Where You Live Does Matter: Impact of Residents’ Place Image on Their Subjective Well-Being

Abstract

Residents’ subjective well-being is closely related to their perception of specific attributes of the city they live in, such as physical appearance, entertainment facilities, and job opportunities. This study aims to examine the effect of place image on residents’ subjective well-being as well as the mediation effect of place attachment on this relationship. Residents living in Guangzhou for more than a year were targeted to collect data, and 420 valid samples were gathered. Structure equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized relationships. The results show that place image has a significant positive impact on life satisfaction and positive affect, while it has a significant negative impact on negative affect. Place identity and place dependence mediate the positive impacts of place image on life satisfaction and positive affect. Finally, management implications and limitations were discussed.

1. Introduction

The topic of the people–place relationship has received considerable attention from both researchers and practitioners in place marketing. Individuals would develop a mental picture of a place, such as a tourism destination or a residential area, through interactions with it over time. The majority of previous studies have typically focused on the concept of destination image, which refers to the sum of beliefs, ideas and impression tourists hold of a tourism destination [1]. It is consistently found that destination image influences tourists’ destination choice and experiences [2]. Residents, as one of the most important stakeholders of a city, would also form a mental image of the city, which induces a range of positive outcomes, such as support for tourism development [3]. While considerable attention has been paid in the past to research issues related to tourists’ destination image, literature on issues of residents’ place image has emerged very slowly [4].

For tourists, a city is merely a destination for a short stay of several days [5]. In many cases, tourist revisits are not guaranteed even if they are satisfied with the city [6]. For residents, the city is more than a destination for holiday. It is also a place where they live, shop, work, socialize, and relax. Compared to tourists, the tourist city has more complex and special meanings for its residents. Therefore, residents’ place image is considered as a complex and multifaceted construct [4]. Ramkissoon and Nunkoo [7] found that place image is composed of four dimensions of social attributes, transport attributes, government service attributes, and shopping. Stylidis et al.’s [4] study shows that place image has four dimensions: physical appearance, community services, social environment, and entertainment opportunities. However, the applicability of these findings to other cities needs to be further examined [4,7].

China has undergone rapid urbanization since the reform and opening-up of the Chinese economy in 1978. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, in 2019, 60.60% of the China’s population lived in cities [8]. On the one hand, urbanization has given a strong boost to city tourism, which has become one of the fast-growing travel segments in China [9]. On the other hand, city tourism has significantly accelerated the pace of urbanization. City residents in China share the advantages brought by urban construction and tourism development and their quality of life has improved significantly.

Studying residents’ image of a city provides critical insights for city marketing and development, and for improvement of residents’ subjective well-being [4]. On the one hand, place image induces a series of positive city-level outcomes, as Stylidis et al. [3] observed that residents who have positive place image are likely to support tourism development. On the other hand, place image will also lead to several positive outcomes for residents, which has not yet been examined. If the city provides residents with good living, shopping, working, and recreational environments through the improvement of the quality of public services, creation of more jobs, and construction of diversified recreational facilities, residents will have a higher satisfaction with the city in these aspects. According to the bottom-up theory of satisfaction [10] and affective-cognitive consistency theory [11], residents with higher levels of satisfaction with specific city attributes will have higher levels of life satisfaction, more positive affect, and less negative affect. In addition, residents develop place attachment to the city because its attributes fulfill their functional and emotional goals. Place attachment, in turn, satisfies residents’ basic needs in terms of belonging, self-esteem, meaning, and sense of control [12], and thus promotes their subjective well-being. To sum up, this study aims to investigate the effect of place image on residents’ subjective well-being, as well as the mediation effect of place attachment on this relationship.

It is of great significance to examine the impact of residents’ place image on their subjective well-being. At the individual-level, well-being is the purpose for which people engage in all activities, and individuals with higher levels of subjective well-being have better physical and mental health, work efficiency, and social relationships [13]. How to improve residents’ subjective well-being is a key challenge facing governments at all levels. This study finds a new perspective for improving residents’ subjective well-being, i.e., shaping residents’ positive perception of city attributes. At the city-level, competitions among cities have become increasingly intense as a result of globalization and rapid change of environment [14]. Cities have to compete with each other for tourists, immigrants, entrepreneurs, and investors. Building a quality living environment that is ideal for living, working, and travelling to improve residents’ place image and subjective well-being becomes a powerful weapon to gain competitive advantage over its competitors. At the societal-level, residents’ well-being is the foundation of a sound society, and a guarantee of its development and prosperity [15]. The findings of this study provide an effective basis for formulating social policies and monitoring social development in order to build a harmonious society.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Residents’ Place Image

Place image refers to individuals’ perceptions of specific attributes (i.e., scenery, nightlife, infrastructure, and entertainment) of a city [7]. One of the most fruitful areas of place image research has focused on the image of a tourism destination hold by tourists [16], i.e., tourism destination image. Destination image refers to the sum of beliefs, impressions, and associations tourists hold of a destination [1]. The topic of destination image has received considerable attention, and previous researchers have studied its dimensions, antecedents and consequences [2]. Destination image is widely investigated because of its important role in shaping tourists’ destination preferences and choice, while tourists bring large amounts of economic revenues to the destination, which are indispensable for its development. However, from the perspectives of people-place relationship and place branding, residents, as one of the most important stakeholders of a city [17], are also “customers” of the city. Residents are likely to form a complex mental picture of their city, because they regularly live, work, and socialize in this city. Residents benefit from the city development and are therefore likely to support city development, such as showing positive attitude and reactions to city development. Under this background, attention should also be given to the residents’ image of the place [3,7].

Place image is a psychological construct that describes the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions residents hold of the city they live in [18]. Ramkissoon and Nunkoo [7] conceptualized residents’ place image as their perceptions about the city’s social attributes, transport attributes, government service attributes, and shopping attributes. Stylidis and colleagues [4] developed a scale to measure residents’ place image and divided it into four dimensions of community services, physical appearance, social environment, and entertainment opportunities. Community services describe the city’s public services and government efficiency. Physical appearance reflects the physical features of a city, such as attractive scenery and nice architecture. Social environment is concerned with whether a residents’ living environment is safe and clean, and the relations within their community are friendly. Entertainment opportunities primarily refer to the richness of the city’s leisure and recreational facilities.

The above-mentioned four aspects of place image are largely in accordance with the major functions of a modern city, namely ecological, social, economic, public services, and innovative functions. In today’s rapidly developing society, especially in China, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, the employment environment facing residents has changed dramatically. Residents are concerned not only about the local employment opportunities available to them, but also about the city’s investment climate and whether the city can ensure their stable career development in the future. Li, Zhang, Tian and Yu [19] observed that job opportunities are an important factor influencing residents’ satisfaction with the city. He and Zhai [20] confirmed that job opportunities and level of income influence Chinese college students’ choice of city to live and work. Therefore, job opportunities have become an important factor in maintaining current residents and attracting new migrants. This study argues that job opportunities, which reflect the capabilities of a city to increase economic growth, provide jobs, and attract new investments, should also be included in the concept of residents’ place image.

