Full Text 01

Bachelor Thesis, 15 hp, for a
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration:

International Business and Marketing
Spring 2017
What makes a city centre attractive

from a consumer perspective?
A comparison between residents and
visitors of Kristianstad city centre
Sofia Karlsson and Molly Nilsson
School of Health and Society

Karlsson & Nilsson (2017)
Abstract
Authors
Sofia Karlsson and Molly Nilsson
Title
What makes a city centre attractive from a consumer perspective? A comparison between
residents and visitors of Kristianstad city centre
Supervisor
Lisa Källström
Co-examiner
Karin Alm
Examiner
Sven-Olof Collin
Abstract
A current problem is that city centres are suffering due to the intensified competition from other
shopping places, such as neighbouring cities and external shopping malls. Previous research
emphasize retail as the most contributing factor to an attractive city centre. However, other
attributes have proved to be important as well.
The purpose of the thesis is to develop a framework that explains different attributes for city centre
attractiveness, and explain if residents and visitors differ in regard to satisfaction of city centres.
The attributes that will measure city centre attractiveness are retail, accessibility, amusement,
activities and atmosphere. The research is done in an explaining context and the research
philosophy is positivistic with a deductive approach. The quantitative method was face to face
questionnaires conducted on 100 consumers in the Swedish city centre Kristianstad.
The findings of the study revealed that city centre attractiveness is positively affected by retail,
amusement, activities and atmosphere. Accessibility did not show any statistical significant impact
on the attractiveness of city centres. Moreover, residents and visitors did not differ in regard to
satisfaction of Kristianstad city centre.
The main limitation of this study is that only one city centre is examined. However, the
contributions are that retail proved to be important in city centres, but not as important as
amusement, activities and atmosphere. Furthermore, the study contributes by discovering that
residents and visitors are equally satisfied with Kristianstad city centre. The findings can be useful
for Kristianstad city centre as well as other Swedish municipalities.
Keywords
Place marketing, place attractiveness, city centre attractiveness, retail, residents, visitors
Acknowledgement
Firstly, we would like to thank our supervisor Lisa Källström for guiding us through
this journey in a perfect way. We thank you for your knowledge, precision and
pedagogy.
Secondly, we want to thank Annika Fjelkner and Pierre Carbonnier for sharing their
expertise within linguistics and statistics.
Thirdly, we also want to thank all the 100 respondents in Kristianstad city centre for
helping us collecting the empirical data. Without your participation, this thesis would
not have been possible to execute.
Kristianstad 2017-05-26
_________________ _________________
Sofia Karlsson Molly Nilsson

Table of Content
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Problematisation..................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Research question................................................................................................. 10
1.3 Research aim ......................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Outline .................................................................................................................. 10
2. Research method .................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Research philosophy ............................................................................................. 12
2.2 Research approach ............................................................................................... 13
2.3 Choice of theory.................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Choice of methodology ......................................................................................... 13
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 14
3. Literature review..................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Place marketing .................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Place Attractiveness .............................................................................................. 17
3.2.1 Place Attachment........................................................................................... 17
3.3 City Centre Attractiveness .................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Teller & Elms (2010) ....................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Öner (2017) .................................................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Hart, Stachow & Cadogan (2013) .................................................................. 22
3.3.4 Weltervreden & Rietbergen (2007) ............................................................... 22
3.3.5 Zenker, Peterson & Aholt (2013) ................................................................... 23
3.3.6 Wahlberg (2016) ............................................................................................ 23
3.4 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors ..................................................... 24
3.5 Target groups ........................................................................................................ 25
3.5.1 Residents ........................................................................................................ 27
3.5.2 Visitors ........................................................................................................... 27
3.6 Theoretical framework ......................................................................................... 28
3.6.1 Residents and visitors .................................................................................... 29
3.6.2 Retail .............................................................................................................. 29
3.6.3 Accessibility .................................................................................................... 30
3.6.4 Amusement .................................................................................................... 30
3.6.5 Activities......................................................................................................... 31
3.6.6 Atmosphere ................................................................................................... 31
3.6.7 Summary hypotheses .................................................................................... 31
4. Empirical method .................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Research strategy.................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Population ............................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Data collection method ........................................................................................ 34

4.4 Operationalisation ................................................................................................ 35
4.4.1 Control variables ............................................................................................ 36
4.4.2 Self-assessment ............................................................................................. 37
4.4.3 Independent variables ................................................................................... 38
4.4.4 Dependent variable ....................................................................................... 40
4.5 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Reliability............................................................................................................... 42
4.7 Validity .................................................................................................................. 42
4.8 Generalisability ..................................................................................................... 43
4.9 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................... 43
5. Analysis ................................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................. 44
5.1.1 Respondents .................................................................................................. 44
5.1.2 Control variables ............................................................................................ 45
5.1.3 Self-assessment ............................................................................................. 47
5.1.4 Independent variables ................................................................................... 48
5.1.5 Dependent variable ....................................................................................... 50
5.2 Independent samples t-test .................................................................................. 51
5.3 Pearson correlation matrix ................................................................................... 52
5.4 Multiple linear regression ..................................................................................... 53
5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 55
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 56
6.1 Thesis summary, findings and non-findings ......................................................... 56
6.2 Practical contributions .......................................................................................... 59
6.3 Theoretical contributions ..................................................................................... 60
6.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 60
6.5 Future research ..................................................................................................... 61
6.6 Concluding comments .......................................................................................... 61
Appendix 1: Questionnaire in English ............................................................................. 68
Appendix 2: Questionnaire in Swedish ........................................................................... 74
Appendix 3: Independent samples t-test ....................................................................... 80
Appendix 4: Pearson correlation matrix ......................................................................... 81
Appendix 5: Multiple linear regression........................................................................... 82
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors .................................. 25

Table 4.1 Summary of data collection process..................................................35
Table 5.1 Respondents’ gender ........................................................................44
Table 5.2 Respondents’ age ............................................................................ 45

Table 5.3 Senior citizens .................................................................................. 45
Table 5.4 Youths .............................................................................................. 45
Table 5.5 Target groups ................................................................................... 46
Table 5.6 Respondents’ geographical area of residence ................................. 46
Table 5.7 Respondents of Northeast Skåne .................................................... 46
Table 5.8 Residents of Northeast Skåne .......................................................... 47
Table 5.9 Respondents’ frequency of visits ...................................................... 47
Table 5.10 Frequency of visits ......................................................................... 47
Table 5.11 Results for importance ................................................................... 48
Table 5.12 Cronbach’s Alpha for independent variables .................................. 49
Table 5.13 Factor analysis for independent variables ...................................... 49
Table 5.14 Results for satisfaction ................................................................... 50
Table 5.15 Overview dependent questions ...................................................... 50
Table 5.16 Cronbach’s Alpha for dependent variable ...................................... 50
Table 5.17 Descriptive statistics for city centre attractiveness ......................... 51
Table 5.18 T-test findings for satisfaction ......................................................... 52
Table 5.19 Multiple linear regression ............................................................... 54
Table 5.20 Summary of the analysis ................................................................ 55
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Different target groups .................................................................... 26

Figure 3.2 The R and A:s model of city centre attractiveness .......................... 28
1. Introduction
During the last decades, an intensified competition between different shopping places has
occurred. Some city centres are suffering because of the competition with neighbouring
cities and external shopping malls (Wahlberg, 2016; Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013;
Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007). People search for convenience nowadays, and
external shopping malls are many times designed to embrace consumers’ comfort. These
places provide a more convenient, easier and less time-consuming way of shopping (Can,
Kurtulmusoglu, & Atalay, 2016; Wahlberg, 2016). Neighbouring cities are also a
contributing factor to the decreased activity in some city centres, since the neighbouring
city could be considered as more attractive (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
Due to the intensified competition, some city centres are perceived as a less attractive
shopping place and many city municipalities are failing to develop the town centres
(Kolterjahn, 2011). External shopping malls, many times located nearby a motorway, are
growing. Svenska Dagbladet1 reinforces this by stating that the development of external
shopping malls has had consequences for city centres (Andersson, 2016). At the same
time, store vacancies within city centres are rising and due to this, consumers’ perception
of city centres is negatively affected (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). City centres
need to enhance their attractiveness to satisfy its consumers and strengthen its
competitiveness (Ezmale & Litavniece, 2011).
Dagens samhälle2 discusses that the annual retail growth in city centres has decreased
from 3.7 percent to 1.45 percent. However, the opportunity to turn this trend is great but
many cities lack long-term plans and concrete strategies. City centres need to gain
knowledge and understanding of the consumers’ needs to satisfy both residents and
visitors in the future. Studies show that availability of stores are the most important
attribute for consumers. Accessibility with or without car, the size of the city as well as
common opening hours are other crucial factors (Klackenberg & Sandemo, 2014).
1
Sweden’s third largest newspaper
2
A Swedish magazine
7
Several researchers agree that retail is emphasized as the main attribute for city centres’
attractiveness (Warnaby, Bennison, Davies, & Hughes, 2002). Evans (1997) explains
retail as the most dynamic and important activity in a town centre. Even if a town centre
consists of other functions and facilities, people go to the city centre to shop (ibid).
However, more recent studies within the fields place marketing, place attractiveness and
city centre attractiveness, identify other factors as crucial for city centres. Some of them
are restaurants, leisure, public transportation, various activities, parks and atmosphere
(Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden & Van
Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016).
However, it is a complex task to define how consumers perceive an attractive city centre.
Therefore, further research within city centre attractiveness is highly current to increase
the activity and attractiveness. An attractive city centre does not only affect the town
centre itself, but also the surrounding society since a city centre is presumed to represent
the liveliness of the society (Wahlberg, 2016). It is crucial to understand what consumers
perceive as attractive attributes in a city centre. By doing this, city centre managers can
realise the city’s competitive edge, maintain a strong economy as well as the liveliness of
the society (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016). The information can
then be used as a guideline in the development of a city centre. This thesis strives to
combine research within the fields retail, place marketing, place attractiveness and city
centre attractiveness, and in turn create a framework that explains which factors that
contribute to an attractive city centre.
1.1 Problematisation
A place is a very complex type of product and it is not easy to articulate place benefits,
define attractive attributes and the value of places (Warnaby, 2009). Due to this, place
marketing becomes an important approach to understand what consumers feel about a
city’s image (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). Place marketing helps to define a city,
country, region, community or a destination, and this is essentially used to identify
attractive and unique benefits about a place and convey that to different target markets
(Hanna & Rowely, 2007). By adopting this, place marketers can identify a place’s
competitive advantages and thereby protect the place’s economic viability (Hart,
Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
8
An understanding regarding the creation of attractive places would help place marketers
with their promotion of a city’s value and image (Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013).
However, this is not easy to accomplish because what is considered as attractive factors
within a city centre vary in different consumers’ minds (Zenker, 2011). Sinkien &
Kromalcas (2010) mention that a city cannot be perfect and equally appealing to all
groups of the society, for example residents and visitors. Therefore, it is highly relevant
for place marketers to understand different consumers’ needs and desires to prevent city
centres from extinction due to the loss of consumers to other competing shopping places
(Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
As mentioned, more convenient shopping alternatives has risen during the last decades
and this has strained some city centres (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). To be able to
compete with neighbouring cities and external shopping malls, city centres must
compensate by offering more than just retail. Previous research suggest convenient
parking conditions, public transportation, easiness to get around within the city centre,
festivals and events, amusement, restaurants and cafés, intangible atmosphere,
architecture, nature and many more (Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, &
Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013;
Wahlberg, 2016).
The Swedish city Kristianstad is a city that has succeeded in developing an attractive city
centre. An evidence of this is that they won an award for Sweden’s best city centre in
year 2014. Kristianstad received the award because of their infrastructure, the co-creation
between actors, that they manage to connect tradition to future, and that nature joins with
the urban agglomeration. Kristianstad has created a strong city centre both for residents
and visitors (Svenska Stadskärnor, 2017). However, even though it is currently going well
for Kristianstad, the city face challenges. After almost ten years of discussion within the
city, a new external shopping mall will open nearby a big motorway. This has already
caused consequences for the city centre, whereas an example of this is that a jewellery
shop has decided to move from the town centre to the upcoming external shopping mall.
The reason why the jewellery shop has decided to move is because the owners want to be
a part of the upcoming sales at the new shopping mall (Nilsson, 2017).
9
The assessment of Sweden’s best city centre of the year was conducted by a professional
jury and their evaluation was made on measurable results of Kristianstad’s development
(Svenska Stadskärnor, 2017). However, the assessment does not explain what is attractive
about the city centre from a consumer perspective, and neither if there is any difference
between residents’ and visitors’ perception. Therefore, it is of relevance to investigate
what city centre consumers find attractive in city centres, especially in Kristianstad.
The existing research within city centre attractiveness does not provide a clear answer of
what makes a city centre attractive from different consumers’ perspectives (Ezmale &
Litavniece, 2011). For that reason, the goal of this thesis is to provide a framework that
explains different attributes for city centre attractiveness. The framework will be applied
on consumers of Kristianstad’s city centre, and consist of city centre attributes suggested
from previous research within retail, place marketing, place attractiveness and city centre
attractiveness. Since Zenker (2011) mention that various consumer groups have different
preferences, a comparison between residents and visitors will be made in this study. By
researching this, a better understanding can be developed regarding what consumers find
as attractive attributes in a city centre, and if perceptions of the target groups differ. The
discussion above has resulted in the following research question.
1.2 Research question
Which attributes do consumers think contribute to city centres’ attractiveness, and do

