criticism. There have been vigorous discussions and debates on smart city and smart urbanism with regard to, for example, technology-driven smart development that lacks a knowledge basis (McFarlane and Söderström 2017), the contrasting geographies of smartness across different locations and settings (Luque-Ayala and Marvin 2015), as well as the problem of a one-size-fits-all narrative of smartness (Datta 2015; Kitchin 2015). The negative impacts of the blooming creative class have also triggered some socio-economic problems in cities (Peck 2005).

The above descriptions of the three city themes have two important implications. First, each theme is multi-dimensional. Therefore, the success of a theme of a city is determined and assessed in a number of areas with reference to several attributes. Second, the themes often share some common attributes, such as human input, institutions/governance and infrastructure. This overlap between city themes is a major focus of the proposed project. A city’s excellent performance in one aspect of a theme may carry over into other themes, which also implies that city thematization is less rigid than commonly assumed. Although there is theoretical foundation to consider sustainable urban development as a holistic frame to integrate the green, creative and smart attributes of cities (Romão et al. 2017), there is still a need for local residents assessment that focuses on their levels of social activism, the capacity to engage in place making and the potential human-scale essence of new smart urbanism (Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos 2018).

Place brand equity

To identify the potential of branding a certain city theme, it is important to measure the value carried by each theme. Place brand considers the complexity of different underlying elements (see Pike 2005). Place brand equity is the capacity of a place’s brand name to add brand value to (or sometimes subtract brand value from) the place (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). This applies to different geographical scales including cities. As mentioned earlier, a strong city theme has the potential to become a successful city brand, i.e. to originate and maximize city brand equity (e.g. Chan et al. 2016; Parkerson and Saunders 2005). Scholars believe that place brand equity must be considered in a wider political agenda (in terms of social, cultural and environmental factors), and that sustainable urban development (Florek and Kavaratzis 2014) should be measured in terms of both place brand equity and sustainability (Gartner 2014).

Florek (2012) divided brand equity into two dimensions, namely perceptual (such as brand image) and behavioural (such as willingness to pay for relocation to a certain city). Some scholars have attempted to deconstruct, interpret and advance the concept of place brand equity (e.g. Chan et al. 2016; Florek 2015; Jacobsen 2012; Konecnik and Gartner 2007; Morgan et al. 2002; Zenker 2014) as shown in Table 2. As a result, several major components have been identified: brand awareness, perceived brand quality, brand associations and brand loyalty (Buil et al. 2013; Gartner and Ruzzier 2011; Pike 2005; Zavattaro et al. 2015). Whereas these components reveal both the perceived image of a certain city theme and the behavioural intention of local residents (potential residents), the components also constitute the dimensions that are associated with what residents consider important and valuable in the city themes. In short, the measurement of brand awareness, perceived brand quality, brand associations and brand loyalty of each theme (i.e. greenness, creativity and smartness as selected for the case of Hong Kong) can inform policy makers about the dimension(s) of a relatively strong theme, or the overlapped dimensions across themes.

Table 2 Dimensions contributing to place brand equity
Full size table

Pike (2009) identified a list of research areas that deserve immediate scholarly attention, including brand positioning (e.g., how destinations are able to generate different strategies to suit the needs of different markets) and brand equity (e.g., how effective destinations are able to rebrand and reposition over time). Through empirical studies, the actual dimensions of place brand equity can be place-specific and dynamic across places and over time (Pike 2009). For instance, Florek (2015) proposed a linear model for brand equities in two Polish cities where the strengths and weaknesses of a specific city brand could be broken down according to the types of respondents and brand equity dimensions. Florek’s (2015) investigation focused on holistic city brands rather than the possibility of a multiple of themes while brand equity was the outcome. The current research adopts place brand equity as a measurement framework to articulate and advance the idea of city thematization.

Methods

Based on the findings from a pool of literature (Buil et al. 2013; Chan et al. 2016; Gartner and Ruzzier 2011; Jacobsen 2012; Keller 2008; Konecnik and Gartner 2007; Morgan et al. 2002; Zavattaro et al. 2015; Zenker 2014), the author converted a list of brand equity attributes to one that assesses the brand equity in Hong Kong. Specifically, the four dimensions were based on the work of Konecnik and Gartner (2007)—a customer-based brand equity model, Gartner and Ruzzier (2011)—a quantitative study on destination brand equity, and Zavattaro et al. (2015)—a study derived from a qualitative research on place brand managers. The customer brand equity framework consolidated and validated by Buil et al. (2013) provided the initial variable list which was modified in the current study based on the specific conditions of Hong Kong. The resultant variables are illustrated in Table 3 and they were used to measure the brand equity of green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong.