Residents’ place image brings a range of positive outcomes to the city. Ramkissoon and Nunkoo [7] observed that residents’ perceptions of shopping attributes, transport attributes, and social attributes of the city positively affects their perceived tourism impacts and support for the tourism industry. Similarly, Stylidis et al. [3] and Stylidis [18] found that residents’ place image has a positive impact on their perception of tourism impacts as well as their support for tourism development. Stylidis, Sit and Biran [21] used residents’ place image as a variable to segment residents into three distinct resident groups (i.e., “nature loving”, “apathetic” and “advocate”), and found that advocate shows the highest level of support for tourism development as they have the most positive place image.

A previous study found that destination image has a positive effect on tourist satisfaction [22]. In a similar vein, this study argues that residents’ perception of various city attributes will induce a series of positive psychological benefits for them, such as subjective well-being. Unfortunately, little research has been done on this topic. The current study will bridge the research gaps by empirically investigating the effect of place image on residents’ subjective well-being, as well as the underlying mechanism.

2.2. Subjective Well-Being

Happiness is an important manifestation of a good life. Unfortunately, scholars disagree greatly on the definition of happiness. Due to the multiple meanings that happiness holds, researchers in this area often avoid the term and prefer to use the term subjective well-being (SWB), although happiness is sometimes used synonymously with SWB as well [23]. In the philosophical tradition, there have been two approaches to the study of well-being: psychological well-being (PWB) and subjective well-being (SWB). Psychological well-being evolved from the eudemonia theory, which focuses on the meaning of life and self-realization [24]. Subjective well-being falls within the hedonic perspective, which holds that happiness is expressed as human emotions. In this study, we mainly focus on subjective well-being. Diener, et al. [23] defines subjective well-being as “a person’s cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life”. The cognitive component means what an individual thinks about his/her life satisfaction. The affective component refers to emotions, moods and feelings. In other words, subjective well-being means having a high level of life satisfaction, and experiencing more positive affect and less negative affect [25,26].

Subjective well-being is considered as a three-dimensional construct: Life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect [26,27]. Life satisfaction is the cognitive component of subjective well-being, which means an overall evaluation of one’s quality of life based on self-determined criteria [28]. Life satisfaction reflects the comparison between an individual’s perceived reality and his/her expectations. Positive affect and negative affect are affective components of subjective well-being. They are independent factors that should be measured and studied separately [29]. In other words, positive affect and negative affect can be experienced by an individual simultaneously.

Previous studies suggested that subjective well-being is influenced by personal, economic, social, and environmental factors. For example, Anglim, Horwood, Smillie, Marrero and Wood’s [30] meta-analysis shows that the Big Five personality (especially neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness) is an important correlate of subjective well-being. Welsch [31] found that air pollution negatively influences people’s subjective well-being. Bimonte and Faralla [32] noted that residents’ perceived well-being is functionally related to the perception of tourism impact. High subjective well-being contributes to a series of positive outcomes for individuals, including physical and mental health, work performance, social relationships, creativity, resilience, and citizenship [13]. For example, Moore and Diener [33] suggested that people with a high level of subjective well-being are likely to build better relationships with others.

2.3. Place Attachment

Place attachment is a concept used in environmental psychology to describe the emotional connection between an individual and a place. Place attachment is a psychological state in which people tend to stay and feel comfortable and safe in a specific place [34]. Features of place attachment include individuals’ cognitive and emotional connections to a place, or a sense of being emotionally integrated into the place. Spatially, individuals desire to stay close to the place where they have emotional attachment [34]. In general, people are most likely to develop feelings of attachment to the place where they live, which can be conceived at different levels, i.e., home, residential block, neighborhood, city level, or even broader levels [35]. The current study focuses on residents’ attachment to the city they live in.

Place attachment is a multidimensional construct, but researchers have yet to achieve agreement on its dimensions [36]. Williams and Roggenbuck [37] suggested that place attachment consists of two dimensions: Place identity and place dependence. Bricker and Kerstetter [38] divided place attachment into three dimensions: Place dependence, place identity and lifestyle. Kyle, Graefe and Manning [39] suggested that place attachment is composed of three dimensions of place identity, place dependence and social bonding. Chen and Dwyer [40] conceptualized place attachment as a six-dimensional construct consisting of place identity, place dependence, social bonding, affective attachment, place memory, and place expectation. Since place dependence and place identity are the two dimensions most widely accepted and studied in previous studies [41], this study also takes these two dimensions to measure place attachment.

Place dependence, also known as functional attachment, refers to the extent to which a city facilities such as infrastructure and public facilities satisfy residents’ functional goals [42]. Jacob and Schreyer [43] pointed out that, when a specific place fulfills residents’ functional needs, they will tend to stay there. Place identity, or emotional attachment, refers to residents use the city as a medium to define themselves, and emotionally accept that the city is a part of them. Place identity represents a substructure of self-identity and a critical symbolic link between residents and their city [36]. In a word, place dependence reflects a city’s instrumental value in achieving residents’ desired goals, while place identity represents a city’s emotional value in expressing residents’ self-identity [41].

Residents’ place attachment is driven by social (e.g., community ties and sense of security) and physical-environmental (e.g., natural, architectural or urban features) factors [44]. For example, Zhang and Xu [36] found that residents’ psychological ownership toward their city has a positive effect on place identity and place dependence. Özkan and Yilmaz [45] observed that environmental factors (including sociability, uses and activities, comfort and image, and access and linkages) have a significant positive impact on place dependence. Place attachment is found to lead a series of positive outcomes, including place-related and emotional and social aspects. For example, Lewicka [46] noted that residents who have a higher level of attachment to their cities are likely to have a higher sense of coherence, overall life satisfaction, and social capital and neighborhood ties. Chen and Dwyer [40] observed that place image positively affects residents’ destination brand-building behaviors, i.e., word of mouth, ambassador behavior, and participation in tourism planning for a destination.

2.4. Research Gaps

Several research gaps can be identified from the literature review. First, residents, as one of the most important stakeholders of a city, are inclined to have a complex mental picture of the city, i.e., place image, which can lead to a series of positive city- and individual-level outcomes. Compared to tourist destination image, which was widely studied in tourism literature, limited attention was given to residents’ place image. Stylidis et al. [4] found that residents’ place image is a multidimensional construct consisting of physical appearance, community services, social environment, and entertainment opportunities. However, more research is needed to examine whether additional attributes can be included in the concept of place image [4], especially for a Chinese city which has undergone profound changes. Second, previous studies [3,7] have confirmed the positive effect of place image on the city-related outcome, e.g., support for tourism development. However, the effect of place image on resident-related outcomes was not investigated. Social exchange theory suggests that if residents benefit from city development, they are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes and behavior toward the city [47]. Therefore, resident-related outcome may be an important variable that mediates the effect of place image on residents’ place-related behaviors. Third, according to the bottom-up theory of subjective well-being, which suggests that overall life satisfaction is the sum of domain satisfaction [10], if residents are satisfied with various city attributes, such as job opportunities and entertainment facilities, they will have a higher level of subjective well-being. To date, however, little research has been conducted to empirically examine the effect of place image on residents’ subjective well-being.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. The Effect of Place Image on Subjective Well-Being

Residents’ subjective well-being is directly influenced by their living environments [48]. Place image means the mental pictures that residents have of their city [4]. A positive place image implies residents’ high level of satisfaction with various city attributes, i.e., physical appearance, social environments, entertainment opportunities, community services, and job opportunities. Life-satisfaction is the degree to which residents positively evaluate their overall quality of life. According to the bottom-up theory of subjective well-being [10], which holds that people’s overall life satisfaction is determined by their satisfaction with various specific domains, if residents perceive the city provides them with ideal public services, social environments, entertainment facilities, and job opportunities, they will have higher levels of life satisfaction.