residents and visitors differ in regard to satisfaction of city centres?
1.3 Research aim
The aim of this thesis is to develop a framework that explains different attributes for city
centre attractiveness, and explain if residents and visitors differ in regard to satisfaction
of city centres.
1.4 Outline
This thesis includes six chapters. The first chapter presents the problematisation, research
question, research aim and ends with a brief outline. The second chapter presents the
research method which is further divided in research philosophy, research approach,
10
choice of theory, choice of methodology and lastly a summary. The third chapter –
literature review – describe place marketing, place attractiveness, city centre
attractiveness, targeted groups and ends with a presentation of the framework and
hypotheses. The fourth chapter presents the empirical method which deals with the
research strategy, population, data collection method and operationalisation of control,
independent and dependent variables. Thereafter, a discussion is given regarding data
analysis, reliability, validity, generalisability and ethical considerations. The fifth chapter
gives an analysis of the collected empirical data and tests the hypotheses. The sixth and
final chapter of the thesis presents conclusions and discussions of the result, and ends
with limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
11
2. Research method
This chapter presents the chosen research method. This entails the research philosophy,
research approach, choice of theory and choice of methodology. The chapter ends with a
brief summary that explains the consistency between the different parts.
2.1 Research philosophy
When doing a research study, the researcher needs to take several methodological
considerations which support the study. Any research project should have consistency
between the purpose of the research, the research questions, the chosen methods and the
researcher’s personal philosophy (Crossan, 2003). Research philosophy is used to reveal
the study and how the context is viewed (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The philosophical level
of research can be explained by the most general features of the world, such as reality,
matter, mind, truth, proofs for knowledge and nature of knowledge (Crossan, 2003).
There are two major research philosophies that can be applied, namely positivism and
hermeneutics (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The chosen approach depends on the context of the
study, the researcher’s experiences and personal beliefs (Crossan, 2003).
For this thesis, a positivistic approach is adopted. From a positivistic viewpoint, the
pursuit of knowledge is to increase ability, and positivism is mainly characterised by a
quantitative approach since the research is done in an explaining context (Crossan, 2003;
Bryman & Bell, 2011). The aim of this study is to develop a framework that explains
different attributes for city centre attractiveness, and explain if residents and visitors differ
in regard to satisfaction of city centres. Hence, the purpose is in accordance with a
positivistic philosophy, namely to predict, generalise, explain and understand a specific
phenomenon (Holden & Lynch, 2004).
Based on a positivistic philosophy, the researchers imagine that the reality is an

independent construct and can therefore be explained in an objective and neutral way
(Crossan, 2003). To be able to explain the research context, the data must be collected
from an appropriate size and then generalised (Holden & Lynch, 2004). Positivistic
approaches have been criticised though, since it does not provide a profound insight into
human beings’ behaviour. The abstract exploration of human beings’ feelings is beyond
12
the scope of positivism, and the focus is on concrete, measurable, discernible and
objective data (Crossan, 2003).
2.2 Research approach
Research approach can be described as the interaction between theory and empirical data
within a study. There are three different research approaches; inductive, deductive and
abductive. Inductive and deductive is each other’s opposites, while abductive is a
combination of both (Lind, 2014; Alvehus, 2013).
A deductive research approach starts within the theories, formulate hypotheses, collect
data, detect findings, confirm or reject hypotheses and then the theory is revised (Bryman
& Bell, 2011). In this thesis, a deductive approach is preferable since previous theory and
research are applied to develop a framework that explains different attributes for city
centre attractiveness. The formulated hypotheses within a deductive approach are tested
mathematically to avoid subjectivity within the scientific knowledge (Crossan, 2003).
Extensive literature has been conducted within the field of city centre attractiveness, so a
deductive approach that starts within the theory is preferable and also embraced with a
positivistic research philosophy (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
2.3 Choice of theory
To support the field of this thesis, several relevant theories within marketing has been
used. The main theoretical field applied is place marketing, since the focus of this research
is in attractive places. However, in accordance with the developed framework and
formulated hypotheses, place marketing is further developed in the fields of place
attractiveness, city centre attractiveness and retail.
2.4 Choice of methodology
The choice of methodology is referred to the choice between quantitative and qualitative
methods (Crossan, 2003; Denscombe, 2016). A qualitative method is normally expressed
in pictures or words, whereas a quantitative approach presents numeric results. When
adopting a quantitative method, clear concepts are mostly desired. By having well defined
13
concepts, the researcher can concentrate on the developed indicators and therefore
constrict other independent observations (Denscombe, 2016).
The choice of method should be based on the research question and the resources
available (Allwood, 2012). In this study, a quantitative method is used. Extensive
research has been done within the field of place marketing, place attractiveness, city
centre attractiveness and retail, but this result in an abundance of different concepts. There
is also a gap within different target groups’ perceptions, which in this thesis refers to
residents and visitors. The study aims to fill this restriction and due to the time limit, the
research will be tested on a moderate scale. Observations, surveys, interviews and
documents are examples of collecting empirical data. The most appropriate method in
this study is a quantitative questionnaire, since the study aims to collect answers of a large
scale to be able to explain the context (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
2.5 Summary
of city centres. Thus, the research is grounded in a positivistic philosophy and is based
on a deductive approach. The empirical data will be collected through a quantitative form
of questionnaire due to the goal to capture a wide range of respondents. The basis of the
study is place marketing which is further developed in the fields place attractiveness, city
centre attractiveness and retail. Summing-up, this way of conducting the thesis is
preferable since it is a consistency between the purpose of the research, the research
question, methods chosen and the researchers personal philosophy (Crossan, 2003).
14
3. Literature review
In this chapter, the literature review is presented. The literature review is the base of the
research aim, namely to develop a framework that explains different attributes for city
of city centres. The chapter starts within the field of place marketing and continues to
place attractiveness as well as place attachment. Place attractiveness is further developed
into city centre attractiveness, which is one of the main fields in this thesis. The section
city centre attractiveness deals with six different articles where every scholar-group has
identified several factors that contributes to city centre attractiveness. Thereafter, an
explanation of residents’ and visitors’ different perceptions of a city centre is displayed.
Finally, in the end of the chapter, the developed framework is presented together with
formulated hypotheses.
3.1 Place marketing
Place marketing is not a new phenomenon and the field is highly researched (Niedomysl
& Jonasson, 2012). The desire is to differentiate places, and the government's endeavour
to develop a special place identity is “almost as old as the government itself” (Kavaratzis
& Ashworth, 2008, s. 151). Place marketing can be understood as:
[...] the coordinated use of marketing tools supported by a shared customer-oriented

philosophy, for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging urban
offerings that have value for the city’s customers and the city’s community at large
(Braun, 2008, s. 43).
A physical space is called a place when it has been given meaning by groups, cultural
processes or people (Florek & Insch, 2008). Places offer a wide range of functions and
services and are by nature very complex (Page & Hardyman, 1996; Hakinson, 2010).
They consist of various elements which could be classified in general categories, that can
be further divided between tangible and intangible parts. The tangible elements of a place
include a city’s culture, nightlife, shopping, infrastructure, housing or business parts,
while the intangible elements relate to the brand’s perceived personality, emotional
aspects or values (Zenker, 2011).
15
Some academics believe that a place can be seen as a product, and that traditional product
marketing might almost be the same as place marketing, just more physically extended.
Due to this, it is argued that similar marketing techniques can be applied both in product
marketing and place marketing (Kotler, Asplund, Rein, & Haider, 1999; Rein, Kotler, &
Haider, 1993). However, this assumption is highly criticized. Place marketing is a part of
a place’s management towards the pursuit of collective goals and is significantly different
and more complex than product marketing (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2008). According to
Florek, Insch & Gnoth (2006), places are rather being explained as mega-products
consisting of uniquely combined intangible and tangible sub-products. This mega-
product is divided by the markets a place target and the function that a place performs,
namely investment products, tourist products, residential products, educational products,
trade and services products, cultural products and social products (Florek, Insch, &
Gnoth, 2006).
Marketing of places (e.g. towns and cities) have received a lot of attention the last 20-30
years. One reason for this is the intensified competition between places and because of
this, places need to differentiate themselves. Places were subjected with more competition
during the 1990’s and due to this, a developing period within the literature occurred
(Warnaby & Medway, 2013). The aim of place marketing is to maximize the social and
economic functioning. The goal is to integrate with all potential customers and it could
therefore be explained as a customer-oriented approach (Zenker, 2011).
Today, it is crucial to have an attractive place, and branding is one tools for achieving this
(Källström, 2016). Therefore, place marketers need to focus on establishing the city as a
brand, since branding of cities has become important in recent years (Zenker, 2011;
Foroudi, Gupta, Kitchen, Foroudi, & Nguyen, 2016). Place branding is a concept
developed from place marketing which is seen as a sophisticated marketing technique
(Teller, Elms, Thomson, & Paddison, 2010). Place branding is described as “the process
whereby places are associated with wider desirable qualities as perceived by target
audiences” (Warnaby & Medway, 2013, s. 346).
Furthermore, Anholt (2010) describes that the key goal of place branding is to evolve a
place that is attractive in the mind of the human being. The aim is “to form a ‘unique
selling proposition’ that will secure visibility to the outside and reinforce ‘local identity’
16
to the inside” (Warnaby & Medway, 2013, s. 346). This will hopefully lead to the targeted
group and satisfy them (Zenker, 2011). Identifying oneself with a place brand has become
increasingly common. This encourage human beings to adopt a city’s positivity into their
self-image, which in turn enhances their self-esteem (Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2008). The
attractiveness of a place is therefore essential since it is strongly connected to satisfaction
towards the agglomeration, the share of visits and the share of spending (Teller & Elms,
2010).
3.2 Place Attractiveness
Attractiveness can be seen as a multi-faceted construct representing a variety of measures.

The term attractiveness in a place context can be understood as the consumers’ attitudes,
perceptions, and patronage behaviours which in turn pull or draw them to a particular
place (Teller & Elms, 2012). What is attractive in places has become of high relevance
for policy makers and city planners in order to enhance their competitiveness through a
flexible, adaptable and diverse local economic structure (Ezmale & Litavniece, 2011).
Urban public authorities and actors in the private sector have begun to focus on enhancing
the attractiveness of their location to attract future residents, tourists, conventioneers and
retail consumers (Florek, Insch, & Gnoth, 2006). To be successful, places need to create
an attractive agglomeration which is favourable or preferable for the consumers (Teller
& Reutterer, 2008). What makes a place attractive and satisfying from different
consumers’ perspectives differ, since urban uniqueness and attractiveness is different
depending on the consumers’ specific needs and activity characteristics (Zenker, 2011).
3.2.1 Place Attachment
As well as with people and objects, it is possible to create emotional ties with places. This
is referred to as place attachment, and Insch & Florek (2008) explain that there is a strong
relationship between satisfaction and attachment. If a consumer is satisfied with a place,
it could possibly lead to attachment (ibid).
Attachment theory investigates humans’ inclination to create affectionate connections

with others (Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, & Vrechopoulos, 2010). This attachment
does not only include person-to-person relationships, but also connection toward places,
17
companies and brands (Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, & Vrechopoulos, 2010).

Therefore, place attachment is a positive emotional and affective bonding between a
human and a particular place’s environment, for example a city, home or neighbourhood
(Johnson, Kim, Mee Mun, & Lee, 2015). Individuals evaluate a place by the level of
characteristics and qualities, which distinguishes one place from another (Shamsuddin &
Ujang, 2008).
Johnstone & Conroy (2008) explain that place attachment involves an exchange of
cognition (knowledge, belief and thought), practice (action and behaviour) and emotions
(feelings and affect). Moreover, place attachment can be divided into place dependence
and place identity. Place dependence refers to the functional attachment and reflects the
place’s features that meets desired activities. On the other hand, place identity relates to
the emotional attachment towards a place which gives meaning to life (Williams & Vaske,
2003). Johnson et al. (2015) support this by arguing that if an individual’s experience is
positive, an emotional linkage between the person and the place will occur. According to
Moore & Graefe (1994), this emotional linkage can be fulfilled already after one visit to
the particular place.
Distinctly, place attachment has for a long time been described as a constituent of self-
identity that increases self-esteem and feelings of belonging to a community (Williams
& Vaske, 2003). However, even though this is true, major literature focuses on place
attachment from a tourism perspective and the field therefore lacks insight regarding
places as retail environments (Johnson, Kim, Mee Mun, & Lee, 2015). Johnstone &
Conroy (2008) are one of a few who aimed to fill this gap. The retail environment is seen
as a “haven for social activity” (Johnstone & Conroy, 2008, s. 381) and many sociologists
agree that a retail environment is a social environment. The same way as individuals link
themselves to a product, they also link themselves to a specific location which in turn
might impact their behaviour as consumers (ibid). Many consumers will probably choose
a specific retail location due to the relationship towards a particular location, rather than
the relationship towards a product (Johnson, Kim, Mee Mun, & Lee, 2015).
18
3.3 City Centre Attractiveness
The European Urban Charter (1992) describes the ideal city as:
...one which succeeds in reconciling the various sectors and activities that take place
(traffic, living working and leisure requirements); which safeguards civic rights;
which ensures the best possible living conditions; which reflects and is responsive
to the lifestyles and attitudes of its inhabitants; where full account is taken of all
those who use it, who work or trade there, who visit it, who seek entertainment,
culture, information, knowledge, who study there.
Whereas this explains a city, Guy (1994, s. XVI) defines a city centre as “central to the
town as a whole, which… forms the most important retail area in the town… [and] also
serves a wider purpose as a business, cultural and entertainment focus for the
community”. The definition is expressed as retail being the major function. Warnaby,
Bennison, Davis & Hughes (2002) support this by arguing that retail is acknowledged as
a catalyst due to its importance toward urban economies. However, on the other hand,
Warnaby et al. (2002) also mention that a city centre agglomeration needs a mix of
leisure, civil, social and residential facilities. Well-developed retail schemes have the
possibility to rebrand the town, sustain housing and transport, diversify the leisure and
create qualitative public spaces (ibid).
Moreover, due to the increased competition between shopping malls and city centres, the
development of Town Centre Management (TCM) has occurred. TCM initiatives are
utilized to elaborate the overall attractiveness of city centres. Threat from alternative
urban areas is common nowadays and TCM is one primary tool for countering this threat.
Managing the retail environment is the main factor in TCM, although it has been
developed and utilized into more various circumstances (Warnaby & Medway, 2004). It
involves initiatives such as day-today maintenance, strategic contributions and economic
development of a town centre. These factors are important for the current situation of city
centres and for future success (McAteer & Stephens, 2011).
To be able to adapt TCM initiatives, one needs to know what is attractive within a city
centre. Scholars have identified many different attributes to what makes a city centre
attractive (Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, & W. Cadogan, 2013;
Weltevreden W.J. & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Wahlberg,
19
2016). To develop a view of the different factors, six various articles dealing with place
attractiveness and city centre attractiveness are presented below.
3.3.1 Teller & Elms (2010)
A city centre’s attractiveness is evaluated by customers’ preferences and experiences.