Table 3 Measurement of green, creative and smart city brand equity
Full size table

This study used survey as the data collection method. The survey, which was targeted at Hong Kong local residents, was conducted between August and December 2016. Interviews were conducted during daytime on weekdays, weekends and public holidays in order to maximize the extent of locating a more diversified combination of residents. The sampled locations included six different districts in Hong Kong. These districts are located in both urban residential areas and new town sites. The socio-demographic factors were taken into consideration (Census and Statistics Department [C&SD] 2011) as justified in Table 4.

Table 4 Data collection process
Full size table

Interviewers were trained to perform cluster random sampling at the locations of the sampled districts (e.g., near shopping areas, main residential estates and transport nodes). Cluster random sampling was used because the samples at each location were considered heterogeneous in nature. Since local residents might have varied interpretations to green, creative and smart cities, the interviewers provided each respondent with an information sheet that included basic information about the study and the definitions of the three forms of city as shown in Table 1. These definitions selected were considered well recognized and well summarized. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed at all of the six locations, where 263 completed responses were collected, which constituted a response rate of 87.6%.

The variables measured in the questionnaire were the brand equity of green, creative and smart city attributes listed in the form of 7-point Likert statements as shown in Table 3. These attributes were constructed in three separate sections in the questionnaire. Their scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The respondents were requested to rate the statement according to their perceived level of agreement with each attribute. The respondents were allowed to skip statements which they did not have any knowledge or feeling. Finally, demographic and socio-economic characteristics including gender, age, educational level, working status and years of residence were also collected. A summary of data collection process is provided in Table 4.

The respondents’ socio-demographic profile is shown in Table 5. There was a majority of female in gender distribution (nearly 58%), a majority of people aged below 49 years old (over 88%), and a high qualification profile (over half having an education level of university or above). Over 70% of the respondents had a monthly personal income of under HK $20,000 (equivalent to about US $2560). The sample had an average of 27 years of residence in Hong Kong, which is believed to have sufficient knowledge and experience in answering the questions.

Table 5 Characteristics of respondents (n = 263)
Full size table

To compare the local perception of brand equity of green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong, the process of data analysis used parallel observation between groups through mean scores. To identify the determinants of brand equity for Hong Kong to become a locally recognized successful green, creative or smart city, further analysis established a model for determining the significant attributes for each city theme. This study adopted linear regression as the principal tool to find out the model structure and its underlying significant factors. The characterization of different samples or populations supports the formulation of multiple sample-specific models in a single study (Lei and Wu 2007).

The major limitation of this paper lies in the non-uniform understanding of the three concepts (green, creative and smart) by local residents, especially with their varied interpretations and stereotypes of these terms. To cope with this constraint, the definitions of the three forms of city were provided to respondents during the survey which helped to minimize the inconsistency. The reliability test of data further verified that statistical analysis yielded reliable results.

Results

Prior to the operation of any statistical analysis, the tests for reliability of responses were conducted through Cronbach’s alpha. The tests yielded satisfactory results of 0.915, 0.911 and 0.921 for the attributes of green, creative and smart city brand equity, respectively (Table 6). Based on these scores which are over 0.70, the Cronbach’s alpha values denote a significantly high level of data reliability (Kline 2000).

Table 6 Descriptive scores for the attributes of green, creative and smart city brand equity in Hong Kong (n = 263)
Full size table

Local perception of green, creative and smart city brand equity in Hong Kong

Table 6 presents a complete list of the mean scores of the brand equity variables of green, creative and smart Hong Kong as perceived by the sampled local population. Overall speaking, the respondents consider that Hong Kong is more successful in becoming a smart city (m = 3.97) than being creative (m = 3.49) or green (m = 3.26). Regarding individual attributes, several observations can be made. Firstly, the attributes in the dimension of brand associations receive the highest value among all dimensions. The top five attributes come from two variables, namely “the consideration of Hong Kong as a better choice for residence” (m = 4.90–5.11) and “the added values for being branded” (m = 4.88–4.99). On the contrary, the attributes with the lowest scores, including “the first city comes to mind” (m = 3.10 for green city and m = 3.46 for creative city), “the familiarity of a city theme” (m = 3.31 for green city and m = 3.55 for creative city), and “the awareness of a city theme” (m = 3.50 for green city), mainly come from the dimension of brand awareness.