The theory of affective-cognitive consistency suggests that an individual’s emotions are in accordance with his/her cognition [11]. Place image represents residents’ cognitive evaluations of their city in different aspects, while positive and negative effects are emotional constructs reflecting residents’ subjective well-being [23]. Therefore, residents will have more frequent positive effects and infrequent negative affects if they have positive evaluations on their cities in specific attributes. In a word, place image improves residents’ subjective well-being through increasing their life satisfaction and positive effects and reducing their negative effects.

Previous empirical studies have confirmed the positive effects of various dimensions of place image on residents’ subjective well-being. For example, Chi, et al. [28] noted that residents in Lijiang with higher economic status, sense of community, and social environments generally have higher cognitive and affective well-being. Based on Chinese general social survey (CGSS), Chen, He and Liang [49] found that government qualities, i.e., efficiency and public services, leads to greater happiness for city residents in China. Zhao and Yang [50] observed that city public services such as public health resources, educational resources, and housing security policies could promote residents’ subjective well-being. Zhao and Sun [51] found that environmental pollution damages residents’ subjective well-being in China, in other words, residents’ satisfaction with environmental performance will significantly enhance their happiness. Clark, Yi and Huang [52] studied the subjective well-being in China with data from the China Household Finance Survey (CHDS) and found that that social capital (i.e., safety and security, community participation, and fairness of the society) and quality of city infrastructure (i.e., availability of parks, primary schools, and hospitals) contributes positively to subjective well-being. Clark’s [53] study revealed that individual unemployment has a higher negative effect on subjective well-being than other factors, and the general unemployment rate in a country or region might also reduce residents’ subjective well-being because of the anxieties it caused.

Based on the theoretical arguments made above from the bottom-up theory of subjective well-being and the theory of affective-cognitive consistency, as well as the empirical research findings in previous studies, we posit that:

H1: 

Place image has a positive impact on (a) life satisfaction and (b) positive affect, while it has a negative effect on (c) negative affect.

3.2. The Effect of Place Image on Place Attachment

If physical and social elements embedded in residents’ living environment satisfy their functional and psychological needs, they would establish attachment to the place, i.e., the city they live in [54]. The city provides residents with superior living environments, health care, housing and social security, education, public services, and recreation and sports facilities, and hence satisfies their functional needs such as living, working, socializing, studying, and relaxing. Therefore, the city attributes induce residents’ place dependence [42].

The city is more than a place for residents to achieve their functional goals, but is an integral part of their self-identity [55]. The city, with its unique physical and social features, enhances residents’ sense of pride, and thus is considered by residents as an object with symbolic meanings. Zenker and Petersen [56] suggested that the fit between the city prototype and the residents’ self-concept can lead to resident-city identification. City can be used as a medium by residents to define themselves, and place identity to the city is therefore established [57].

Based on the arguments mentioned above, the deeper the connections between residents and the city, the stronger their dependence and identity to the city. In other words, the more positive a residents’ place image, the stronger their attachment to the city. This relationship was supported in previous empirical studies. For example, McKercher and Ho [58] observed that a city’s traditions and local culture, leisure and recreation opportunities, and community heritage stimulate residents’ connection to place and sense of pride. Ujang [59] found that functional attributes and characteristics of place lead to place attachment. Twigger-Ross and Uzzell [60] found that residents with a higher evaluation and a more positive perception of a place would have stronger place identity. Lewicka [44] noted that both social attributes, such as community ties and subjective sense of security, and physical attributes, such as nature and architecture, have positive effects on place attachment. Therefore, we posit:

H2: 

Place image has a positive impact on (a) place identity and (b) place attachment.

3.3. The Effect of Place Attachment on Subjective Well-Being

Peoples’ bond with a place contributes to their subjective well-being [61]. The enhancement of subjective well-being largely comes from the fulfillment of peoples’ basic psychological needs [62], which include sense of belonging, self-esteem, meaning, and a sense of control. Sense of belonging is the most basic human psychological needs, and place attachment to a city endows residents with a personal meaning and thus induces a sense of belonging. The unique attributes of a city, such as historical traditions, architectural features, natural environments, etc., can inspire a sense of pride in its residents and thus contribute to their self-esteem. Place attachment allows residents to define themselves through the city, to better understand their personal lives, and thus brings a sense of meaning to them, which strongly predicts their life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect [56]. Residents develop place attachment through their interactions with the city, during which they develop self-efficacy and sense of control over it [36]. Place attachment satisfies the basic psychological needs of the residents mentioned above, and thus leads to higher levels of subjective well-being [63,64].

Furthermore, research in the field of interpersonal attachment has confirmed that interpersonal attachment promotes subjective well-being [65]. Since place attachment and interpersonal attachment overlap in terms of their connotations [64], it can be speculated that place attachment will have a positive impact on subjective well-being.

The positive relationship between place attachment and subjective well-being is supported by empirical research. For example, the study by Wiles et al. [66] showed that older people with higher levels of attachment to a place have higher levels of well-being. Wang and Bai [48] observed that the place attachment of migrant workers in the tourism industry positively affects their subjective well-being. Scannell and Gifford’s [62] experimental study showed that place attachment is a cause of individual’s psychological benefits, i.e., increased positive affect and reduced negative affect. Combining the theoretical arguments and empirical findings, we posit:

H3: 

Place identity has a positive impact on (a) life satisfaction and (b) positive affect, while it has a negative impact on (c) negative affect.

H4: 

Place dependence has a positive impact on (a) life satisfaction and (b) positive affect, while it has a negative impact on (c) negative affect.

3.4. Mediation Effect of Place Attachment

As argued above, residents develop place attachment to their city because of their positive place image (H2), while place attachment fulfills their basic psychological needs in senses of belonging, self-esteem, meaning, and autonomy [12], and therefore induces higher levels of life satisfaction, more positive affect, and less negative affect (H3 and H4). These arguments indicate that place attachment can mediate the positive impact of residents’ place image on subjective well-being.

The mechanism of place image influencing subjective well-being can be explained by broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions [67]. According to this theory, positive emotions broaden peoples’ thought–action repertoires and build their personal resources, such as physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources, and thus contribute to human flourishing and wellbeing. Place attachment, which is considered as a positive emotion, promotes residents’ subjective well-being through the broaden-and-build mechanisms.