Attractiveness of a city centre is related to the customers share of spending, share of visits
and share of time. Each retail agglomeration is normally built upon specific attributes and
the attributes identified are; accessibility, parking conditions, tenant mix, product range,
merchandise value and sales personnel, atmosphere, orientation and infrastructural
facilities.
The first factor, accessibility, refers to the distance between the home or workplace, and
the retail agglomeration. The distance between these places need to be convenient and
the city centre should be easy and quick to reach. Accessibility also refers to obstacles
along the way, for instance frequencies of buses or trains, traffic jams and roadworks.
This factor has proven to be crucial for the city centre attractiveness and the customer’s
choice of shopping place.
Secondly, parking conditions is another important attribute. A shopping trip many times
includes several different purposes, which results in automobiles as a preferred means of
transport. The type of parking facilities and the availability of free parking spaces at the
time of a customer’s shopping trip, is of great importance towards a convenient
accessibility to the retail agglomeration.
Thirdly, the factor tenant mix refers to the mix of retail and non-retail composition within
a city centre. More distinctly, tenant mix includes facilities such as eateries, bars and
entertainment. A great variety of these mixed facilities increase the possibilities to satisfy
the customers’ needs and wants within a city centre. A mix of tenants within the city
centre creates a type of “cumulative attraction” for customers, and therefore the role of
retail can be considered as the main core contributing to city centre attractiveness.
The fourth factor consists of product range, merchandise value and sales personnel. The
first mentioned attributes refer to the retail offer within an agglomeration, more distinctly
the breadth and width of retail stores, the price-value ratio of products offered, overall
20
price level and price promotions. The last attribute, sales personnel, explains the
salespeoples’ competencies, friendliness and supportiveness. Taken together, product
range, merchandise value and sales personnel are related to the previous factor tenant
mix. This because they contribute to not only the retail stores, but the attractiveness of
the agglomeration as a whole.
The fifth presented attribute contributing to the attractiveness of an agglomeration, is

atmosphere. Atmosphere consists of olfactory, auditory, tactile and visual stimuli
confronting the customer within a retail agglomeration. More specifically, atmosphere
include factors such as cleanliness, light, air, temperature and architecture. These factors
are perceived by the consumers as an atmosphere which directly affect their shopping
behaviour positively.
Finally, orientation and infrastructural facilities represent the last attribute affecting city
centre attractiveness. This factor is based on the convenience of locating, searching and
accessing retail and non-retail within a city centre, which relates to previous discussed
mix of tenants and the ease of orientation within a city centre. Infrastructural facilities are
also related since customers need to have as few obstacles as possible that inhibits them
to reach the location. Specifically, it refers to availability of washrooms, recreational
areas and ATM:s. Thereby, orientation and infrastructural facilities influence the
customers’ evaluation of a city centre’s attractiveness (Teller & Elms, 2010).
3.3.2 Öner (2017)
One major element that affects place attractiveness is the accessibility to shops. A good
retail environment does not only attract residents, but also visitors, which positively affect
the local economy. Retail shops contribute to a city’s overall attractiveness, since shops
can be seen as a good. Customers do not always have the intention to purchase anything,
they maybe just want to enjoy the shops from the outside street.
However, it is not just shopping that determines place attractiveness. Öner (2017)
explains that the key factors for place attractiveness are based on a few crucial elements
of a city; labour market, architecture, public services, cultural infrastructure, service
sector and shops. Additionally, another aspect that contributes to place attractiveness is
the natural amenities of a place such as open space, parks and green areas, urban forest,
21
farmlands and water covers.
3.3.3 Hart, Stachow & Cadogan (2013)
Customers evaluate a retail environment through physical and cognitive attributes, as well
as through their emotions, senses and relationship with the current place. Several image
aspects contribute to the attractiveness of a town centre. Hart et al. (2013) present 28
different, namely; range/quality of shops, range/quality of goods, price/value,
style/fashion, size, structure and design layout, shopping hours, personnel/service quality,
location/traffic/travel convenience, parking, ease of internal movement/compactness,
crowding, visual appearance, buildings/landscaping, activities/special events,
advertising/promotions, atmosphere, busy, cleanliness, old/new, personal/friendly,
lighting, temperature, safety, self-image congruency, refreshment/comfort
areas/facilities, place to spend time/take children and non-retail functions.
Town centres are complex and how the customers experience them are crucial. By
grouping them together, the authors develop the following functions; public services,
retail and non-retail functions including education, employment, housing, health,
entertainment and leisure. Town centres provide an interesting and diverse shopping
experience due to specific characteristics like themed areas and historical buildings. The
authors continuing by stating that town centres are more than just a shopping location.
These places are many times personal for consumers through familiarity and habituation
(Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
3.3.4 Weltervreden & Rietbergen (2007)
Weltervreden & Rietbergen (2007) have in their research distinguished four factors which
contribute to the city centre attractiveness. The first factor is the characteristic
environment which often contains the historical aspects of the city, namely ambience.
Secondly, the concentration of a large variety of functions other than shopping are of
importance, such as restaurants, theatres, museums and so on. The third factor is the
number and different varieties of shops. Finally, the fourth factor is the degree of
patronage.
22
Shopping is the main attribute in Weltervreden & Rietbergen’s (2007) research. They
distinguish the following dimensions of attraction: the physical attractiveness of shops
(both internally and externally), the range of goods on offer in the shops, the service
component of the retail offer, the relative accessibility of the shopping location to the
targeted consumers and consumer attitudes towards the attractiveness of the general
environment of the city centre as a shopping location (Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen,
2007).
3.3.5 Zenker, Peterson & Aholt (2013)
Zenker et al. (2013) present four categories of items that are of importance for consumers’
satisfaction with a place; urbanity and diversity, nature and recreation, job opportunities
and cost-efficiency. Within these various categories, a number of subcategories are listed.
The category of urbanity and diversity contain subcategories such as a wide range of
cultural activities, a variety of shopping opportunities, many different cultures and
subcultures, the energy and atmosphere of the city, availability of different services, the
urban image of the city and lastly openness and tolerance of the city. In the second
category, nature and recreation, the authors mention factors such as nature and public
green area, environmental quality (low pollution), a number of parks and open spaces, a
wide range of outdoor-activities, tranquillity of the place, cleanness of the city and access
to water front. The third category is job opportunities and this include factors such as the
general level of wages, good job and promotion opportunities, general economic growth
of the particular region and professional networks in the city. Finally, the fourth category
is cost-efficiency and this contains factors such as housing market/cost of hiring, the
general price level in the city/costs of living and availability of apartments and houses
(Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013).
3.3.6 Wahlberg (2016)
Wahlberg (2016) describes city centres as a composition of social, economic and physical
environments. The social environment is perceived as routing and frequency of buses,
attendance of police and “hassle-free” shopping. The economic environment entails
attributes like parking costs and number of shops according to price level, whereas the
23
physical environments involve elements such as number and location of bus stops,
priority lanes for buses, car parking and cleanliness of places.
More distinctly, Wahlberg (2016) identify several factors contributing to the

attractiveness of a city centre. The first factor is the ambient conditions and this includes
cleanliness, safety, lighting, buildings’ colour and noising. The second factor that
contributes to city centre attractiveness is the external layout and design. This category
includes parking and public transport, streets maintenance, historic and artistic heritage
maintenance, buildings and street furniture appearance, easiness to get around and shop
windows appearance. The third factor is the internal design and this factor includes the
shops’ style and design, shops’ functionality as well as bars’ and restaurants’ style and
design. The fourth factor is entertainment such as theatres and cinemas, and the fifth
factor is style as well as comfort. Finally, the sixth factor contributing to city centres
attractiveness is social factors such as friendliness and competence, look and appearance
of personnel, free time opportunities, crowded streets and business shop hours (Wahlberg,
2016).
3.4 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors

A summary of the scholars’ different attributes is presented in table 3.1 below. Some
factors and sub-factors use the same expression as the scholars do, whereas some are
summarised and own-formulated for this study. Since this study aims to develop
framework that explains city centre attractiveness, a delimitation must be made.
Attributes considered as city attributes and not city centre attributes, are excluded. Some
of them are housing market/cost of hiring, the general price level in the city/costs of living
and availability of apartments and houses. However, the factors considered to be relevant
are presented in table 3.1.
24
Table 3.1 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors
Factor Sub-factors Authors

Retail Variety of shopping-stores (Teller & Elms, 2010)
Number of shopping-stores (Öner, 2017)
Opening hours (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013)
(Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007)
(Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013)
(Wahlberg, 2016)
Accessibility Parking (Teller & Elms, 2010)
Public transportation (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013)
Simplicity to move around (Wahlberg, 2016)
Amusement Restaurants (Teller & Elms, 2010)
Supply of entertainment (Öner, 2017)
Nightlife (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013)
(Wahlberg, 2016)
Activities Permanent events (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013)
Temporary events (2013)
Casual trading areas (Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013)
Atmosphere Nature (Teller & Elms, 2010)
Architecture (Öner, 2017)
Ambience (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013)
(Wahlberg, 2016)
3.5 Target groups
The summarised factors and sub-factors presented in table 3.1, have indeed a great impact
on city centre attractiveness. However, what is identified is that some of the scholars do
not address to any specific target group (Teller & Elms, 2010; Hart, Stackow, & W.
Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden W.J. & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt,
2013). Moreover, Wahlberg’s (2016) study is conducted on visitors, while Öner (2017)
mentions residents and visitors as target groups but does not separate them in the research.
It is crucial to understand who the place users are and understand that they differ (Teller,
Elms, Thomson, & Paddison, 2010). Obviously, a place cannot be “perfect” and equally
appealing to all groups in society; residents, visitors, young, elderly and so on (Sinkien
& Kromalcas, 2010). A place, or more distinctly a city, that wants to improve its
attractiveness needs to know which target group of the city they want to reach. The choice
will have a significant impact on the development and communication of specific
25
attractive city characteristics. Strengthening a city’s attractive attributes is a long-term

and continuous process (Sinkien & Kromalcas, 2010).
According to Zenker, Braun & Petersen (2017), establishing a place brand means
targeting both visitors and residents, which is quite difficult. There is a difference between
residents’ and visitors’ perception of a place, not at least their requirements and their
opinions regarding city centre attractiveness (Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012). According to
Zenker & Martin (2011), there are three main target groups for place marketers; visitors,
residents and business & industry. This can be seen in figure 3.1, where each group is
divided into different subcategories (Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012). This thesis will focus
on visitors’ and residents’ perception of city centre attractiveness, and therefore, no
deeper explanation is given regarding the third target group – business & industry.
Visitors is divided into two different groups; business and leisure time visitors. Residents
is also divided into separate groups; internal (the current residents) and external (potential
residents). In turn, these two groups contain the creative class, skilled workforce and
students. The needs and demands of a place differ within all these different groups
(Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012). However, this study will use the target groups visitors and
residents without any further division, so all subgroups within visitors and residents are
included.
Figure 3.1 Different target groups

(Source: Zenker & Martin, 2011)
26
3.5.1 Residents
Residents are strategically the most valued segment of those targeted by place marketing
practitioners (Sarău, 2015). Place marketing has been used as a method to seduce
residents from the outside to settle in a community (Hospers, 2010). When competing for
residents, cities focus on building a strong and favourable identity to strengthen the
current residents’ identification with the place (Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013).
To attract residents, urban planners must meet the expectations and needs both for current
and potential residents (Sarău, 2015). The potential and current residents of a city are
searching for an attractive living environment (Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012), which could
include factors such as safety, access to good quality public services and balanced social
structure (Ezmale & Litavniece, 2011).
However, research in this context is often related to why residents choose to live in a
specific city. Little research clarifies exactly why residents choose to visit the city centre
or what they find attractive in the city centre. Research emphasize that there are
differences of what consumers experience as attractive attributes in a city centre (Ryan &
Aicken, 2010), but fails to distinct exactly what these attributes are. Since the city centres
play such a crucial role for the economic health of cities, it is important to know what
drives residents to visit (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
3.5.2 Visitors
Visitors are the other investigated target group. Zenker (2013) mention that atmosphere,
nightlife, entertainment, shopping, outdoor event and cultural activities are valuable
attributes for visitors in a city centre. Warnaby et al. (2004) develop this by mention shops
and restaurants as main attractions for visitors. Wahlberg (2016) supports this statement
and claims that a variety of retail is valued most by visitors of small city centres, followed
by the offerings of events and activities, and the atmosphere of the physical environment.
Öner (2017) adds on to this by stating that the concentration of shops in a market attracts
visitors from other places (similar to touristic attractions).
Moreover, Jiang, Ramkissoon & Mavondo (2015) argue that a crucial element in what is
attractive for visitors is “fun”. Fun reflects the hedonic dimension of consumption
27
because it relates to experimental, aesthetic and enjoyment-associated benefits (Jiang,