Secondly, local residents appear to have a much stronger brand awareness of Hong Kong as a smart city than as a creative or green city. Such circumstance is particularly apparent in this dimension of brand awareness. All the four attributes of smart city override those of the other two city themes by a score difference of about 0.6–0.8. Smart city attributes show the highest scores in a total of 11 out of 16 brand equity attributes.

Thirdly, green city theme, although having a relatively weaker perception by local residents in Hong Kong, still obtains high scores in the attributes of “the consideration of Hong Kong as a better choice for residence” (m = 5.11) and “not migrating to other cities if Hong Kong has a green city brand” (m = 4.49). The former attribute is indeed the single highest-rated attribute on the whole list.

Furthermore, there is a disparity between the two attributes under the brand loyalty dimension. Whereas the respondents proclaim they wish “not to migrate to other cities if Hong Kong has a green/creative/smart city brand” (m = 4.26–4.49), they are less likely to believe in “Hong Kong as the first choice for lifelong residence” (m = 3.61–3.88).

Local perception models of successful green, creative and smart cities

The Kurtosis values among the attributes ranged between − 0.854 and 0.231, which are considered acceptable to prove normal univariate distribution (Gravetter and Wallnau 2014; Trochim and Donnelly 2006). The satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha supports an assessment of the effects of the city brand equity attributes (independent variables) on the recognition of an overall success of a city theme for Hong Kong (dependent variable). This dependent variable is measured by three separate Likert statements on the degree to which one believes Hong Kong is a successful green, creative or smart city. The whole set of city brand equity attributes were then entered into regression models one by one to study their respective determinants as perceived by the locals. Multicollinaearity is discounted for the analysis because the items with variance inflation factors over three were eliminated from the models such that the remaining items are below the critical value of five (Fox 1997).

The results of the regression analysis testing the model of city brand equity attributes are presented in Table 7. The overall fit of the models is moderate to high with adjusted R2 values of 0.710 (green city model), 0.663 (creative city model) and 0.594 (smart city model), respectively, and a value of over 0.1 is considered acceptable in behavioural studies (Hair et al. 2014). As a result, the three models are statistically significant to explain the perceived determinants of green, creative and smart city brand equity.

Table 7 Models of green, creative and smart brand equity attributes
Full size table

The green city brand equity model contains six significant determinants of Hong Kong as a successful green city, five of which are green city-related and the remaining one is associated with creative city. These attributes influence the green brand equity to a varied extent of 0.2–0.3 in terms of correlation, but the respondents do not seem to perceive a green city theme as one that carries a positive added value to Hong Kong. This green city theme consists of all four equity dimensions. The smart city brand equity model also possesses six attributes from all four dimensions. The influence of attributes is slightly weaker than that in the green city model with correlation ranged from 0.167 to 0.266. A negative association with the reliability of Hong Kong as a creative city, however, exerts influences on the smart city brand equity.

Finally, the creative city model has the largest number of brand equity determinants, which include a total of eight attributes. It is interesting to notice that only three of them are relevant to creative city while another three are about smartness and the remaining two about greenness. The correlation as indicated by the standardized coefficients shows a range of 0.140–0.286. Two greenness- and smartness-related attributes, nevertheless, contribute negatively to the creative city brand equity in Hong Kong, which suggest that the local respondents consider that both the quality of smart city and the value of being a green city distract Hong Kong from becoming creative.

Discussions

Stronger smart city brand equity in Hong Kong

The findings in this study reveal that Hong Kong has stronger brand equity in being themed as a smart city as indicated in Table 6. This concurs with and reflects the findings of a previous public report on destination image, which suggest that people believed that Hong Kong was characterized by its top prominent attribute of fast, rich and free information flow [that] enabled [people] to communicate freely with the rest of the world (Fleishman-Hillard Hong Kong Limited 2010, p. 12). Compared with green and creative city themes, the strength of smart city brand equity in Hong Kong is especially concentrated on its brand awareness and perceived brand quality.