Although the mediating role of place attachment on the relationship between place image and subjective well-being has not been empirically investigated in previous research, Casakin and Reizer [68] noted that place attachment mediates the effect of residents’ satisfaction with the city and life satisfaction. A positive place image denotes a higher level of satisfaction with the city, we therefore predict that place attachment meditates the positive impact of place image on life satisfaction and positive affect, and the negative impact of place image on negative impact. Thus, the following hypotheses were developed:

H5: 

Place identity mediates the relationship between place image and (a) life satisfaction, (b) positive affect, and (c) negative affect.

H6: 

Place dependence mediates the relationship between place image and (a) life satisfaction, (b) positive affect, and (c) negative affect.

Figure 1 presents the hypothesized model.

4. Method

4.1. Measurement

The measurement items of community services (3 items), physical appearance (4 items), social environments (3 items), and entertainment opportunities (4 items) were adapted from Stylidis et al.’s [3] study. Job opportunities were measured by five items adapted from He and Zhai’s [20] and Li et al.’s [19] studies. The measurement of place identity (6 items) and place dependence (5 items) were borrowed from Williams and Roggenbuck’s [37] study. Life satisfaction was measured by four items, which were adapted from Povat and Diener’s [69] satisfaction with life scale (SWLS). The measurement items of positive affect (6 items) and negative affect (6 items) were adapted from Diener and Emmons’ [70] (1985) and Watson and Clark’s [71] studies.

Back translation was used to obtain the Chinese version of measurements. The English version scales were translated into Chinese by a researcher, and then another researcher was asked to back-translate the Chinese scale back into English. Next, the two versions of the measurement were repeatedly compared until they are considered identical and have no errors in meaning. After that, an expert panel was established to evaluate the readability and clarity of the items, in order to obtain the final version of measurement. All the items were measured using the seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree and 7 = totally agree).

4.2. Data Collection

This study chose Guangzhou as the research site, and residents living in Guangzhou for more than one year were targeted to collect data. Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong province, is an important political, economic, industrial, and cultural center in the South China region. Guangzhou is the third largest city in China after Beijing and Shanghai with a population of more than 12 million. Residents in Guangzhou enjoy a high sense of happiness, and the city has won the title of “the happiest city in China in 2018”. The blueprint for the development of Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA) has brought new opportunities to Guangzhou’s development. The governments proposed to build a “quality living circle” within the GBA, aiming at building a world-class city cluster that is ideal for living, working, and traveling, which involves the construction of new lifestyle facilities around sports and recreation, arts and culture, education, tourism and hospitality. In addition, Guangzhou has also seen fast growth in tourism, attracting visitors with its cosmopolitan atmosphere, world-renowned Cantonese cuisine and its vibrant nightlife. According to a report by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), Guangzhou is among the world’s top 10 fastest growing tourism cities [72]. The above-mentioned characteristics make Guangzhou an ideal city to collect data.

A paper–pencil survey was used in this study. The data was collected under the help of four pre-trained research assistants in March 2019. Before starting to fill out the questionnaires, respondents were asked whether their length of residence in Guangzhou was more than a year. Those answered “Yes” were invited to complete the questionnaires, while the interview was terminated if the answer was a “No”. Respondents were selected randomly at locations with large residents’ flow and are convenient for them to complete the questionnaires, such as Flower City Square, Everbright Garden Coffee House, Tianhe City Mall, etc. A total of 460 questionnaires were distributed and 420 valid were collected, with a valid response rate of 91.9%.

Sample profiles are presented in Table 1. More than half (56.4%) were males. Of the respondents, 77.9% were not born in Guangzhou, which demonstrates the feature of Guangzhou as a migrant city. The age of respondents mainly ranged from 15 to 44, accounting for 94.8%. About one third of the respondents had lived in Guangzhou for over 10 years (30.5%), suggesting that this sample is highly familiar with Guangzhou. About a half (50.7) of the respondents were enterprise staff. Finally, about one third of the respondents reported earning RMB 5001–10,000 one month, whereas 27.9% stated that they earned more than RMB 10,000.

The sample is representative of the local residents of Guangzhou [73].

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Analysis

The means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s α values of each construct are presented in Table 2. The mean value of place image was the highest, indicating that Guangzhou enjoys a relatively high perception of place image from its residents. The mean values of life satisfaction and positive affect were all above 4.5, while the mean value of negative affect was very low (3.273), suggesting that residents had relatively high subjective well-being. Absolute correlations among constructs ranged from 0.210 to 0.780. The Cronbach’s α values for all constructs were above 0.8, indicating a high level of internal consistency [74]. The means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of each measurement items are shown in the Appendix A.

5.2. Common Method Variance Check

Since all the constructs in the hypothesized model were measured by self-reported data from residents, common method variance should be examined before testing the hypotheses. This study used Harman’s single factor approach to examine the severity of common method variance problem [75]. In this study, nine factors were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis, while the first one explained 37.649% of the total variance, indicating that common method variance was not a concern in this study.

5.3. First- and Second-Order Measurement Model of Place Image

As mentioned in the literature review, place image is a multi-dimensional construct consisting of five dimensions: Community services, physical appearance, social environment, entertainment opportunities, and job opportunities. This study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus7.0 with a MLM estimation, which is very robust to multivariate non-normality data [76]. The first-order measurement model fits the data well with χ² = 355.989, df = 142, χ²/df = 2.507, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.915, SRMR = 0.050, and RMSEA = 0.061. As shown in Table 3, the standardized factor loadings of all items on the corresponding dimensions are above 0.5 (ranged from 0.502 to 0.880). The composite reliabilities (CR) of all five dimensions are greater than 0.70, and the average variance extracted (AVE) are all higher than 0.5, indicating that all dimensions of place image have good convergent validity. The square roots of all AVEs for all dimensions are higher than its correlation with other dimensions, indicating that all dimensions have good discriminant validity [74].

Given that the first-order model of place image provided a good fit, this study further conducted a second-order CFA (see Figure 2). The second-order model fits the data well with χ² = 373.235, df = 147, χ²/df = 2.539, TLI = 0.913, CFI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.061, and SRMR = 0.051. The standardized factor loadings of community services, physical appearance, social environment, entertainment opportunities, and job opportunities are 0.816, 0.734, 0.766, 0.857, and 0.888, respectively. These results indicate that place image is a second-order construct consisting of five dimensions. Therefore, place image will be a treated as a second-order factor in the following data analysis.

5.4. Overall Measurement Model

The overall measurement model consisting of place image, place identity, place dependence, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect were examined using Mplus 7.0 with MLM estimation. The results indicated a good fit: χ² = 2119.605, df = 1060, χ²/df = 2.000, TLI = 0.902, CFI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.049, and SRMR = 0.061. As Table 4 shows, the standardized factor loadings of each dimension/item on the corresponding construct were all higher than 0.5, with most of them being above 0.7. The CRs and AVEs for all constructs were higher than 0.7 and 0.5, respectively. These results indicated a good convergent validity of these constructs. Discriminant validity can be examined by comparing the square root of AVE and inter-construct correlations (see Table 2). In this study, discriminant validity among constructs was achieved, except for the pair of place identity and place dependence, where the correlation (0.755) between place identity and place dependence is slightly higher than the square root of AVE of place dependence (0.739). This study further examined the discriminant validity between place identity and place dependence and found that a 95% confidence interval around their correlations does not contain 1, thus supporting that they are different constructs [77].