Ramkissoon, & Mavondo, 2015). Ezmale & Litavniece (2011) also point out that
convenience and easy communication is of high relevance. Both conflicts and synergies
arise between the needs and wants of different stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to
use brand communication for a city’s different and diverse target groups (Tsiotsou &
Goldsmith, 2012).
3.6 Theoretical framework
Previous research within the field of retail, place marketing, place attractiveness and city
centre attractiveness has led to the development of a model. All the previous mentioned
factors summarised in table 3.1 are now presented in figure 3.2. The aim of this thesis is
partly to develop a framework which is now presented below and called The R and A: s
model of city centre attractiveness. Each factor – retail, accessibility, amusement,
activities and atmosphere – are developed through the literature review, which will be
further explained and coupled with hypotheses.
Figure 3.2 The R and A:s model of city centre attractiveness
28
3.6.1 Residents and visitors
Since the aim of this thesis is to develop a framework that explains different attributes for
city centre attractiveness, and explain if residents and visitors differ in regard to
satisfaction of city centres, one needs to develop an understanding of the target groups.
Different target groups have different requirements (Zenker, 2011), and in order for
municipalities to attract residents and visitors, they need to understand how to satisfy each
group. The reason for choosing these target groups, is because previous research mention
that their perceptions of a place differ (Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012; Sinkien &
Kromalcas, 2010). However, the context lacks substantial evidence and therefore, it is of
interest to further investigate. The hypotheses that will be tested are:
H1a: Residents and visitors are differently satisfied with the retail in Kristianstad
city centre.
H1b: Residents and visitors are differently satisfied with the accessibility in
Kristianstad city centre.
H1c: Residents and visitors are differently satisfied with the amusement in
H1d: Residents and visitors are differently satisfied with the activities in
H1e: Residents and visitors are differently satisfied with the atmosphere in
3.6.2 Retail
Retail is chosen as a factor to the framework since all the scholars listed in table 3.1 states
its relevance for city centre attractiveness (Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart,
Stackow, & W. Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden W.J. & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker,
Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016). However, the various scholars refer to retail
in different words. Teller & Elms (2010) refer to it as product range, merchandise value
and sales personnel, whereas Öner (2017) chose to call it shops. Moreover, shopping
hours as well as range and quality of goods and shops are attributes concerning retail
(Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). Weltervreden et al. (2007) explain number and
variety of shops which is similar to Zenker et al.’s (2013) description, namely shopping
opportunities. Finally, Wahlberg (2016) use the factors shops’ functionality as well as
shops’ style and design, which can be summed as retail. Therefore, the constructed
hypothesis is:
29
H2: The better the retail, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness.
3.6.3 Accessibility
Accessibility is another well-studied factor which several academics has included as an

important factor for city centre’s attractiveness (Teller & Elms, 2010; Hart, Stackow, &
Cadogan, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016). Teller & Elms (2010) use the expression namely
accessibility as well as ease of orientation within a city centre. Hart et al. (2013) mention
parking as important as well as location, traffic, travel convenience and ease of internal
movement, whereas Wahlberg (2016) takes up public transport and easiness to get around
within the city centre. The hypothesis that will be tested is the following:
H3: The better the accessibility, the more positive impact on city centre
attractiveness.
3.6.4 Amusement
Amusement is, according to all scholars listed in table 3.1, a significant important
attribute for city centres (Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, & W.
Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden W.J. & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt,
2013; Wahlberg, 2016). Teller & Elms (2010) use the word tenant mix, which refers to
non-retail compositions such as eateries, bars, and entertainment, whereas Öner (2017)
explains it as service sector. Hart et al. (2013) also use the expression non-retail and refer
to entertainment and leisure. Entertainment includes theatres, bars, clubs, nightlife,
whereas leisure includes visitor attractions, workplaces, sport venues and administrative
functions (ibid).
Furthermore, another way of explaining amusement within a city centre is by the large
variety of functions other than shopping, which is explained as theatres, museums and
restaurants (Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007). Zenker et al. (2013) use the
expression availability of different services as well as entertainment and nightlife,
whereas Wahlberg (2016) explains amusement as bars’ and restaurants’ style and design
as well as theatres and cinemas. The following hypothesis will be tested:
H4: The better the amusement, the more positive impact on city centre
attractiveness.
30
3.6.5 Activities
Hart et al. (2013) explain activities and special events as important for a city centre,
whereas Zenker et al. (2013) mention out-door activities as well as range of cultural
activities. The other authors listed in table 3.1 do not mention this as a part of a city
centre’s attractiveness. Despite that, the factor activities are considered as relevant to
include since this study has a broad view and includes research within place marketing as
well. The constructed hypothesis for activities is the following:
H5: The better the activities, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness.
3.6.6 Atmosphere
The atmosphere within a city centre is important for its attractiveness (Teller & Elms,
2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, & W. Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden W.J. & Van
Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016). Teller & Elms
(2010) use the same expression as this thesis, namely atmosphere. Öner (2017) explains
open spaces, parks and green areas as important characteristics. The overall atmosphere,
buildings and landscaping, cleanliness, lightning, visual appearance and personal/friendly
are more important attributes (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). Weltervreden et al.
(2007) explain that the environment or ambience of a city centre is crucial, and this is
normally referred to historical buildings within the city. According to Zenker et al. (2013)
nature and public green areas, parks and open spaces as well as urban image is of
importance. Finally, Wahlberg (2016) agrees on the importance of buildings and
cleanliness, but add the attributes street furniture and streets maintenance. The following
hypothesis will be tested:
H6: The better the atmosphere, the more positive impact on city centre
attractiveness.
3.6.7 Summary hypotheses
To sum up, the hypotheses that will be tested are:
31
city centre.
attractiveness.
attractiveness.
attractiveness.
32
4. Empirical method
The thesis empirical method is presented in this section. Firstly, the research strategy is
displayed followed by an explanation of the population and the data collection. Next the
operationalisation of the study’s dependent, independent and control variables is
presented. In the end of the chapter, it is explained how the data analysis will be conducted
and there is also a discussion of the reliability, validity, generalisability and ethical
considerations of the research.
4.1 Research strategy
Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2009) explain research strategy as “the general plan of how
the researcher will go about answering the research questions” (p. 698), whereas Bryman
& Bell (2011) identify it as “a general orientation to the conduct of research” (p. 26). An
appropriate research process should be based on the research questions and objectives,
the existing knowledge within the research field, the amount of resources and time, and
the researcher’s philosophical level (Wedawatta, Ingirige, & Amaratunga, 2011).
Various research strategies exist but many of them overlap each other. A presentation of
different strategies can be explained through grounded theory, cross sectional study, case
study, ethnography, survey, experiment, action research and ethnography (Bryman &
Bell, 2011). This thesis has a survey strategy, which is suitable since it aims to develop a
broad view of the context and involve many relevant respondents. A survey is possible to
execute with face to face questionnaires and then statistically analyse the outcome, which
is in accordance to the method of this thesis (Denscombe, 2016). However, the research
strategy does not only consist of the above explanation, but also the research process.
The research process of this thesis started within the literature which formed our research
project. The scientific articles used have mainly been received from Summon@HKR,
Google Scholar and Lub Search. Summon@HKR is Kristianstad University’s search
engine which is available for personnel and students, whereas Lub Search is Lund
University’s. The key words used when searching for relevant theory were ‘place
marketing’, ‘place branding’, ‘place attractiveness’, ‘city centre attractiveness’ and ‘retail
33
agglomeration’. The different searches were combined with other applicable terms, such
as ‘attachment’, ‘satisfaction’, ‘experience’, ‘residents’ and ‘visitors’.
To attain a strong validity, while searching for literature, our focus has been on peer-
reviewed articles. The articles coming from other sources have been critically judged
before used. This gives a base with high quality which is preferable to show the credibility
of the research. Additionally, not only articles within the study’s context has been used,
but also sources regarding methodological aspects as well as a few popular science
articles.
4.2 Population
The study was conducted on consumers in the Swedish city centre Kristianstad.
Kristianstad was chosen since the city is a good example of a city that has managed to
create a strong city centre for both residents and visitors (Svenska Stadskärnor, 2017).
The reason for choosing residents and visitors as target groups was because this specific
context lacks research and there is no clear distinction between what these two target
groups find as attractive in a city centre. Residents are referred to as people living within
the municipality of Kristianstad, whereas visitors are referred to as people travelling from
other cities or villages. The chosen respondents are considered as relevant respondents
since they were in Kristianstad city centre at the time of the survey (Denscombe, 2016).
The study aimed to receive 100 answers, evenly distributed between residents and
visitors.
4.3 Data collection method
The primary data for this research was collected through a face to face questionnaire.
Denscombe (2016) describes that a common way to execute face to face surveys is by
asking people on the street. Face to face interviews, or in this case questionnaires, make
it easier to persuade people to answer and it also enable the frequency of response. The
researchers can continue to catch respondents until the goal of respondents is reached
(Denscombe, 2016).
To reach as many residents and visitors as possible, we were positioned in the city centre
on five separate occasions. This was done in the hope to catch a variety of different
34
consumers, and because people of different age groups and place of residence might be
present in the city centre on different days and times. Therefore, the data collection
method had a convenience sampling technique. When doing street interviews,
“respondents are selected because they happen to be in the right place at the right time”
(Malhotra & Birks, 2007, s. 363). Convenience sampling is time-consuming and the
definitive sample units are accessible, cooperative and easy to measure (ibid).
When positioned in the city centre, we stopped people and asked them to answer the
questionnaire. If they were able to do that, we verbally asked questions and filled the
questionnaire to the respondents. Denscombe (2016) explain that the researcher should
be aware about the respondents’ time and inform them how long time it will take to
answer the questionnaire. Since many people might be in a rush, the time of each
questionnaire was restricted to maximum 5 minutes. A summary of the data collection
process is presented in table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary of data collection process
Date Day Time Number of respondents

2nd May Tuesday 0945–1200 17
3rd May Wednesday 1100–1600 25
4th May Thursday 945–1400 17
6th May Saturday 1045–1800 24
10th May Wednesday 930-1400 17
4.4 Operationalisation
Bryman & Bell (2011) define operationalisation as the process where the researcher
transforms concepts into measures. To provide measures of the chosen concepts, different
indicators are used (ibid). The data variables are based on opinion variables which
determine how the respondent think or feel about an object or situation (Dillman, Smyth,
& Christian, 2008). Below is a discussion of the indicators separated in control variables,
self-assessment questions, independent and dependent variables. The full questionnaire
in English is presented in appendix 1 and since the survey was executed in Swedish, there
is also a Swedish version of the questionnaire, see appendix 2.
35
4.4.1 Control variables
A control variable is held constant to clarify the relationship between independent and
dependent variables (Denscombe, 2016). The control variables used in this study are
place of residence, gender, age, postcode and frequency of visits.
4.4.1.1 Place of residence
According to the research aim, a crucial control question was to ask is if the respondent
lives in Kristianstad municipality. Residents and visitors perceive a place in different
ways and have different requirements of a city centre (Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012;
Zenker, 2011). It is highly relevant to investigate their actual opinions to protect
Kristianstad city centre’s attractiveness as a shopping place. Asking if the respondents
live in Kristianstad municipality or not will enable a comparison between residents and
visitors.
4.4.1.2 Gender
Gender is another included control variable. Gender highlights if there is any difference
in the perceptions between males and females. Gender is found to have a role in the level
of survey response, where females respond more than males (Porter & Whitcomb, 2005).
The goal is to ask both women and men to answer the questionnaire but the response may
vary. Gender is used as a control variable since males and females might have different
opinions. By including gender, it enables to statistically test if there are any differences
between them or not.
4.4.1.3 Age
According to Porter & Whitcomb (2005), age may as well as gender have an impact on
the response rate. Year of birth is asked to see if age has an impact on how satisfied the
consumers are with Kristianstad city centre. The goal is to get a variety of ages from 18
and above. Children will not be asked since they are considered as too young to answer
several questions. Moreover, it is easy to assume that senior citizens (65 years and above)
and youths (29 years and below) are in different stages in life and might have different
requirements. Therefore, as well as gender, age is included as a control variable since it
enables to statistically test if there are any differences between different age groups.
36
4.4.1.4 Postcode
Collecting the respondents’ postcode does not only enable to see differences between
residents and visitors, but also differences between people living in Northeast Skåne, the
rest of Skåne, the rest of Sweden and foreign countries. Their satisfaction with
Kristianstad city centre might depend on how far they have travelled. Different groupings
will therefore be included to test if any statistical significance can be determined.
4.4.1.5 Frequency of visits
Teller and Elms (2010) explain that attractiveness of a place is strongly connected to the
share of visits, in other words how often the consumer visits the specific city centre.
Therefore, this study includes frequency of visits as a control variable to see how often
the consumers visit Kristianstad city centre. Frequency of visits can be further tested to
see if consumers’ satisfaction depends on how often they visit Kristianstad city centre.
4.4.2 Self-assessment
Half the questionnaire asks how important the consumers generally think different
attributes in a city centre are. The attributes are the same as in the framework, namely
retail, accessibility, amusement, activities, atmosphere and city centre attractiveness. The
questions are asked to get an understanding of what the respondents themselves think are
important attributes in a city centre. The outcome will only be presented as descriptive
statistics and not further tested. However, hopefully some interesting findings can be
identified and connected with how satisfied they are with Kristianstad city centre.
The questions are constructed with a seven-point Likert scale. The reason for the choice
of a seven-point Likert scale, is because the recommended rating scale is between five
and seven points (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Pallant (2013) mention that a question should
have as many choices of responses as possible, since it increases the statistical analysis.
Number one means not important at all, while number seven means very important.
Retail
• How important is it for you with a variety of shopping-stores in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with a great number of shopping-stores in a city
centre?
• How important is it for you with common opening hours in a city centre?
37
Accessibility
• How important is it for you with good parking possibilities in a city centre?
• How important is it for you that public transportation works well to a city
centre?
• How important is it for you with a simplicity to move around in a city centre?
Amusement
• How important is it for you with a broad offer of restaurants and cafés in a city
centre?
• How important is it for you with a good nightlife in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with a broad offer of entertainment in a city centre?
Activities
• How important is it for you with permanent events in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with temporary events in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with casual trading areas in a city centre?
Atmosphere
• How important is it for you with a nice intangible ambience in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with a nice architecture in a city centre?
• How important is it for you with nature and parks in a city centre?
4.4.3 Independent variables
An independent variable does not change by other variables, but it causes changes in the
dependent variable (Denscombe, 2016). There are five independent variables in this
study; retail, accessibility, amusement, activities and atmosphere. Each question is
constructed with a seven-point Likert scale where number one is not satisfied at all, while
number seven is very satisfied.
4.4.3.1 Retail
Retail is a crucial part for city centres’ attractiveness (Warnaby, Bennison, Davies, &
Hughes, 2002; Evans, 1997; Teller & Elms, 2010; Öner, 2017; Hart, Stackow, &
Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013;
Wahlberg, 2016), and therefore the respondents are asked questions connected to retail.
First, a question regarding variety of shopping-stores is asked since it is considered as a
part of the retail context. Second, the number of shopping-stores is also asked due to its
impact in a retail enivornment (Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007). Third, common
opening hours might also play a crucial role for consumers, and is therefore included
(Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013).
38
• How satisfied are you with the variety of shopping-stores in Kristianstad city
centre?
• How satisfied are you with the number of shopping-stores in Kristianstad city
centre?
• How satisfied are you with the opening hours in Kristianstad city centre?
4.4.3.2 Accessibility
Accessibility will be measured through parking conditions, public transportation and

simplicity to move around. Parking conditions have shown to have an impact on the
satisfaction with accessibility (Teller & Elms, 2010; Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013;
Wahlberg, 2016) as well as public transportation (Teller & Elms, 2010; Wahlberg, 2016).
Lastly, simplicity to move around within a city centre is also measured (Wahlberg, 2016;
Teller & Elms, 2010). Simplicity to move around refers to the availability of pavements,
bicycle lanes and carriageways.
• How satisfied are you with the parking possibilities in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the public transportation in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the simplicity to move in Kristianstad city centre?
4.4.3.3 Amusement
The variable amusement is measured by the offering of restaurants and cafés, supply of
entertainment and nightlife. Restaurants and cafés are considered as a part of the
amusement within a city centre (Teller & Elms, 2010; Wahlberg, 2016). Moreover,
Zenker et al. (2013) include nightlife as a measurement to amusement. Different offers
of entertainment, such as cinema, bowling and theatre, are also crucial to attract
consumers (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013; Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013;
Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Wahlberg, 2016).
• How satisfied are you with the offer of restaurants and cafés in Kristianstad city
centre?
• How satisfied are you with the nightlife in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the offer of entertainment in Kristianstad city centre?
4.4.3.4 Activities
Activities can be considered as many different things, but this study chose to express it
as permanent events, temporary events and casual trading areas. Hart et al. (2013) and
Zenker et al. (2013) do not express it more than activities/special events and outdoor-
39
activities. Since this study is conducted in Sweden and more distinctly in Kristianstad,
activities appropriate in this context are used.
Permanent events refer to activities such as art and museum exhibitions. Kristianstad is
known for having art exhibitions in the city centre several times a year (Regionmuseet
Kristianstad, 2017). Temporary events are activities such as music festivals and holiday
festivities that occur yearly. Casual trading areas are an important and historic activity in
Swedish towns (Blom, 2017), and this is therefore an important element to consider in
this study.
• How satisfied are you with the permanent activities in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the temporary events in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the casual trading areas in Kristianstad city centre?
4.4.3.5 Atmosphere
Atmosphere is both measured through tangible features and intangible features.