The scores of the smart city attributes are generally and relatively high and stable, with most of them between 4.0 and 5.0. The ranges of scores of the green and creative city attributes are much wider. The difference between the highest and the lowest scores of the green city theme is more than 2.0. In this connection, the green city theme presents a paradox where local residents in Hong Kong have a high expectation of greenness, which results in their “better choice for residence” (item 11) such that they “will not migrate to other cities” (item 15), but a green city theme does not contribute to local people’s brand awareness (items 1–3). The disparity between the two attributes under the brand loyalty dimension implies that local people do aspire to see Hong Kong becoming or even branding itself as green, but the respondents do not seem to prefer to choose the city as the first choice for lifelong residence.

Distinctive brand equity determinants of green and smart city themes

According to the models in Table 7, green city and smart city themes show relatively distinctive brand equity determinants because the regression analysis had included all the attributes or independent variables at first. The resultant green city and smart city models each has a more clear-cut structure of determinants as the majority of them, i.e. 5 out of 6 in green brand equity model and 4 out of 6 in smart brand equity model, are directly relevant to the corresponding theme. The creative city theme in Hong Kong, however, appears to be less prominent because the overall perception of a successful creative city brand in Hong Kong heavily relies on other attributes of greenness and smartness.

Based on the findings from the regression analysis, three separate models of locally constructed brand equity for green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong are presented in “Appendix”. The findings suggest that local residents possess a positive impression of and support a smart city brand due to its stronger brand equity. In such circumstance where city thematization is more than touristic, the idea of co-branding must enter to co-construct the values in the place branding process (Lucarelli 2018).

All the three city themes in Hong Kong show a complete structure of brand equity suggested in the literature (Buil et al. 2013; Chan et al. 2016; Gartner and Ruzzier 2011; Zavattaro et al. 2015), which include brand awareness, perceived brand quality, brand associations and brand loyalty. These models are able to strongly explain and interpret brand equity as the explanatory power of the models basically exceeds an R2 value of 0.6. However, the impact of these equity determinants does not overwhelmingly dominate the overall success perceived by local people.

Overlap of themes

An additional argument is drawn as four attributes are found to be common in the green and smart city models (underlined in Table 6). These four attributes come from each of the four brand equity dimensions, and are therefore regarded as an overlapped condition of green-smart integration in urban development as discussed scholarly (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017; Chan and Marafa 2018; Nijkamp 2014; Romão et al. 2017).

An ongoing theoretical and practical discussion articulated some degree of overlap across varied trajectories of urban development (Chan and Marafa 2018; Deakin 2014; Ferrara 2015; Luvisi and Lorenzini 2014; Neirotti et al. 2014; Rosol 2013; Shaw 2013), which is also reflected in this research about city thematization. There were also suggestions for further investigation into the linkage of different attributes of greenness, creativity and smartness in a sustainable city, and how their urban functions would impact visitors and residents differently (Romão et al. 2017). The regression findings in Table 7 present a green-creative and a green-smart mixture of factors determining the brand equity of green and smart cities, respectively. For creative city brand equity, the green-creative-smart integration is even more apparent. For example, the perceived quality dimension of both green and smart cities influences the perceived success of a creative city. Sometimes, the overlap of themes may impose difficulty in designing an appropriate policy to position a city even though a certain combination of theme attributes contributes to the brand value of the place. For instance, the economic benefit generated from a creative brand is a relatively stronger determinant to a successful creative city as revealed in model 2. However, the overemphasis on the economics of cultural and creative industries has drawn some criticisms (Chow 2015; Kong 2011, 2012; Tsang and Siu 2016).

The strong overlap of the city themes suggests that it is difficult to rely on one single theme, even a strong one (Parkerson and Saunders 2005), in the case when there are more target stakeholders than tourists. Unlike very clear-cut themes like cultural, historical and festive, the attributes grounded in urban sustainability such as greenness, creativity and smartness are very often integrated and relatively inseparable (Glaeser 2011; Nijkamp 2014).

There may also be incompatibility of characteristics across themes. The overall quality of urban resources for smart city branding, for example, negatively affects the success of creative city branding. The selection of theme integration is also an important consideration similar to the brand selection process (Boisen et al. 2011).