5.5. Structure Model

Structure equation modeling was used to examine the hypotheses. Table 5 shows that place image has a significant positive effect on life satisfaction (λ = 0.264, p < 0.001) and positive affect (λ = 0.391, p < 0.001), and has a significant negative effect on negative affect (λ = −0.267, p = 0.002). Thus, H1a, H1b and H1c are all supported. Place image has a significant positive effect on place identity (λ = 0.614, p < 0.001) and place dependence (λ = 585, p < 0.001), which indicates that H2a and H2b are supported. Place identity has a significant positive effect on resident’s life satisfaction (β = 0.305, p < 0.001) and positive affect (β = 0.312, p < 0.001), which indicates that H3a and H3b are supported. Place dependence has a significant positive effect on life satisfaction (β = 0.476, p < 0.001) and positive affect (β = 0.278, p < 0.001), which supported H4a and H4b. Both place identity (β = −0.075, p = 0.294) and place dependence (β = −0.020, p = 0.581) have a negative but not significant effect on negative affect, thus rejecting H3c and H4c. The variances of place identity, place dependence, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect were 0.389, 0.385, 0.737, 0.662, and 0.110, respectively.

5.6. Mediation Effect

This study used the Bootstrap approach to verify the meditation effects of place identity and place dependence on the link between place image and subjective well-being [78] (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The 95% confidence interval of indirect effect does not contain zero and thus supports the mediation effect.

As shown in Table 6, this study found that place identity mediated the influence place image on life satisfaction (β = 0.187, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.080, 0.294]) and positive affect (β = 0.191, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.173, 0.384]), supporting H5a and H5b. Place dependence mediates the influence place image on life satisfaction (β = 0.278, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.099, 0.284]) and positive affect (β = 0.163, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.074, 0.251]), supporting H6a and H6b. The mediation effect of place identity (β= −0.046, p > 0.05, 95%CI [−0.150, 0.058]) and place dependence (β = −0.012, p > 0.05, 95%CI [−0.121, 0.098]) on the influence of place image on negative affect was not found, thus rejecting H5c and H6c.

6. Conclusions and Discussions

6.1. Conclusions

This study took Guangzhou as an example to examine the relationships among residents’ place image, place attachment, and subjective well-being. Several important conclusions are drawn from this study. Place image describes residents’ perceptions of their city in different attributes [3]. Previous studies developed different dimensions of place image [7]. Many cities in China have undergone a significant development and transformation because of market reform and urbanization in the past three decades. Residents’ place image might be different from that of other countries. This study found that job opportunity was also a dimension of residents’ place image, thus suggesting that residents consider economic growth and job availability as important factors influencing their satisfaction with a city.

Place image is found to positively influence residents’ subjective well-being, implying that residents who have positive perceptions of city attributes are likely to have higher levels of life satisfaction, more frequent positive affect and infrequent negative affect. This finding is in accordance with the bottom-up theory of subjective well-being [10]. A positive place image reflects residents’ higher satisfaction with the city attributes, and therefore contributes their life satisfaction. This finding is also consistent with affective-cognitive consistency theory [11]. Place image reflects residents’ cognitive evaluation of their living city in community services, physical appearance, social environment, entertainment opportunities, and job opportunities, residents would align their affective states with their cognitions.

Place image has a positive effect on place attachment, which is consistent with previous research that community ties, sense of security, natural, and architectural or urban features are important predictors of place attachment [44]. Place attachment involves residents’ functional and emotional bonds with their city. Functional attachment stems from the fulfillment of residents’ functional needs by living conditions and personal development environment provided by their living city, such as community services, recreational facilities, and job opportunities [42]. Emotional attachment derives from residents’ identification and belonging to their city. When residents have higher levels of satisfaction with the city in different attributes, they are more likely to perceive of themselves as a part of the city and use the city to define themselves, and accordingly form a stronger identification with the city [57].

Place attachment has a positive and significant effect on life satisfaction and positive affect, implying that place identity and place dependence can satisfy residents’ basic psychological needs in belongings, self-esteem, meaning, and sense of control, and thus induces high levels of subjective well-being [63]. It was found that place identity and place dependence have a negative impact on residents’ negative affect, however these effects are nonsignificant. An explanation is that negative affect is more influenced by negative life events [79]. Goldstein and Strube [80] found that success feedback increases positive affect but does not influence negative affect, while failure feedback increased negative affect, but does not influence positive affect. Place attachment is a kind of positive attitude; it is reasonable that it has a positive effect on positive affect but does not have a significant effect on negative affect.

Place attachment mediates the positive impacts of place image on life satisfaction and positive affect. This finding uncovers the underlying mechanism of how place image influences residents’ subjective well-being, which can be explained by the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions [67]. Favorable living and working environments provide material prerequisites for residents’ quality of life. City serves as a medium for residents to express themselves, and therefore promotes their subjective well-being. Place attachment, which derives from residents’ positive perceptions of city attributes, broadens residents’ thought-action repertoire and builds their personal resources, and therefore leads to their subjective well-being.

6.2. Managerial Implications

City managers can benefit from this study. City managers should attach great importance to the resident’s place image. City managers, for a long time, have narrowly focused on destination image, i.e., how the city is perceived by tourists as a destination. Destination image is undoubtedly important in the field of place marketing, as tourists bring large amount of revenues to the city. However, residents’ place image also needs to be valued. For tourists, the city is just a destination for holiday, while for residents, the city is a place where they live, work, and relax. Therefore, the city has more meanings to residents than to tourist, and residents have a stronger relationship with the city than tourists. Previous studies have consistently confirmed the positive effect of tourists’ destination image [2], and by analogy, it is predicted that place image can induce a range of positive individual- and city-level outcomes. There is a need for city managers to leverage place image to improve city’s competitive advantage. As our study suggests, place image is composed of community services, physical appearance, social environment, entertainment opportunities, and job opportunities, in order to shape residents’ positive place image, city managers are advised to improve these city attributes, for example, constructing more recreational and shopping facilities, creating more diversified work opportunities, improving the quality of public services, and beautifying the city environment to build a high-quality living environment for residents.

Apart from the construction of the city’s physical and social environments, city managers should strengthen publicity for place image to residents. Residents’ psychological and behavioral responses to the city are based on their perception of what city attributes are, not on the city attributes themselves. It is from this perspective that city managers to actively communicate different city attributes to residents via various channels, such as broadcast media, print media, social media, and outdoor advertising. For example, city managers can communicate the city’s achievements and development plan to its residents to shape their positive place image through which their subjective well-being would be improved.

Since place attachment mediates the positive impact of place image on subjective well-being, city managers can promote residents’ subjective well-being through strengthening their place attachment. On the one hand, city managers can improve the capability of their city in fulfilling residents’ functional goals to improve place dependence. On the other hand, city managers can strengthen the unique features or brand personality of their city to improve place identity. In addition, city managers can also use other strategies, such as improving residents’ familiarity with the city and enhancing their sense of control over the city, to increase residents’ place attachment.