Intangible features refer to factors such as cleanliness, lightning, visual appearance of the
city and friendliness (Teller & Elms, 2010; Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013). Tangible
features involve questions about architecture as well as nature and parks (Öner, 2017;
Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan, 2013; Weltevreden & Van Rietbergen, 2007; Zenker,
Petersen, & Aholt, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016).
• How satisfied are you with the intangible ambience in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the architecture in Kristianstad city centre?
• How satisfied are you with the nature and parks in Kristianstad city centre?
4.4.4 Dependent variable
A dependent variable depends on other factors and changes when other variables change
(Denscombe, 2016). This study has city centre attractiveness as a dependent variable.
City centre attractiveness was measured by three questions regarding the overall
satisfaction, attractiveness and attachment towards Kristianstad city centre. As well as the
questions for the self-assessment questions and independent variables, each question is
constructed with a seven-point Likert scale (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Pallant, 2013).
40
4.4.4.1 City centre attractiveness
Satisfaction with Kristianstad city centre was the first factor used to measure city centre
attractiveness. Zenker et al. (2013) measure city centre attractiveness through satisfaction,
which can be further explained as commitment and attachment towards a place.
Attractiveness is the second measurement, which enables to discover how attractive the
consumers think Kristianstad city centre is. Town Centre Management (TCM) is utilized
to elaborate the attractiveness of city centres and counter threat from other shopping
alternatives (Warnaby & Medway, 2004; McAteer & Stephens, 2011). To use TCM as a
useful tool, the first step should be to find out if the consumers think the city centre is
attractive or not.
The third measurement is attachment. Attachment to a certain place can be explained both
through functional and emotional features. Functional attachment refers to a place’s
features that meet desired activities, whereas emotional attachment refers to a place’s
identity which gives meaning to life (Williams & Vaske, 2003). If an individual has a
positive experience of a place, it can create an emotional linkage between the individual
and the place (Johnson, Kim, Mee Mun, & Lee, 2015). The consumers’ attachment
towards Kristianstad city centre might show their tendency to stay if they are a resident,
and their tendency to come back if they are a visitor.
Each question has the intention to measure the respondents’ overall belief and should not
be connected to any specific factor mentioned earlier. The questions asked are:
• How satisfied are you with Kristianstad city centre?
• How attractive do you think Kristianstad city centre is?
• How attached are you to Kristianstad city centre?
4.5 Data analysis
To analyse the collected empirical data, the statistical computer program SPSS will be
used. Firstly, to show the internal reliability, a Cronbach’s Alpha and a factor analysis
will be executed. Secondly, an independent samples t-test is used to identify differences
between residents and visitors, and thereby test hypotheses 1a-1e. Thirdly, a Pearson
correlation matrix will be executed to see the strength between the variables. Fourthly, a
41
multiple linear regression will be done to test the remaining hypotheses 2-6. A statistical
significance of p < .05 indicates that the hypotheses are accepted.
4.6 Reliability
Bryman & Bell (2011, s. 158) explain reliability as “the consistency of a measure of a
concept”. According to Lind (2014), a measurement result will always be identical if the
measures and indicators are reliable. Three factors determine the reliability, namely
stability of the measure, internal reliability and inter-observer consistency (Bryman &
Bell, 2011).
The stability of the measure should provide an exact similar result if retested, supposing
a high correlation between the first and the following tests. A retest from the collected
measurements will not be done in this research due to the limited time. Internal reliability
signals whether the indicators measure the same concept or not, which is significant when
using a questionnaire as a data collection method. To test the internal reliability, the
Cronbach´s Alpha test will be executed. Bryman & Bell (2011) continues by explaining
inter-observer consistency as the sum of correspondence between the judgements of two
separate observers. According to this thesis, it is a low risk of having problems with
subjective judgements due to the empirical data collection method (ibid).
4.7 Validity
Validity explains if the used measurements mirror the studied phenomenon (Lind, 2014;
Bryman & Bell, 2011). Bryman & Bell (2011) describe that validity can be determined
in five different ways. Firstly, validity can be determined by letting an expert or a person
with knowledge within the field, check the measurement. In this research, it was not
possible to test the measurement due to the time restriction. However, to face some
validity, the questionnaire was checked by our supervisor who is considered as an expert
within the fields of this study (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Secondly, using a concurrent validity is another way of validating the measurement.

Concurrent validity can be explained as a measure of how a specific test correlates with
a previously validated measure. This study adopts concurrent validity by comparing the
42
results with previous results of city centre attractiveness. If the results do not correspond,
there might be something inaccurate (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Thirdly, a future criterion can be used to give a measurement validity. However, due to
the limited time, future criterion is not applicable in this study. Moreover, the fourth way
is to provide a measurement with convergent validity. Convergent validity is also
excluded in this thesis since it would require a longer research period. Finally, the fifth
way to determine validity within the research, is to formulate hypotheses based on
relevant literature for the different concepts used. This is the main test of validity within
this thesis, since the created hypotheses are based on previous research within the fields
(Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Another important validity dimension in this thesis, is that face to face questionnaires
provide greater opportunities to validate the data. The researcher can evaluate if the
person asked is credible and contributes with reliable information (Denscombe, 2016).
4.8 Generalisability
Generalisability is the main component of external validity and measures if the findings
of a study are applicable in other fields. If a study’s population is restricted, the result gets
hard to generalise (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Since this study is concentrated in the Swedish
city centre Kristianstad, the generalisability is limited. The part that examines how
satisfied consumers are with Kristianstad city centre is of course restricted to that specific
city. However, the other part that examines which features that consumers perceive as
important in city centres might be generalised and used in other Swedish city centres.
4.9 Ethical considerations
The chosen method in this study was verbal face-to-face questionnaires, where the
authors were physically positioned in the city centre of Kristianstad. Consumers of the
city centre were asked to answer the questionnaire without any prior approval. However,
the authors always made sure that the person had time and willingness to answer the
questionnaire, and a brief summary of the thesis was given so the respondents were aware
about the subject before they agreed. Furthermore, the authors ensured the respondents
that their answers were anonymous and handled confidentially.
43
5. Analysis
This chapter presents the result of the empirical data and aims to find an answer for the
research question; which attributes do consumers think contribute to city centres’
attractiveness, and do residents and visitors differ in regard to satisfaction of city centres?
The analysis starts with a presentation of the descriptive statistics for respondents, control
variables, self-assessment questions, independent and dependent variables. Together with
the independent and dependent variables, a Cronbach’s Alpha test is done to show the
internal reliability between the questions asked. Further investigation of some questions
is necessary, and therefore a factor analysis is executed as well. The chapter then
continues by presenting the results of the independent samples t-test, Person correlation
matrix and multiple linear regression. In the end of the chapter, a summary of the results
is given.
5.1 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics are presented to give an overview of the empirical findings. The
first section presents the number of respondents, their gender and age. Thereafter,
descriptive statistics concerning the control variables, self-assessment questions,
independent variables and dependent variable are displayed.
5.1.1 Respondents
The respondents consist of 100 consumers in Kristianstad city centre. The survey tool
was printed questionnaires as well as Word-documents on a tablet. The respondents are
first divided into two categories based on gender. As shown in table 5.1, the respondents
are predominantly females.
Table 5.1 Respondents’ gender
Gender Number of respondents Percent

Male 36 36
Female 64 64
Total 100 100
Furthermore, the respondents are divided into groups based on their age. The most
common age-group is 24-29 years old as well as 65 years old and above (see table 5.2).
44
Table 5.2 Respondents’ age

Age Number of respondents Percent
18–23 13 13
24–29 20 20
30–39 12 12
40–49 9 9
50–64 14 14
65- 32 32
Total 100 100
To be able to use the control variable age in the t-test and regression, the six various
categories had to be summed down into two categories. One of the groups that are of most
interest to analyse is the group senior citizens, since it is easy to assume that this age-
group has more free time as well as different needs. Therefore, this might show something
different compared to other age groups. Table 5.3 presents the division of senior citizen,
where 68 percent of the respondents showed to be 65 years old and above.
Table 5.3 Senior citizens

65 years and above 32 32
64 years and below 68 68
Total 100 100
As well as with senior citizens, youths might also have different perceptions and different
needs compared to other ages. Youths refer to people 29 years old and below. They are
assumed to be in a different stage in life, since many of the younger citizens are students
and do not have children yet. Table 5.4 shows that 33 percent of the respondents are 29
years old and below.
Table 5.4 Youths

30 years and above 67 67
29 years and below 33 33
Total 100 100
5.1.2 Control variables
The control variables gender and age are already presented in the section above. The
remaining control variables – place of residence, postcode and frequency of visits – are
presented below.
Place of residence displays the distinction between residents and visitors. Residents are
referred to as people living within Kristianstad municipality, and visitors are referred to
45
as everybody who lives outside Kristianstad municipality. As displayed in table 5.5, the
distribution of residents and visitors are relatively even although a slight majority of the
respondents are residents.
Table 5.5 Target groups

Target group Number of respondents Percent
Residents 56 56
Visitors 44 44
Total 100 100
The collection of postcodes enables the distinction not only between residents and
visitors, but also the distinction between the number of people from Northeast Skåne, the
rest of Skåne, the rest of Sweden and foreign countries. Since Kristianstad is the biggest
city in Northeast Skåne, it gathers many consumers from villages and cities nearby.
Therefore, it is interesting to see how many of the respondents are residents of Northeast
Skåne, and how many of the respondents are visitors from further away. As seen in table
5.6, 72 percent the respondents are from Northeast Skåne.
Table 5.6 Respondents’ geographical area of residence

Area of residence Number of respondents Percent
Northeast Skåne 72 72
The rest of Skåne 17 17
The rest of Sweden 9 9
Foreign Countries 2 2
Total 100 100
Table 5.7 shows the distinction between the number of people from different
municipalities within Northeast Skåne. The table shows that 77.78 percent of the
respondents are from Kristianstad municipality, whereas a few are from other
municipalities within Northeast Skåne.
Table 5.7 Respondents of Northeast Skåne

Residents of Northeast Skåne Number of respondents Percent
Kristianstad Municipality 56 77.78
Östra Göinge Municipality 6 8.33
Hässleholm Municipality 5 6.94
Bromölla Municipality 3 4.17
Osby Municipality 2 2.78
Total 72 100
To be able to use this control variable in the upcoming analysis, it had to be divided into
two groups. The residents are therefore referred to as people living in Northeast Skåne,
and the visitors are referred to as residents living outside of Northeast Skåne. With this
46
division, table 5.8 shows that 72 percent of the respondents live in Northeast Skåne, while
28 percent of the respondents live outside of Northeast Skåne.
Table 5.8 Residents of Northeast Skåne

Target group Number of respondents Percent
Residents of Northeast Skåne 72 72
Visitors 28 28
Total 100 100
The next included control variable is frequency of visits in Kristianstad city centre,
namely how often the respondents visit Kristianstad city centre. As displayed in table 5.9,
36 percent of the respondents visit Kristianstad city centre a couple of days a week.
Table 5.9 Respondents’ frequency of visits
Frequency of visits Number of respondents Percent

Daily 18 18
Couple of days a week 36 36
Couple of days a month 26 26
Couple of days a year 16 16
Less than a couple of days a year 4 4
Total 100 100
To use the control variable frequency of visits in the upcoming analysis, this also had to
be summed down into two groups. In this case, the respondents are divided into one group
that visits Kristianstad city centre on a weekly basis, while the other group is the
respondents that visit Kristianstad city centre less than weekly. As shown in table 5.10,
most of the respondents visit Kristianstad city centre at least once a week.
Table 5.10 Frequency of visits

Frequency of visits Number of respondents Percent
Weekly 54 54
Less than weekly 46 46
Total 100 100
5.1.3 Self-assessment
Half the questionnaire concerns how important the consumers think different attributes
are in a city centre. The questions concerning importance are not related to Kristianstad
city centre and neither the hypotheses. The self-assessment questions are only
descriptively presented and not further tested. However, this descriptive analysis can later
be compared to the results of the regression regarding satisfaction towards Kristianstad
city centre.
47
The self-assessment questions concern what consumers generally think as important

attributes in city centres. The outcome of each question is presented in table 5.11. When
analysing the outcome, one can see that the consumers think ambience is the most
important attribute, while nightlife is considered as less important. These questions are of
interest since it gives an overview of what the respondents themselves think are important
attributes in a city centre.
Table 5.11 Results for importance

