Rural place branding processes: a meta-synthesis

Abstract

Like cities and nations, rural places have adopted the practice of place branding to improve their reputation and increase their competitiveness to attract residents, tourists, and consumers. This review aims to synthesize case studies of rural place branding in order to identify different types of processes applied and relating them to the contextual factors underlying their application. A typology of five rural place branding processes (PBP) is proposed, based on the existence and dominance of a focal actor, and other actors involved in the process. Six contextual factors that affect the application of the various PBP are identified: (1) type of place distinguishing between places with or without administrative power, (2) initiative referring to the difference between political/administrative, community, mixed, (3) support base for the branding distinguishing between strong political/organizational, strong community, strong identity, (4) brand purpose, i.e. competitiveness, identity, conservation; (5) target group, and (6) type of place brand referring to the difference between sectoral and integrated place brands. Patterns of the contextual factors have been identified that seem to be typical for the application of the different PBP types. The findings provide guidance to rural place managers and communities to apply a PBP that matches their specific context.

Technical Infrastructure as an Element of Sustainable Development of Rural Regions in Małopolskie Voivodeship in Poland and Trnava Region in Slovakia

“…In particular, it is an attractive strategy of cooperation for neighbouring countries with a similar history, geography and social ties of the population. The importance of research into competitiveness and the importance of rural areas are also confirmed [22].…”

Local and sustainable production as vectors of an agrarian branding strategy in Catalonia: case study of the Baixa Tordera

“…Moroz et al (2020) argue that the success of rural branding is determined by the following elements: the integrity of representations about the functions of the brand as a factor in defining new economic relationships; the motives and behaviour of agents in the process of implementing brand projects; comprehensiveness and availability of market information about projects; and the models of decision-making by the agents. Gulisova (2020) states that bottom-up processes in rural branding are more common than in other types of place branding. …”

“…the models of decision-making by the agents. Gulisova (2020) states that bottom-up processes in rural branding are more common than in other types of place branding.…”

Positioning of low-urbanized territories based on self-identification: The case of Ukraine

“…Based on the perception of place identity as a notion formed through a wide range of interdisciplinary discourse (Govers & Go, 2009), the positioning should be taken as an attempt at its communicative expression (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013; Grey & O'Toole, 2020). A similar method was used by Barbora Gulisova (Gulisova, 2021), while noting that the right of initiative and final consent in determining the key characteristics of territory still belong to the population living in this territory and/or its representatives. Based on the literature review, the purpose of this study was defined as the identification of key characteristics used by low-urbanized territories for positioning, with two specific objectives, namely:…”