Residents’ role in city branding should be stressed. Residents are one of the most important stakeholders of a city in its development. Previous studies have narrowly considered residents as an element of destination image, for example, whether residents are friendly to tourists, ignoring the fact that residents also hold mental pictures of their city. Residents with a high level of subjective well-being are brand champions who actively spread good words about the city. Therefore, city managers are advised to use residents as an important media to communicate the city brand to its targets, such as tourists, investors, and immigrant.

6.3. Limitations

This research has the following limitations. First, this study only takes Guangzhou as a research site to collect data, since cities differ in their scales, cultures, and economic growth rates, the findings of this study might not be generalized to other cities. Therefore, future researchers can further validate findings of this study using data collected from other cities. Additionally, future studies are encouraged to collect a larger sample to validate the findings of this study. Second, residents’ place image is a complicated concept, whereas this study treated it as a cognitive construct, i.e., perception of different city attributes. Future studies could further examine whether emotional and behavioral dimensions can also be included in the concept. Third, compared to destination image, empirical research on place image is scarce, and more studies are needed to investigate its outcomes, such as place citizenship behavior. Finally, residents’ subjective well-being may be influenced by other factors, such as income, and future studies may include these factors in the model as control variables to further examine the effect of place image on residents’ subjective well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z. and W.L.; methodology, H.Z.; software, H.Z.; validation, H.Z. and W.L.; formal analysis, H.Z.; investigation, W.L.; resources, H.Z. and W.L.; data curation, H.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.; writing—review and editing, H.Z.; visualization, H.Z.; supervision, H.Z.; project administration, H.Z.; funding acquisition, H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Hypothesis model.

Figure 2. Second-order model of place image.

Table 1

Sample profile.

Variable	Value	Frequency	Percent (%)
Gender	Male	237	56.4
	Female	183	43.6
Born in Guangzhou	Yes	93	22.1
	No	327	327
Age	15 and below	3	0.7
	16–24	162	38.6
	25–44	236	56.2
	45–60	18	4.3
	61 and above	1	0.2
Residence length in Guangzhou	1–3 years	165	39.3
	4–6 years	91	21.7
	7–10 years	36	8.6
	10 years and above	128	30.5
Occupation	Students	71	16.9
	Freelancers	36	8.6
	Enterprise staffs	213	50.7
	Government or institutions	33	7.9
	Retired	3	0.7
	Private business owner	34	8.1
	Others	30	7.1
Monthly income	1000 and below	29	6.9
	1001–3000	56	13.3
	3001–5000	86	20.5
	5001–10,000	132	31.4
	10,001–20,000	78	18.6
	20,000 and above	39	9.3

Table 2

Descriptive analysis.

Construct	M	Std.	α	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Place image	5.349	0.793	0.926	1
2. Place identity	4.823	1.303	0.934	0.495	1
3. Place dependence	4.443	1.134	0.852	0.482	0.755	1
4. Life satisfaction	4.641	1.127	0.870	0.565	0.711	0.733	1
5. Positive affect	4.952	1.076	0.951	0.617	0.686	0.666	0.780	1
6. Negative affect	3.273	1.129	0.930	−0.276	−0.226	−0.210	−0.280	−0.297	1

Note: M = mean, Std. = standard deviation.

Table 3

CFA results of place image.

Dimension/Item	Loading	CR	AVE
Community service		0.756	0.510
Effective local government	0.775
Effective local services	0.723
Good transportation system	0.638
Physical appearance		0.800	0.507
Attractive scenery	0.502
Pleasant weather	0.763
Nice architecture	0.833
Interesting historic sites	0.708
Social environment		0.859	0.670
Safe place	0.779
Friendly locals	0.793
Clean	0.880
Entertainment opportunities		0.834	0.560
Accommodation	0.692
Good restaurants	0.641
Good nightlife	0.812
Good place to shop	0.830
Job opportunities		0.859	0.553
A variety of job opportunities	0.790
High level of economic development	0.820
Attract many investments	0.771
High salary	0.722
Job stabilization	0.594

Table 4

CFA results of the overall measurement model.

Construct/Dimension/Item	Loadings	CR	AVE
Place image		0.908	0.664
Community service	0.795
Physical appearance	0.749
Social environment	0.794
Entertainment service	0.853
Job opportunity	0.877
Place identity		0.938	0.717
I feel GZ is a part of me	0.849
GZ is very special to me	0.857
I identify strongly with GZ	0.880
I am very attached to GZ	0.888
Visiting GZ says a lot about who I am	0.761
GZ means a lot to me	0.838
Place dependence		0.856	0.546
GZ is the best place for what I like to do	0.592
No other place can compare to GZ	0.766
Doing what I do at GZ is more important to me than doing it in any other place.	0.696
I wouldn’t substitute any other area for doing the types things I do at GZ	0.780
The things I do at GZ would not enjoy doing just as much at other cities	0.836
Life satisfaction		0.875	0.636
In most ways my life is close to my idea	0.788
I am satisfied with my life	0.819
So far I have gotten the important things I want in life	0.807
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing	0.776
Positive affect		0.951	0.766
Happy	0.867
Joy	0.908
Pleased	0.908
Enjoyment	0.834
Contented	0.875
Excited	0.856
Negative affect		0.932	0.696
Angry	0.798
Anxiety	0.752
Frustrated	0.871
Depressed	0.903
Annoyed	0.896
Gloomy	0.772

Note: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 5

Structure model results.

Hypothesis		Estimates	Std. Error	T-Value	Results
H1a	Place image→life satisfaction	0.264	0.067	3.937	Supported
H1b	Place image→positive affect	0.391	0.060	6.539	Supported
H1c	Place image→negative affect	−0.267	0.082	−3.268	Supported
H2a	Place image→place identity	0.614	0.029	20.963	Supported
H2b	Place image→place dependence	0.585	0.037	15.983	Supported
H3a	Place identity→life satisfaction	0.305	0.041	7.394	Supported
H3b	Place identity→positive affect	0.312	0.040	7.734	Supported
H3c	Place identity→negative affect	−0.075	0.056	−1.339	Unsupported
H4a	Place dependence→life satisfaction	0.476	0.041	11.581	Supported
H4b	Place dependence→positive affect	0.278	0.041	6.729	Supported
H4c	Place dependence→negative affect	−0.020	0.063	−0.314	Unsupported

Table 6

Mediation analysis.

Path		Estimate	95% CI		Results
			Lower Bound	Upper Bound
H5a	Place image→place identity→life satisfaction	0.187 **	0.080	0.294	Supported
H5b	Place image→place identity→positive affect	0.191 **	0.099	0.284	Supported
H5c	Place image→place identity→negative affect	−0.046	−0.150	0.058	Unsupported
H6a	Place image→place dependence→life satisfaction	0.278 ***	0.173	0.384	Supported
H6b	Place image→place dependence→positive affect	0.163 **	0.074	0.251	Supported
H6c	Place image→place dependence→negative affect	−0.012	−0.121	0.098	Unsupported

Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Appendix A

Table A1

Mean, Standard deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of items.