Variables Questions N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Retail Variety of shopping-stores 100 1 7 5.73 1.399
Opening hours 100 1 7 5.69 1.509
Number of shopping- 100 1 7 5.19 1.489
stores
Accessibility Simplicity to move around 100 1 7 6.31 1.070
Public transport 98 1 7 5.77 2.045
Parking facilities 100 1 7 4.88 2.350
Amusement Restaurants and cafés 100 1 7 5.86 1.206
Entertainment 96 1 7 5.46 1.641
Nightlife 96 1 7 3.54 2.285
Activities Temporary activities 99 1 7 5.48 1.501
Casual trading areas 99 1 7 5.27 1.806
Permanent activities 97 1 7 4.27 1.971
Atmosphere Ambience 100 4 7 6.55 .796
Nature and parks 100 1 7 6.13 1.203
Architecture 98 1 7 5.84 1.274
5.1.4 Independent variables
As mentioned, the independent variables used for this study are retail, accessibility,
amusement, activities and atmosphere. Each variable has three questions, and the entire
questionnaire can be seen in appendix 1 (English version) and appendix 2 (Swedish
version).
A Cronbach’s Alpha test is done to find out if the questions for each independent variable
measures the same thing. The Cronbach’s Alpha explains if the internal consistency
between the questions are high or low (Pallant, 2013). According to Pallant (2013), a
Cronbach’s Alpha is accepted if the value of internal consistency is above 0.7. However,
according to Loewenthal & Eysenck (2011), a result over 0.6 is also an accepted value.
Since, the Cronbach’s Alpha of amusement and atmosphere are under 0.7 but above 0.6,
we argue that this is acceptable since we believe that the questions are related. As
presented in table 5.12, four out of five independent variables gave an acceptable
Cronbach’s Alpha value over 0.6.
48
Table 5.12 Cronbach’s Alpha for independent variables

Variables Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
Retail .830 3
Accessibility .456 3
Amusement .682 3
Activities .756 3
Atmosphere .638 3
As seen in table 5.12, accessibility is the only variable that gives a value under 0.6.
Therefore, a factor analysis is done as well. A factor analysis reduces a large amount of
variables and instead combine them into smaller groups that measure the same things
(Pallant, 2013). However, the aim with the factor analysis is to see the outcome of the
independent variable accessibility. In the thesis’ framework (chapter 3.6), accessibility is
measured through parking conditions, public transportation and simplicity to move
around. As displayed in table 5.13, the factor analysis showed that simplicity to move
around stand alone with an accepted correlation coefficient over 0.3, namely as high as
0.974 (Pallant, 2013). Therefore, simplicity to move around is selected as the only
question measuring the independent variable accessibility.
Table 5.13 Factor analysis for independent variables

Component
Satisfaction Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4 Variable 5
Opening hours .818
Entertainment .787
Restaurants and cafés .707
Variety of Shopping-stores .680
Temporary events .610 .404
Ambience .536 .441 .450
Nightlife .884
Permanent events .729
Number of shopping-stores .595 .610
Nature and parks .787 .530
Public transport .712 .413
Parking facilities .593 .621
Casual trading areas .861
Architecture .616 .616
Simplicity to move around .974
Table 5.14 shows the results for each independent variable; retail, accessibility,
amusement, activities and atmosphere. The consumers of Kristianstad city centre seem to
be most satisfied with the accessibility, while they are less satisfied with the amusement
as well as activities.
49
Table 5.14 Results for satisfaction

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Retail 85 1 7 5.15 1.392
Accessibility 90 1 7 5.89 1.065
Amusement 41 2 7 4.63 1.073
Activities 61 1 7 4.79 1.292
Atmosphere 89 3 7 5.40 .999
5.1.5 Dependent variable
The dependent variable city centre attractiveness is measured through the overall
satisfaction, attractiveness and attachment of Kristianstad city centre. Table 5.15 gives an
overview of the result. A seven-point Likert scale is constructed where a mean over 4
implies a positive value. The consumers seem to be moderately overall satisfied with
Kristianstad city centre (mean 5.37). Further, the consumers think that Kristianstad city
centre is close to being moderately attractive (mean 4.97), and they also give a mean that
is close to a moderate overall attachment towards the city centre (mean 4.70).
Table 5.15 Overview dependent questions

City centre N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
attractiveness
Overall satisfaction 98 1 7 5.37 1.152
Overall attractiveness 99 1 7 4.97 1.581
Overall attachment 97 1 7 4.70 2.087
To be sure that the questions measure the same concept, a Cronbach’s Alpha test is done
to show the internal reliability. If the Cronbach’s Alpha is high, the groups of questions
are considered as closely related, whereas if the value is low, the internal reliability
between the questions are considered as not related. The Cronbach’s Alpha gave a result
on 0.791 which is considered as accepted. The questions can therefore be measured
together (Pallant, 2013). The outcome is displayed in table 5.16.
Table 5.16 Cronbach’s Alpha for dependent variable

Variables Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
City Centre Attractiveness .791 3
Table 5.17 gives an overview of the result for the dependent variable city centre
attractiveness. The result shows that the respondents are more positive than negative
towards Kristianstad city centre (mean 5.09).
50
Table 5.17 Descriptive statistics for city centre attractiveness

City centre N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
attractiveness
Respondents 95 1 7 5.09 1.348
5.2 Independent samples t-test
Since this thesis aims to answer if there are any differences between how satisfied
residents and visitors are with Kristianstad city centre, an independent samples t-test is
appropriate. The t-test will help to explain if there is any statistically significant difference
between how satisfied residents and visitors are with Kristianstad city centre.
To assume normal distribution two tests are executed, namely a Kolmogorov–Smirnov

test and a Shapiro-Wilk test. These tests display if the distribution of scores are normal
or not, where a significance level over .05 indicates normal distribution (Pallant, 2013).
The tests are presented in appendix 3. All the factors except from residents regarding
accessibility, have a significant value over .05. Residents regarding accessibility make a
violation of the assumption, but this is a normal outcome with large samples (ibid).
Another assumption for normal distribution is that the number of respondents in each
group are over 30 (Pallant, 2013). The comparing groups used in this study, are all over
30 respondents. By combining the number of respondents, the results of the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test and the Shapiro-Wilk test, we argue that the scores are normally distributed.
For there to be a significant difference between what residents and visitors are satisfied
with in Kristianstad city centre, the p-value needs to show a number of .05 or below. The
hypotheses that aim to see if there are any differences between residents’ and visitors’
satisfaction towards Kristianstad city centre, are appropriate to test with a t-test. The
hypotheses are the following:
city centre.
51
The t-test findings are presented in table 5.18. Since no variable shows a p-value under
.05, all hypotheses above are rejected. This means that the residents and visitors in
Kristianstad city centre are equally satisfied with retail, accessibility, amusement,
activities and atmosphere.
Table 5.18 T-test findings for satisfaction

t Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error
Difference
Retail 1.043 .300 .332 .318
Accessibility .180 .858 .042 .231
Amusement -.664 .510 -.241 .363
Activities .230 .819 .091 .397
Atmosphere .427 .671 .093 .218
To see if there are any differences in any other target groups, various t-tests are executed
with the grouping variables Northeast Skåne and others, gender, senior citizens and
youths. The only groups that showed a significant difference are the age groups senior
citizens and youths (see appendix 3). The group senior citizens (65 years and above) gave
a significant higher mean on the attributes retail, accessibility, activities and atmosphere.
Youths (29 years and below) gave a significant lower mean on the categories retail and
atmosphere.
5.3 Pearson correlation matrix
A Pearson correlation matrix is executed to see the strength between two or more
variables. The test presents numbers between -1 and +1, where -1 indicates a strong
negative relationship, 0 is no relationship and +1 indicates a strong positive relationship
(Pallant, 2013). More distinctly, values between .10 to .29 are considered as a small
relationship, values between .30 to .49 are a medium relationship, while values between
.50 to 1.0 indicates a strong relationship. The Pearson correlation matrix is displayed in
appendix 4.
The correlation matrix shows a strong positive relationship between the dependent
variable city centre attractiveness and retail, amusement, activities and atmosphere.
Moreover, retail positively correlates with accessibility, amusement, activities and
atmosphere. Accessibility correlates with activities and atmosphere, and the same
outcome is for amusement since it as well correlates with activities and atmosphere. The
matrix further shows that activities strongly correlates with atmosphere. Furthermore, the
52
control variable youths positively correlate with city centre attractiveness, retail and
atmosphere. Senior citizens negatively correlate with city centre attractiveness, retail,
accessibility, activities and atmosphere.
The Person correlation matrix is done to see the correlations, not to test any hypotheses.
However, the next section concerning multiple linear regression, will test hypotheses 2-
6 where a significant level of p < .05 is required.
5.4 Multiple linear regression
Multiple linear regression is done to show the relationship between several independent
variables and one dependent variable. The regression shows both the interrelations
between the included variables as well as the investigation of correlations. Since this
study has five independent variables and 100 respondents, a multiple linear regression is
possible to execute (Pallant, 2013).
Multiple linear regression is included in this study to test the whole framework, and to
see how each independent variable affect the model. A multiple linear regression also
allows control variables to be included, which enable to see their contributions (Pallant,
2013). All the control variables were checked before testing the hypotheses, and none of
them gave any statistically significance at p < .05. However, we argue that the following
control variables should still be included since they are appropriate for the model as a
whole; gender, the target groups resident and visitors, the age group divided in youths
and others, as well as frequency of visits divided in weekly and less than weekly. This
means that the following control variables are excluded; age group divided in senior
citizens and others, as well as the target groups divided between residents of Northeast
Skåne and visitors.
Multi-collinearity within a multiple linear regression is something to be aware of. This

occur when there is a strong relationship between the independent variables. Multi-
collinearity can occur between the group of control variables as well as between
independent variables and control variables (Pallant, 2013). If the Variance inflation
factor (VIF) is under 10, the multi-collinearity is under control. In this case, the VIF lies
between 1.115 and 4.614, so there is no risk for multi-collinearity (see table 5.19). The
tested hypotheses for this multiple linear regression are the following:
53
attractiveness.
attractiveness.
attractiveness.
The multiple linear regression is significant as a whole since the p-value is 0.000 (see
appendix 5). The adjusted R square is also checked to evaluate the whole model. The
adjusted R square gives a better estimate of the population, and is therefore used instead
of the normal R square value (Pallant, 2013). However, the adjusted R square gave a
value of .661 which means that 66.1 percent of the variance is explained by the
independent and control variables (see appendix 5).
Table 5.19 displays the findings of each individual variable of the multiple linear
regression. The standardised beta value is used to compare the variables regardless of the
scale (Pallant, 2013).
Table 5.19 Multiple linear regression

Variable Std. Error Std. Beta t-value Sig. VIF
Constant 1.287 -1.858 .077
Retail .178 .406 2.213 .038 2.978
Accessibility .158 .091 .730 .474 1.372
Amusement .216 .522 3.029 .006 2.626
Activities .238 -.553 -2.420 .025 4.614
Atmosphere .217 .459 2.858 .009 2.279
Gender .314 .074 .659 .517 1.115
Target group .384 .223 1.569 .132 1.787
Youths .368 .202 1.571 .131 1.470
Visits .404 .296 1.971 .062 1.997
For a coefficient to be significant, the p-value should be p < .05. In this case, the variables
that have a significant p-value are retail, amusement, activities and atmosphere. This
means that these four variables have a strong relationship with city centre attractiveness.
The consumers of Kristianstad city centre think that the better the retail, amusement,
activities and atmosphere, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness.
Therefore, hypotheses 2, 4, 5 and 6 are accepted. However, since the p-value of
accessibility is too high to determine any statistical significance, hypothesis 3 is rejected.
54
5.5 Summary
The hypotheses for this analysis are tested with an independent samples t-test and a
multiple linear regression. A t-test is suitable since this study aims to see if there are any
differences between residents and visitors, while a multiple linear regression is suitable
since the study consists of several independent and control variables that had to be tested
simultaneously. Table 5.20 summarises if the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.
Majority of the hypotheses are rejected. But despite this, many findings are still of interest
and will be further discussed in the conclusion.
Table 5.20 Summary of the analysis

Hypothesis Accepted or rejected
H1a: Difference residents and visitors – retail Rejected
H1b: Difference residents and visitors – accessibility Rejected
H1c: Difference residents and visitors – amusement Rejected
H1d: Difference residents and visitors – activities Rejected
H1e: Difference residents and visitors – atmosphere Rejected
H2: The better the retail, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness Accepted
H3: The better the accessibility, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness Rejected
H4: The better the amusement, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness Accepted
H5: The better the activities, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness Accepted
H6: The better the atmosphere, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness Accepted
55
6. Conclusions
The conclusion presents the last chapter of this thesis. First, a thesis summary sums up
the study and discusses the findings and non-findings. After that, a review of the practical
and theoretical contributions is displayed. Finally, the chapter ends with limitations of the
study and suggestions for future research, followed by some concluding comments.
6.1 Thesis summary, findings and non-findings
of city centres. The research aim is coupled with a research questions, namely; which
attributes do consumers think contribute to city centres’ attractiveness, and do residents
and visitors differ in regard to satisfaction of city centres? The research area is of interest
since many city centres are struggling to survive, which is due to competition from
neighbouring cities and the rise of external shopping malls (Hart, Stackow, & Cadogan,
2013; Kolterjahn, 2011).
As a base for the study, a framework was developed based on previous research within
place marketing, place attractiveness, city centre attractiveness and retail. The framework
combines five different attributes; retail, accessibility, amusement, activities and
atmosphere. Thereafter, the framework was tested with a quantitative face to face
questionnaire on 100 consumers in the Swedish city centre Kristianstad. The
questionnaire asked how important consumers think different factors are in a city centre,
as well as how satisfied they are with Kristianstad city centre.
Before testing the hypotheses, a descriptive analysis for the self-assessment questions
was presented to show how important different attributes are in a city centre. It shows
that nearly all the statements asked, seem to be important in a city centre according to the
consumers. The only factor that did not contribute to a city centre’s attractiveness, was
nightlife. But despite from nightlife, the following attributes were considered as
important; ambience, simplicity to move around, nature and parks, restaurants and cafés,
architecture, public transportation, variety of shopping-stores, opening hours, temporary
56
activities, entertainment, casual trading areas, number of shopping-stores, parking

facilities and permanent activities.
Following that, the ten hypotheses were tested. An independent samples t-test was
conducted to test hypotheses 1a-1e, while a multiple linear regression was done to test
hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The independent samples t-test was executed to answer if
residents and visitors are differently satisfied with various attributes in Kristianstad city
centre. Surprisingly, the test did not show any statistical significance between the target
groups, neither regarding retail, accessibility, amusement, activities or atmosphere. It
should be mention that the result was the same even though the groups were divided
differently. The first test divided the groups between residents of Kristianstad
municipality in comparison to visitors, and the second test analysed the differences
between residents of Northeast Skåne in comparison to visitors. However, none of these
tests showed any significant difference. This means that hypotheses 1a-1e were rejected.
Previous research suggest that residents and visitors have different requirements of a city
centre, as well as different opinions in what makes a city centre attractive (Zenker &
Martin, 2011; Tsiotsou & Goldsmith, 2012). Despite this, the result of this study showed
the opposite. Residents of Kristianstad and visitors from other places, are equally satisfied
with Kristianstad city centre.
Since no statistically significant difference between residents and visitors could be