Conclusion

This paper reveals the level of brand equity of green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong as perceived by local residents. The results verify that a smart city theme carries more stable and higher brand equity when compared with green and creative themes. However, the regression analysis also confirms that city themes indeed overlap in nature. This implies that policy makers must realize that a single path or a sole focus of urban development does not create a value-laden and successful city brand. What have been suggested and articulated in the literature of sustainable urban development (e.g. Ahvenniemi et al. 2017; Angelidou 2014; Chan and Marafa 2018; Nijkamp 2014) also supported the consideration of multi- and inter-disciplinary criteria in sustainable urban development.

From the angle of place branding, a city brand that carries strong brand equity should not be developed from a very rigid form of city theme, especially when the theme is targeted at potential immigrants or future residents. This argument has also been illustrated in the field of place branding as a tension between the distinctiveness and the diversity of a place (Parkerson and Saunders 2005) where the process of destination branding has to identify the uniqueness of the place (Chan et al. 2016). Recent studies have also supported this argument in the smart urbanism context (e.g., Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos 2018; Romão et al. 2017) and public co-branding process (Lucarelli 2018).

Based on the regression analysis, this paper also proposes three separate models of brand equity for green, creative and smart city themes of Hong Kong based on the local perspective as graphically shown in “Appendix”. The underlying factors are regarded as the core values in each theme that policy makers should consider in both the process of creating and managing a city brand and the development of a sustainable theme for attracting target immigrants. The findings do not suggest that local residents believe that Hong Kong is performing better in being smart than being green or creative, but they do have a positive impression of and support a smart city brand because of its stronger brand equity.

As Romão et al. (2017) argued, cities present many appearances and faces and are by ‘no means uniform or identical (p. 74; see also Kourtit 2015). It is hard to differentiate the green, creative and smart characteristics and simultaneously pursue a sustainable development path and a new image to attract and satisfy multiple stakeholders. A multiplicity of preferences and interests clearly require more geographers’ and multi-disciplinary scholars’ involvement in developing urban policies (Laurini 2017). A sustainable future city makes a place that is suitable and caters for all (Kourtit 2015). Policy makers must combine the use of quantitative or statistical information and more in-depth understanding of the precise needs of each target stakeholder (Romão et al. 2017) in order to create feasible urban strategies and the resultant brands for individual cities. Nevertheless, multi-dimensional trajectories of urban development should not naturally lead to a similar way of branding and sub-branding since their goals are different. Urban development is mainly a top–down policy and infrastructural matter, while thematization and branding must not present unlimited facets of the city.

The Hong Kong government has incorporated a diversity of values and attributes for city brand management based on the competent characteristics of the city (Brand Hong Kong Management Unit [BMU], Information Services Department, The Government of the HKSAR 2018). These are the characteristics revealed from a brand review exercise through a large consultancy project rather than a bottom-up approach (Fleishman-Hillard Hong Kong Limited 2010). This may be an undesirable position as the relatively weaker themes are not suitable for branding and will even dilute the other stronger aspects of the city, especially when more resources are drawn from these areas of development. Perhaps a wiser way to resolve this problem is to focus on an advantageous, distinctive and strong theme while gradually improving other potential areas of thematization. Hong Kong is indeed moving forward to invest more in smartness, innovation and ICT development territory-wide.

Further studies are important to understand the perceptions of all other stakeholders. They include all relevant decision-making bodies in the government, other authorities and members of the public sector, private developers, non-governmental organizations, tourists, other external but potential immigrants to a city, and in this study, local residents. One crucial area of exploration is about how similar and different the ways in which these stakeholders consider a specific city theme as carrying values to them are. In-depth analysis should be conducted among socio-demographic sub-groups in Hong Kong so as to deepen the understanding of citizens’ perceived brand equity across social classes, or as Zenker (2011) proposed, citizen-centricity measurement of place brand effectiveness. A city brand carries a promising value to each person, both internal (e.g., local residents) and external (potential immigrants or investors). The government should divert resources to the theme that is strong and positive to the target groups of brand image recipients. More importantly, an understanding of the similarities and discrepancies of value influences the sustainability of urban development in the long run. As Harvey (2008, p. 23) highlighted, [t]he right to the city is far more than a right of individual access to the resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city more after our heart’s desire. One recommendation for policy and decision makers is to look at the overlapped attributes of the potential themes, particularly the attributes that catch the attention of and exhibit attractiveness to most stakeholder groups. Local people assume an important role in shaping the experience of different types of outsiders of the city. The locals’ views and residents’ valuable perceptions must therefore deserve higher level of attention.