Items	Mean	Standard Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
CS1	5.229	1.251	−0.711	0.445
CS2	4.710	1.284	−0.104	−0.206
CS3	5.731	1.219	−1.269	1.817
PA1	4.860	1.403	−0.504	0.046
PA2	4.883	1.343	−0.327	−0.228
PA3	5.383	1.214	−0.921	1.278
PA4	5.310	1.290	−0.545	−0.160
SE1	5.207	1.260	−0.770	0.795
SE2	5.169	1.243	−0.541	0.184
SE3	5.245	1.137	−0.639	0.765
EO1	6.198	0.923	−1.355	2.967
EO2	5.462	1.257	−0.786	0.392
EO3	5.729	1.143	−0.794	0.457
EO4	5.800	1.100	−1.099	1.812
JO1	5.526	1.091	−0.516	0.025
JO2	5.702	1.092	−0.857	0.963
JO3	5.583	1.106	−0.558	−0.015
JO4	4.776	1.301	−0.363	0.105
JO5	5.124	1.255	−0.228	−0.686
PI1	4.886	1.464	−0.300	−0.498
PI2	5.093	1.400	−0.439	−0.309
PI3	5.055	1.339	−0.352	−0.169
PI4	4.714	1.491	−0.153	−0.636
PI5	4.226	1.839	0.032	−1.015
PI6	4.962	1.439	−0.228	−0.696
PD1	5.164	1.272	−0.605	0.384
PD2	3.876	1.446	0.060	0.018
PD3	4.391	1.382	−0.033	−0.169
PD4	4.164	1.473	0.007	−0.316
PD5	4.619	1.563	−0.234	−0.604
LS1	4.500	1.303	−0.342	0.030
LS2	4.733	1.242	−0.490	0.380
LS3	4.552	1.303	−0.219	−0.028
LS4	4.776	1.457	−0.393	−0.087
PAF1	4.902	1.245	−0.307	0.215
PAF2	4.948	1.155	−0.047	−0.288
PAF3	5.014	1.154	−0.150	−0.139
PAF4	5.148	1.161	−0.244	−0.232
PAF5	4.867	1.261	−0.213	−0.182
PAF6	4.836	1.226	−0.027	−0.297
NAF1	3.195	1.209	0.158	0.125
NAF2	3.736	1.411	0.031	−0.227
NAF3	3.233	1.292	0.326	0.184
NAF4	3.307	1.348	0.238	−0.051
NAF5	3.179	1.283	0.310	0.028
NAF6	2.988	1.324	0.375	0.167

Note: CS = community services, PA = physical appearance, SE = social environment, EO = entertainment opportunities, JO = job opportunities, PI = place identity, PD = place dependence, LS = life satisfaction, PAF = positive affect, NAF = negative affect.

References

1. Sun, X.; Chi, G.Q.; Xu, H. Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2013; 43, pp. 547-577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.006]

2. Pike, S. Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tour. Manag.; 2002; 23, pp. 541-549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00005-5]

3. Stylidis, D.; Biran, A.; Sit, J.; Szivas, E.M. Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tour. Manag.; 2014; 45, pp. 260-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.006]

4. Stylidis, D.; Sit, K.J.; Biran, A. An exploratory study of residents’ perception of place image: The case of Kavala. J. Travel Res.; 2016; 55, pp. 659-674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287514563163] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29708109]

5. Dumbrovská, V.; Dana, F. Tourist Intensity in capital cities in central Europe: Comparative analysis of tourism in Prague, Vienna and Budapest. Czech. J. Tour.; 2014; 3, pp. 5-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/cjot-2014-0001]

6. Jeong, U.; Yu, A.; Kim, S. The antecedents of tourists’ behavioral intentions at sporting events: The case of South Korea. Sustainability; 2019; 12, 333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010333]

7. Ramkissoon, H.; Nunkoo, R. City image and perceived tourism impact: Evidence from Port Louis, Mauritius. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm.; 2011; 12, pp. 123-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2011.564493]

8. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistical Bulletin on National Economic and Social Development in 2018. 2020; Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/202002/t20200228_1728913.html (accessed on 15 October 2021).

9. Postma, A.; Buda, D.-M.; Gugerell, K. The future of city tourism. J. Tour. Futures; 2017; 3, pp. 95-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JTF-09-2017-067]

10. Kim, K.; Uysal, M.; Sirgy, M.J. How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents?. Tour. Manag.; 2013; 36, pp. 527-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.005]

11. Gawronski, B. Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Soc. Cogn.; 2012; 30, pp. 652-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652]

12. Andrews, G.J.; Phillips, D.R. Geographical studies in ageing: Progress and connections to social gerontology. Ageing and Place: Perspectives, Policy, Practice; Andrews, G.J.; Phillips, D.R. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 7-12.

13. Kansky, J.; Diener, E. Benefits of well-being: Health, social relationships, work, and resilience. J. Posit. Psychol. Wellbeing; 2017; 1, pp. 129-169.

14. Kavaratzis, M. Place branding: A review of trends and conceptual models. Mark. Rev.; 2005; 5, pp. 329-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1362/146934705775186854]

15. Judge, T.A.; Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. Happiness as a societal value. Acad. Manag. Perspect.; 2011; 25, pp. 30-41.

16. Hunt, J.D. Image as a factor in tourism development. J. Travel Res.; 1975; 13, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728757501300301]

17. Goeldner, C.R.; Ritchie, J.R.B. Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. Tour. Princ. Pract. Philos.; 2011; 14, pp. 441-442.

18. Stylidis, D. The role of place image dimensions in residents’ support for tourism development. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2016; 18, pp. 129-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2039]

19. Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Tian, S.; Yu, J. Review of the theories and methods of livable city. Prog. Geogr.; 2008; 3, pp. 101-109. (In Chinese)

20. He, Z.; Zhai, G. Employment location choice of Chinese college students and its determinants. Hum. Geogr.; 2015; 30, pp. 37-42. (In Chinese)

21. Stylidis, D.; Sit, K.J.; Biran, A. Residents’ place image: A meaningful psychographic variable for tourism segmentation?. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2018; 35, pp. 715-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1425176]

22. Chi, G.Q.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag.; 2008; 29, pp. 624-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007]

23. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Lucas, R.E. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. Handbook of Positive Psychology; Snyder, C.R.; Lopez, S.J. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002.

24. Waterman, A.S. Two conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (Eudaimonia) and Hedonic Enjoyment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.; 1993; 64, pp. 678-691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678]

25. Diener, E. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am. Psychol.; 2000; 55, pp. 34-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392863]

26. Diener, E.; Suh, E.M.; Lucas, R.E.; Smith, H.L. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull.; 1999; 125, pp. 276-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276]

27. Mccabe, S.; Johnson, S. The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2013; 41, pp. 42-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.001]

28. Chi, C.G.; Cai, R.; Li, Y. Factors influencing residents’ subjective well-being at World Heritage Sites. Tour. Manag.; 2017; 63, pp. 209-222.