determined, we tried to find differences between some other groups, such as age, gender
and frequency of visits. The findings showed that there were significant differences in the
satisfaction towards Kristianstad city centre if the respondents were divided into groups
based on their age. Senior citizens (65 years and above) gave a higher mean for retail,
accessibility, activities and atmosphere. The other group, youths (29 years and below),
showed a significant lower mean regarding retail and atmosphere. This could suggest that
Kristianstad city centre is more suitable for the elderly. It could also mean that younger
people are more demanding as well as dissatisfied and harder to please.
Moreover, the multiple linear regression aimed to see if there are any relationships
between the independent variables retail, accessibility, amusement, activities and
atmosphere, and the dependent variable city centre attractiveness. The results of the
multiple linear regression showed that retail, amusement, activities and atmosphere are
57
the factors that mainly contribute to an attractive city centre. Therefore, hypotheses two,
four, five and six were accepted, meaning that the better the retail, amusement, activities
and atmosphere, the more positive impact on city centre attractiveness.
As mentioned, retail was among the factors that showed significance for city centres’
attractiveness. Surprisingly though, retail was not shown as being the most important in
city centres according to the respondents. When the respondents were asked how
important different attributes in city centres are, variety of shopping-stores ranked 7th in
mean value, good opening hours ranked 8th and number of shopping-stores ranked 12th.
Furthermore, the results of the multiple linear regression showed that among the other
factors with a statistical significance, retail was the factor that showed the least
significance. The factor that showed to contribute most to an attractive city centre were
amusement, closely followed by atmosphere, thereafter activities and lastly retail. These
findings contradict previous research that suggest retail as the most important factor in
city centres (Warnaby, Bennison, Davies, & Hughes, 2002; Evans, 1997).
Accessibility did not show any significant connection to city centre attractiveness, even
though simplicity to move around got the second highest mean value of the most
important attributes in a city centre. Thus, what the respondents think as important
attributes in a city centre, differ in regard to the results of the multiple linear regression.
However, two questions that measured accessibility had to be removed due to the low
Cronbach’s Alpha value, so in this study, accessibility does only measure simplicity to
move around within the city centre. Therefore, it may measure too little to show any
statistical significance.
Moreover, the mean of nightlife was considered as moderately unimportant for

consumers of Kristianstad city centre. This would imply that nightlife has a negative
effect on city centre attractiveness, meaning that if nightlife was eliminated, the city
centre of Kristianstad would be perceived as more attractive. However, amusement (that
includes nightlife) showed the most significant result in the linear regression, suggesting
this factor as the most related to city centre attractiveness. Therefore, what the
respondents thought would be the least important attribute for a city centre, showed to
have a positive relationship to city centre attractiveness in the multiple linear regression.
The result of the self-assessment questions is another thing that could be explained by the
58
age of the respondents, since the older generation brought the mean for nightlife down
significantly. This might be another explanation showing that different age groups have
different preferences in a city centre.
6.2 Practical contributions
The aim of this study is to get an understanding of which attributes consumers think
contribute to an attractive city centre, and also discover if residents and visitors are
differently satisfied with city centres. The findings of which factors consumers find
important in a city centre, can be valuable information for city municipalities. This
information can be used as a guideline in the development of a city centre, and help city
municipalities to communicate, deliver and exchange urban offerings that are of value for
both the consumers and the community.
As seen in this study, various factors contribute to an attractive city centre, not just retail.
The respondents ranked the attributes in the following order; ambience, simplicity to
move around, nature and parks, restaurants and cafés, architecture, public transportation,
variety of shopping-stores, opening hours, temporary activities, entertainment, casual
trading areas, number of shopping-stores, parking facilities and permanent activities.
Nightlife is the only attribute that the respondents consider as not important. If city centres
want to enhance their attractiveness, they need to understand that consumers value more
than just retail. City municipalities needs to either adopt Town Centre Management
(TCM) techniques or develop the existing TCM. Doing this can help towns to be more
competitive against other places, such as neighbouring cities and external shopping malls.
The findings of how satisfied residents and visitors are with Kristianstad city centre,
might be interesting information for Kristianstad municipality. They won an award for
the best city centre in year 2014, but despite that, the city faces challenges because of an
upcoming external shopping mall (Persdotter, 2015; Svenska Stadskärnor, 2017).
Therefore, it is highly relevant for them to strengthen the place brand and continue to
develop the city centre. However, in this study, it was clear that no significant differences
exist between what residents and visitors are satisfied with in Kristianstad city centre.
Therefore, the city municipality can focus on one place marketing strategy that aims for
both target groups.
59
Consequently, the most significant factors that all respondents think contribute to
Kristianstad city centre, are amusement, atmosphere, activities and retail. However, the
mean value of their overall attractiveness towards Kristianstad’s city centre, is only 5.09
(in a 1-7 scale) which is considered as a moderate satisfaction. This implies that the
respondents think amusement, atmosphere, activities and retail contribute to an attractive
city centre, but they are not fully satisfied with Kristianstad’s city centre. Therefore, the
city municipality should focus on improving these factors to satisfy consumers in the long
term.
6.3 Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to the field of city centre attractiveness by developing a framework
that combines attributes suggested from the research fields place marketing, place
attractiveness, city centre attractiveness and retail. Four out of five attributes seemed to
contribute to an attractive city centre, namely retail, amusement, activities and
atmosphere. However, even though retail contributes, the other attributes surprisingly
turned out to be even more important.
Furthermore, this study also contributes by testing if residents and visitors are differently
satisfied with city centres. According to previous research, what is considered to be
attractive and of value in city centres vary greatly. However, through the result of the t-
test analysis, we conclude that there are no significant differences between what residents
and visitors are satisfied with in city centres.
6.4 Limitations
The main limitation of this study is that only the city centre of Kristianstad is examined.
This limits the generalisation since it becomes difficult to adopt the findings in other city
centres.
Furthermore, the empirical sampling method can also be considered as a limitation. When
using a convenience sampling method, the respondents are somewhat selected by the
researcher herself (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). However, the sampling method was the
most appropriate method in this study, especially due to the time restriction.
60
6.5 Future research
A first suggestion for future research is to test this study’s framework in other Swedish
city centres. Different city centres might have different advantages and disadvantages in
consumers’ perceptions. Each city centre should find out what attributes the consumers
are satisfied with, and to do so, this study’s framework could be used.
A second suggestion for future research is to execute this context with a qualitative
methodology, which may lead to a deeper understanding and more profound findings of
what consumers value in a city centre. By doing the study with a qualitative methodology,
a possibility for more developed answers could be possible (Bryman & Bell, 2011). It
could be of interest to understand how, when and what place consumers consume in the
city centre, and why they choose to visit a specific city centre before neighbouring cities
and externals shopping malls.
A third suggestion for future research is to investigate how to satisfy the target groups
youths. When conducting the t-test analysis and using age as the grouping variable, it
showed a significant difference between the age groups. Youths (29 years and below)
seemed to be the most dissatisfied. Further research within the context city centre
attractiveness and youths, could therefore be of interest.
6.6 Concluding comments
As shown in this study and in previous research, city centre attractiveness is a complicated
field of research due to the consumers’ perceptions. However, it is a research area which
is highly relevant due to the rise of competition from neighbouring cities and external
shopping malls. As authors, we hope that this study has inspired others to further
investigate this field, and continue to research how Kristianstad can have a more attractive
city centre, especially for the younger generation.
61
List of references
Allen, E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert Scales and Data Analyses. Quality Progress,
40(7), p. 64.
Allwood, C. M. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research
methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity, 46(5), pp. 1417-1429.
Alvehus, J. (2013). Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: En handbok. Stockholm: Liber
AB.
Andersson, E. (2016, September 11). Så hamnade stadens centrum på en åker.
Retrieved from Svenska Dagbladet-website: https://www.svd.se/
Anholt, S. (2010). Definitions of place branding – Working towards a resolution. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(1), pp. 1-10.
Blom, E. (2017, May 9). Torghandel. Retrieved from Handelns historia-website:
http://www.handelnshistoria.se/
Braun, E. (2008). City Marketing: Towards an Integrated Approach. Rottendam,
Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Can, G. F., Kurtulmusoglu, F. B., & Atalay, K. D. (2016). A case study on shopping
malls attributes for young consumers. Young Consumers, 20.
Council of Europe. (1992, March 18). European Urban Charter - Charter without the
status of a convention. Retrieved April 6, 2017, from Council of Europe-
website: https://wcd.coe.int/
Crossan, F. (2003). Research philosophy: towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher,
11(1), pp. 46-55.
Denscombe, M. (2016). Forskningshandboken: För småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom
samhällsvetenskap. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, M. L. (2008). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-
Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.
Evans, R. (1997). Regenerating town centres. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
62
Ezmale, S., & Litavniece, L. (2011). Spatial planning as a tool for improving
attractiveness of the places: case of latgale region. European Integration
Studies(5), pp. 20-25.
Florek, M., & Insch, A. (2008). The trademark protection of country brands: insights
from New Zealand. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(3), 292-
306.
Florek, M., Insch, A., & Gnoth, J. (2006). City Council websites as a means of place
brand identity communication. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 2(4),
276-296.
Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Kitchen, P., Foroudi, M. M., & Nguyen, B. (2016). A framework
of place branding, place image, and place reputation Antecedents and
moderators. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(2), pp.
241-264.
Guy, C. M. (1994). The retail development process: Location, property, and planning.
London: Routledge.
Hakinson, G. (2010). Place branding theory: A cross-domain literature review from a
marketing perspective. In G. Ashworth, & M. Kavaratzis, Towards Effective
Place Brand Management Branding European Cities and Regions Branding
European Cities and Regions (pp. 15-35). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Hanna, S., & Rowely, J. (2007). An Analysis of Terminilogy Use in Place Branding.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 16.
Hart, C., Stackow, G., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Conceptualising town centre image
and the customer experience. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29, Iss
15-16, pp. 1753-1781.
Holden, M. T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the Appropriate Methodology:
Understanding Research Philosophy. The Marketing Review, 4(4), pp. 397-409.
Hospers, G.-J. (2010). Spatial self-preference: On the limits of place marketing to
attract new residents and firms. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4),
280-286.
Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2008). A great place to live, work and play: Conceptualising
place satisfaction in the case of a city's residents. Journal of Place Management
and Development, 1(2), 138-149.
63
Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H., & Mavondo, F. (2015). Destination Marketing and Visitor
Experiences: The Development of a Conceptual Framewor. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(5), 653-675.
Johnson, K. K., Kim, Y.-H., Mee Mun, J., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Keeping customers
shopping in stores: interrelationships among store attributes, shopping
enjoyment, and place attachment. The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 25(1), pp. 20-34.
Johnstone, M.-L., & Conroy, D. M. (2008). Place Attachment: the Social Dimensions of
the Retail Environment and the Need For Further Exploration. Advances in
Consumer Research, 35, pp. 381-386.
Källström, L. (2016). Rethinking the Branding Context for Municipalities.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20(2), pp. 77-95.
Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. (2008). Place marketing: how did we get here and
where are we going? Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), pp.
150-165.
Klackenberg, D., & Sandemo, E. (2014, December 10). Stoppa butiksdöden i våra
stadskärnor. Retrieved from Dagens samhälle-website:
https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/
Kolterjahn, F. (2011). Kampen om köpkraften. Retrieved from Hui Research:
www.hui.se
Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., & Haider, D. (1999). Marketing Places Europe: How
to Attract Investments, Industries, Residents and Visitors to Cities, Communities,
Regions and Nations in Europe. Harlow: Financial Times.
Lind, R. (2014). Vidga Vetandet. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
McAteer, B., & Stephens, S. (2011). Town centre management: a solution to the
challenges facing urban centres in Ireland? Journal of Place Management and
Development, 4(3), pp. 264-271.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of
Rail-Trail Users. Leisure Sciences, 16(1), pp. 17-31.
Niedomysl, T., & Jonasson, M. (2012). Towards a theory of place marketing. Journal of
Place Management and Development, 5(5), pp. 223-230.
64
Nilsson, R. (2017, February 28). Smyckesbutik lämnar galleria för C4 Shopping.

Retrieved from Kristianstadsbladet-website: http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/
Page, S. J., & Hardyman, R. (1996). Place marketing and town centre management: A
new tool for urban revitalization. 13(3), pp. 153-164.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Persdotter, A. (2015, December 28). C4 Shopping får klartecken i domstol. Retrieved
March 23, 2017, from Norra Skånes-website: http://www.nsk.se/
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: The Role of
Demographics, Engagement and Personality. Research in Higher Education,
46(2), pp. 127-152.
Regionmuseet Kristianstad. (2017, May 9). Kristianstads konsthall. Retrieved from
Regionmuseet Kristianstad-website: http://www.regionmuseet.se/
Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Haider, D. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting Investment,
Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. New York: The Free Press.
Ryan, C., & Aicken, M. (2010). The destination image gap – visitors’ and residents’
perceptions of place: evidence from Waiheke Island, New Zealand. Current
Issues in Tourism, 13(6), pp. 541-561.
Sarău, A.-C. (2015). Why Residents Choose a Place? Determining Factors that are
taken into Account by a Resident when Choosing a Place. International Journal
of Economic Practices and Theories, 5(4), 399-405.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Shamsuddin, S., & Ujang, N. (2008). Making places: The role of attachment in creating
the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia. Habitat International,
32(3), pp. 399-409.
Sinkien, J., & Kromalcas, S. (2010). Concept, Directions and Practice of City
Attractiveness Improvement. Public Policy and Administration(31), 147-154.
Svenska Stadskärnor. (2017). ÅRETS STADSKÄRNA 2014 - KRISTIANSTAD. Retrieved
March 23, 2017, from Svenska stadskärnor-website:
http://www.svenskastadskarnor.se/
Teller, C., & Elms, J. (2010). Managing the attractiveness of evolved and created retail
agglomerations formats. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(1), pp. 25-45.
65
Teller, C., & Elms, J. R. (2012). Urban place marketing and retail agglomeration
customers . Journal of Marketing Management, 28(5-6), pp. 546-567.
Teller, C., & Reutterer, T. (2008). The evolving concept of retail attractiveness: What
makes retail agglomerations attractive when customers shop at them? Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(3), pp. 127-143.
Tsiotsou, R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2012). Strategic Marketing in Tourism Services.
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Wahlberg, O. (2016). Small town centre attractiveness: evidence from Sweden.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(4), pp. 465-488.
Warnaby, G. (2009). Towards a service-dominant place marketing logic. SAGE
publications, 9(4), pp. 403-423.
Warnaby, G., & Medway, D. (2004). The Role of Place Marketing as a Competitive
Response by Town Centres to Out-of-town Retail Developments. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14(4),
457-477.
Warnaby, G., & Medway, D. (2013). What about the ‘place’ in place marketing?
Marketing Theory, 13(3), pp. 345-363.
Warnaby, G., Bennison, D., Davies, B. J., & Hughes, H. (2002). Marketing UK Towns
and Cities as Shopping Destinations. Journal of Marketing Management, 18(9-
10), pp. 877-904.
Wedawatta, G., Ingirige, B., & Amaratunga, D. (2011, October 12). Case study as a
research strategy: Investigating extreme weather resilience of construction
SMEs in the UK. Retrieved April 6, 2017, from University of Salford
Manchester-website: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/18250/
Weltevreden, J. W., & Van Rietbergen, T. (2007). E-shopping versus city centre
shopping: the role of perceived city centre attractiveness. Journal of Economic
and Social Geography, 98(1), pp. 68-85.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: validity
and generalizibility of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), pp. 830-
840.
Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2010). Consumer‐
retailer emotional attachment: Some antecedents and the moderating role of
attachment anxiety. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), pp. 1478-1499.
66
Zenker, S. (2011). How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands.
Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), pp. 40-52.
Zenker, S., & Martin, N. (2011). Measuring success in place marketing and branding.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(1), pp. 32-41.
Zenker, S., Braun, E., & Petersen, S. (2017). Branding the destination versus the place:
The effects of brand complexity and identification for residents and visitors.
Tourism Management, 58, pp. 15-27.
Zenker, S., Petersen, S., & Aholt, A. (2013). The Citizen Satisfaction Index (CSI):
Evidence for a four basic factor model in a German sample. Cities, 31, pp. 156-
164.
Öner, Ö. (2017). Retail City: The Relationship between Place Attractiveness and
Accessibility to Shops. Spatial Economic Analysis, 12(1), pp. 72-91.
67
Appendix 1: Questionnaire in English
Purpose of the research

We are two economics students that are currently doing our sixth and final semester at
Kristianstad University. At the moment, we are writing our thesis which is about city
centre attractiveness. We would like to investigate how satisfied residents and visitors are
of Kristianstad city centre and also what you consumers think are the most important
factors contributing to an attractive city centre.
All information gathered will be treated confidential.
Background questions
Below are six background questions.

Gender:
0 ☐ Man
1 ☐ Woman
Which year are you born? ___________________
Do you live in Kristianstad commune?

0 ☐ Yes
1 ☐ No
What is your postal code? ___________________
How often do you visit Kristianstad city centre?

1☐ Daily
2☐ Couple of days a week
3☐ Couple of days a month
4☐ Couple of days a year
5☐ Less than that
6☐ Don’t know
Which of the following alternatives does best match the purpose of your visit in
Kristianstad city centre today?
1☐ Shopping
2☐ Eating
3☐ Working
4☐ Meeting someone
68
5 ☐ Leisure
6 ☐ Errand
7 ☐ Other: ______________________________
Questions about different attributes in a city centre

Now we will ask 28 questions about how important you feel different factors are for a
city centres attractiveness, as well as how satisfied you as a consumer are with
Kristianstad city centre. We will ask questions about shopping, accessibility, activities,
amusement, and atmosphere. The questions contain a seven-point Likert scale where one
means ”not important” or ”not satisfied”, while seven means ”very important” or ”very
satisfied”.
Shopping
1a) How important is it for you with a variety of shopping-stores in a city centre?
Not Neither Very Don’t
important important know
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) How satisfied are you with the variety of shopping-stores in Kristianstad city
centre?
satisfied satisfied know
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) How important is it for you with a great number of shopping-stores in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) How satisfied are you with the number of shopping-stores in Kristianstad city
centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) How important is it for you with common opening hours in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) How satisfied are you with the opening hours in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69
Accessibility
1a) How important is it for you with good parking possibilities in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) How satisfied are you with the parking possibilities in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) How important is it for you that public transportation works well to a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) How satisfied are you with the public transportation in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) How important is it for you with a simplicity to move around in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) How satisfied are you with the simplicity to move in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Amusement
1a) How important is it for you with a broad offer of restaurants and cafés in a city
centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) How satisfied are you with the offer of restaurants and cafés in Kristianstad city
centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
70
2a) How important is it for you with a good nightlife in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) How satisfied are you with the nightlife in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) How important is it for you with a broad offer of entertainment in a city centre
(cinema, bowling, theatre etc.)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) How satisfied are you with the offer of entertainment in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Activities
1a) How important is it for you with permanent events in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) How satisfied are you with the permanent events in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) How important is it for you with temporary events in a city centre (festivals and
Christmas market etc.) in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) How satisfied are you with the temporary events in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) How important is it for you with casual trading areas in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
71
3b) How satisfied are you with the casual trading areas in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Atmosphere
1a) How important is it for you with a nice intangible ambience in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) How satisfied are you with the intangible ambience in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) How important is it for you with a nice architecture in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) How satisfied are you with the architecture in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) How important is it for you with nature and parks in a city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) How satisfied are you with the nature and parks in Kristianstad city centre?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall questions
Now we are going to ask three final questions about you overall feelings about
Kristianstad city centre. As well as before, these questions are presented in a seven-
point Likert scale.
1) How satisfied are you with Kristianstad city centre?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
72
2) How attractive do you think Kristianstad city centre is?

attractive attractive know
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3) How attached are you to Kristianstad city centre?

attached attached know
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
73
Appendix 2: Questionnaire in Swedish
Syftet med studien

Vi är två ekonomstudenter som studerar vår sjätte och sista termin på Högskolan i
Kristianstad. Just för tillfället skriver vi vår kandidatuppsats som handlar om Kristianstad
stadskärna. Vi vill undersöka hur nöjda invånare och besökare är med Kristianstad
stadskärna samt vad ni som konsumenter anser vara viktiga faktorer som bidrar till en
attraktiv stadskärna.
All information som samlas in kommer vara anonym och behandlas konfidentiellt.
Bakgrundsfrågor
Nedan följer sex stycken bakgrundsfrågor.

Kön:
0 ☐ Man
1 ☐ Kvinna
Vilket år är du född? ____________
Är du bosatt i Kristianstad kommun?

0 ☐ Ja
1 ☐ Nej
Vad är ditt postnummer? ______________
Hur ofta besöker du Kristianstad stadskärna?

1☐ Dagligen
2☐ Någon/några dagar i veckan
3☐ Någon/några dagar i månaden
4☐ Någon/några dagar om året
5☐ Mer sällan än så
6☐ Vet ej
Vilket av följande alternativ stämmer bäst överens med primära syftet av ditt besök i
stadskärnan idag?
1☐ Shoppa
2☐ Äta
3☐ Jobba
4☐ Träffa någon
74
5 ☐ Nöje
6 ☐ Utföra ett ärende
7 ☐ Annat: ______________________________
Frågor om olika attribut i en stadskärna
Nu följer 28 frågor om hur viktigt du anser olika faktorer är för en stadskärnas

attraktivitet, samt hur nöjd du som konsument är med Kristianstad stadskärna. Vi kommer
ställa frågor om shopping, tillgänglighet, nöje, aktiviteter och atmosfär. Frågorna består
av en sjupunkts Likertskala där ett betyder ”inte alls viktigt” alternativt ”inte alls nöjd”,
medan sju betyder ”mycket viktigt” alternativt ”mycket nöjd”.
Shopping
1a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med variation av shopping-butiker i en stadskärna?
Inte Varken Mycket Vet
alls eller viktigt ej
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) Hur nöjd är du med variationen av shopping-butiker i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med mängden av shopping-butiker i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) Hur nöjd är du med mängden av shopping-butiker i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med gemensamma öppettider i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
75
3b) Hur nöjd är du med öppettiderna i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tillgänglighet
1a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med bra parkeringsmöjligheter i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) Hur nöjd är du med parkeringsmöjligheterna i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) Hur viktigt är det för dig att kollektivtrafiken är välfungerande till en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) Hur nöjd är du med kollektivtrafiken till Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med lätt framkomlighet i en stadskärna (cykel och gång)?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) Hur nöjd är du med framkomligheten i Kristianstad stadskärna (cykel och gång)?
alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nöje
1a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med ett brett utbud av restauranger och caféer i en
stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76
1b) Hur nöjd är du med utbudet av restauranger och caféer i Kristianstad stadskärna?
alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med ett bra nattliv i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) Hur nöjd är du nattlivet i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) Hur viktigt är det med för dig med ett brett utbud av nöje (bio, bowling, teater osv) i
en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) Hur nöjd är du med utbudet av nöje i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Aktiviteter
1a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med fasta aktiviteter (t.ex. museiutställningar) i en
stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) Hur nöjd är du med de fasta aktiviteterna i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
77
2a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med tillfälliga aktiviteter/evenemang (t.ex festivaler och
julmarknad) i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) Hur nöjd är du med de tillfälliga aktiviteterna/evenemang (t.ex festivaler och

julmarknad) i Kristianstad stadskärna?
alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med torghandel i en stadskärna?

viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) Hur nöjd är du med torghandeln i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Atmosfär
1a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med trevlig atmosfär i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1b) Hur nöjd är du med atmosfären i Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2a) Hur viktigt är det för dig med fin arketiktur i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2b) Hur nöjd är du med arketikturen i Kristianstad stadskärna?
alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
78
3a) Hur viktigt är det med tillgången till natur och parker i en stadskärna?
viktigt
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3b) Hur nöjd är du men tillgången till natur och parker i Kristianstad stadskärna?
alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Övergripande frågor
Nu kommer vi ställa tre avslutande om vad du övergripande tycker om Kristianstad
stadskärna. Precis som tidigare består även de här frågor av en sjupunkts Likterskala.
1) Hur nöjd är du överlag med Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller nöjd ej
nöjd
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2) Hur attraktiv anser du Kristianstad stadskärna vara?

alls eller attraktiv ej
attraktiv
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3) Hur fäst är du vid Kristianstad stadskärna?

alls eller fäst ej
fäst
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
79
Appendix 3: Independent samples t-test

Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test
KS SW
Target Statistic Sig. Statistic Sig.
group
Retail Visitor .134 .200 .966 .869
Resident .163 .114 .945 .224
Accessibility Visitor .241 .200 .937 .609
Resident .283 .000 .852 .003
Amusement Visitor .170 .200 .937 .615
Resident .173 .072 .929 .102
Activities Visitor .201 .200 .950 .732
Resident .174 .069 .919 .062
Atmosphere Visitor .179 .200 .966 .871
Resident .136 .200 .961 .488
City centre Visitor .155 .200 .981 .963
attractiveness
Resident .123 .200 .936 .150
T-test comparing age groups 29 years and below, and 30 years and above
t Sig. (2- Mean Difference Std. Error
tailed) Difference
Retail -4.166 .000 -1.249 .300
Accessibility 0.24 .981 .006 .244
Amusement -1.304 .200 -.450 .345
Activities -1.807 .076 -.625 .346
Atmosphere -3.670 .000 -.763 .208
T-test comparing age groups 65 years and above, and 64 years and below
t Sig. (2- Mean Difference Std. Error
tailed) Difference
Retail 3.920 .000 1.136 .290
Accessibility 2.446 .016 .567 .232
Amusement 1.644 .108 .763 .464
Activities 4.408 .000 1.329 .301
Atmosphere 4.245 .000 870 .205
80
Appendix 4: Pearson correlation matrix
81
Appendix 5: Multiple linear regression

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 41.564 9 4.618 7.498 .000
Residual 12.935 21 .616
Total 54.499 30
Model Summary
R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.873 .763 .661 .785
82

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bachelor Thesis, 15 hp, for a

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration:

What makes a city centre attractive

School of Health and Society

Sofia Karlsson Molly Nilsson

4.3 Data collection method ........................................................................................ 34

Table 3.1 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors .................................. 25

Table 5.2 Respondents’ age ............................................................................ 45

Figure 3.1 Different target groups .................................................................... 26

1.2 Research question

Which attributes do consumers think contribute to city centres’ attractiveness, and do

1.3 Research aim

2.1 Research philosophy

Based on a positivistic philosophy, the researchers imagine that the reality is an

2.2 Research approach

2.3 Choice of theory

2.4 Choice of methodology

3.1 Place marketing

[...] the coordinated use of marketing tools supported by a shared customer-oriented

3.2 Place Attractiveness

Attractiveness can be seen as a multi-faceted construct representing a variety of measures.

3.2.1 Place Attachment

Attachment theory investigates humans’ inclination to create affectionate connections

companies and brands (Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, & Vrechopoulos, 2010).

3.3 City Centre Attractiveness

3.3.1 Teller & Elms (2010)

A city centre’s attractiveness is evaluated by customers’ preferences and experiences.

The fifth presented attribute contributing to the attractiveness of an agglomeration, is

3.3.2 Öner (2017)

farmlands and water covers.

3.3.3 Hart, Stachow & Cadogan (2013)

3.3.4 Weltervreden & Rietbergen (2007)

3.3.5 Zenker, Peterson & Aholt (2013)

3.3.6 Wahlberg (2016)

More distinctly, Wahlberg (2016) identify several factors contributing to the

3.4 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors

Table 3.1 Summary of city centre attractiveness factors

Factor Sub-factors Authors

3.5 Target groups

attractive city characteristics. Strengthening a city’s attractive attributes is a long-term

Figure 3.1 Different target groups

because it relates to experimental, aesthetic and enjoyment-associated benefits (Jiang,

3.6 Theoretical framework

Figure 3.2 The R and A:s model of city centre attractiveness

3.6.1 Residents and visitors

Accessibility is another well-studied factor which several academics has included as an

3.6.7 Summary hypotheses

To sum up, the hypotheses that will be tested are:

4.1 Research strategy

4.3 Data collection method

Table 4.1 Summary of data collection process

Date Day Time Number of respondents

4.4.1 Control variables

4.4.1.1 Place of residence

4.4.1.5 Frequency of visits

4.4.3 Independent variables

Accessibility will be measured through parking conditions, public transportation and

Atmosphere is both measured through tangible features and intangible features.

4.4.4 Dependent variable