29. Lucas, R.E.; Diener, E.; Suh, E. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.; 1996; 71, pp. 616-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616]

30. Anglim, J.; Horwood, S.; Smillie, L.D.; Marrero, R.J.; Wood, J.K. Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.; 2020; 146, pp. 279-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226]

31. Welsch, H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecol. Econ.; 2006; 58, pp. 801-813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.006]

32. Bimonte, S.; Faralla, V. Does residents’ perceived life satisfaction vary with tourist season? a two-step survey in a Mediterranean destination. Tour. Manag.; 2016; 55, pp. 199-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.011]

33. Moore, S.; Diener, E. Types of subjective well-being and their associations with relationship outcomes. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol.; 2019; 3, pp. 112-118.

34. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernández, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2001; 21, pp. 273-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221]

35. Fornara, F.; Lai, A.E.; Bonaiuto, M.; Pazzaglia, F. Residential place attachment as an adaptive strategy for coping with the reduction of spatial abilities in old age. Front. Psychol.; 2019; 10, 856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00856] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31105618]

36. Zhang, H.; Xu, H. Impact of destination psychological ownership on residents’ “place citizenship behavior”. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.; 2019; 14, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100391]

37. Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the Presented at The Session on Outdoor Planning and Management NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research; San Antonio, TX, USA, 20–22 October 1989.

38. Bricker, K.S.; Kerstetter, D.L. Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leis. Sci.; 2000; 22, pp. 233-257.

39. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ. Behav.; 2005; 37, pp. 153-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269654]

40. Chen, N.C.; Dwyer, L. Residents’ place satisfaction and place attachment on destination brand-building behaviors: Conceptual and empirical differentiation. J. Travel Res.; 2018; 57, pp. 1026-1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287517729760]

41. Gurney, G.G.; Blythe, J.; Adams, H.; Adger, W.N.; Curnock, M.; Faulkner, L.; James, T.; Marshall, N.A. Redefining community based on place attachment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2017; 114, pp. 10077-10082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712125114]

42. Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For. Sci.; 2003; 49, pp. 830-840.

43. Jacob, G.R.; Schreyer, R. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. J. Leis. Res.; 1980; 12, pp. 368-380. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1980.11969462]

44. Lewicka, M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2011; 31, pp. 207-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001]

45. Özkan, D.G.; Yilmaz, S. The effects of physical and social attributes of place on place attachment: A case study on Trabzon urban squares. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res.; 2019; 13, pp. 133-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2018-0010]

46. Lewicka, M. On the varieties of people’s relationships with places: Hummon’s typology revisited. Environ. Behav.; 2011; 43, pp. 676-709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364917]

47. Nunkoo, R. Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents’ attitudes to tourism. Procedia Econ. Financ.; 2016; 39, pp. 588-596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30303-3]

48. Wang, S.; Bai, K. The place attachment and subjective well-being of tourism labor migrants in Xi’an Hui Community. Tour. Trib.; 2017; 32, pp. 12-27. (In Chinese)

49. Chen, G.; He, P.; Liang, R. Government size, government quality and residents’ happiness. J. Shanxi Financ. Econ. Univ.; 2016; 38, pp. 11-21. (In Chinese)

50. Zhao, J.; Yang, Z. Does the supply of basic public services increase subjective well-being of residents? Empirical analysis based on CGSS 2013. J. Xi’an Univ. Financ. Econ.; 2017; 30, pp. 80-86. (In Chinese)

51. Zhao, X.; Sun, Z. The Effect of Satisfaction with Environmental Performance on Subjective Well-Being in China: GDP as a Moderating Factor. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12051745]

52. Clark, W.A.V.; Yi, D.; Huang, Y. Subjective well-being in China’s changing society. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2019; 116, pp. 16799-16804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902926116]

53. Clark, A. Unemployment as a social norm. J. Labor Econ.; 2003; 21, pp. 323-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/345560]

54. Insch, A.; Florek, M. A great place to live, work and play. J. Place Manag. Dev.; 2008; 1, pp. 138-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538330810889970]

55. Ngesan, M.R.; Karim, H.A.; Zubir, S.S. Image of urban public park during nighttime in relation to place identity. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2013; 101, pp. 328-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.207]

56. Zenker, S.; Petersen, S. An Integrative Theoretical Model for Improving Resident-City Identification. Environ. Plan. A: Econ. Space; 2014; 46, pp. 715-729. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a46191]

57. Gu, H.; Ryan, C. Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism-the case of a Beijing hutong. Tour. Manag.; 2008; 29, pp. 637-647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.006]

58. McKercher, B.; Ho, P. Cultural tourism and the enhancement of quality-of-life. Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research; Uysal, M.; Perdu, R.R.; Sirgy, M.J. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 341-357.

59. Ujang, N. Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2012; 49, pp. 156-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.014]

60. Twigger-Ross, C.L.; Uzzell, D.L. Place and identity processes. J. Environ. Psychol.; 1996; 16, pp. 205-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0017]

61. Eyles, J.; Williams, A. Sense of Place, Health and Quality of Life; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2008.

62. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2017; 51, pp. 256-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.001]

63. Andrews, F.M.; Withey, S.B. Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans’ Perceptions of Life Quality; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.

64. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environ. Behav.; 2017; 49, pp. 359-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916516637648]

65. Wei, M.; Liao, Y.H.; Ku, T.Y.; Shaffer, P.A. Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and subjective well-being among college students and community adults. J. Personal.; 2011; 79, pp. 191-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x]

66. Wiles, J.L.; Allen, R.E.S.; Palmer, A.J.; Hayman, K.J.; Keeling, S.; Kerse, N. Older people and their social spaces: A study of well-being and attachment to place in Aotearoa New Zealand. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2009; 68, pp. 664-671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.030]

67. Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol.; 2001; 56, pp. 218-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218]

68. Casakin, H.; Reizer, A. Place attachment, residential satisfaction, and life satisfaction: Traditional and renewed kibbutz. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ.; 2017; 27, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1317313]

69. Pavot, W.G.; Diener, E. Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychol. Assess.; 1993; 5, pp. 164-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164]

70. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. J. Personal. Assess.; 1985; 49, pp. 71-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16367493]

71. Watson, D.; Clark, L.A. The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form; The University of Iowa: Ames, IA, USA, 1994.

72. Chinadaily. Top 6 Chinese Cities with World’s Fastest Growing Tourism Industry. 2017; Available online: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017top10/2017-11/10/content_34345546.htm (accessed on 10 September 2021).

73. Zhang, H.; Xu, H.; Gursoy, D. The effect of celebrity endorsement on destination brand love: A comparison of previous visitors and potential tourists. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.; 2020; 17, 100454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100454]

74. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson New International Edition Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014.

75. Pavlou, P.A.; Liang, H.; Xue, Y. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Q.; 2007; 31, pp. 105-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25148783]

76. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Taylor & Francis/Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011.

77. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull.; 1988; 103, pp. 411-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411]

78. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods; 2008; 40, pp. 879-891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879]

79. Headey, B.; Wearing, A. Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.; 1989; 57, pp. 731-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.731]

80. Goldstein, M.D.; Strube, M.J. Independence revisited: The relation between positive and negative affect in a naturalistic setting. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.; 1994; 20, pp. 57-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201005]