Next Article in Journal
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance of Electric, Hydrogen and Fossil-Fuelled Freight Trucks with Uncertainty Estimates Using a Probabilistic Life-Cycle Assessment (pLCA)
Next Article in Special Issue
Research on the Influence of Cultural Memory in Agricultural Heritage on Brand Loyalty
Previous Article in Journal
Natural and Sociocultural Values of a Tourism Destination in the Function of Sustainable Tourism Development—An Example of a Protected Area
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Is the Most Influential Authenticity of Beliefs, Places, or Actions on the Pilgrimage Tourism Destination Attachment?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/su16020761
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration

by
Fan Zhang
*,
Xiumin Sun
,
Chang Liu
and
Bing Qiu
College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 761; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020761
Submission received: 24 November 2023 / Revised: 12 January 2024 / Accepted: 13 January 2024 / Published: 16 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sense of Place, Place Attachment and Sustainability in Culture, Tourism, Hospitality and Events)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Landmark landscapes, as visual representations of cities, are readily identifiable to urban residents. Observing and visiting these landscapes fosters a cultural connection and identity with the locale, enhances urban character, and promotes tourism. A place’s identity is instrumental in urban development and improvement. Urban planners and managers should thus prioritize fostering residents’ place identity within city environments. In this study, we explored the influence of landmark landscapes on the place identity of residents in Nanjing—a rapidly urbanizing city with both historic and modern districts. Our methodology included on-site surveys and the application of a structural equation model to discern the relationships between various landmark landscape elements and place identity. The findings revealed the following: (1) landmark landscapes positively influence residents’ construction of place identity; (2) the characteristics, function, and historical–cultural importance of these landmark landscapes contribute to place identity formation; and (3) the duration of residence moderates the relationship between historical–cultural importance and place identity. These insights elucidate the role of landmark landscapes in shaping place identity, which in turn enhances urban characteristics and bolsters residents’ sense of belonging. The strategic planning and design of landmark landscapes are instrumental in building public consensus, fostering distinctive urban characteristics, and strengthening residents’ sense of identity, thereby catalyzing tourism development.

1. Introduction

China’s rapid urbanization has not only spurred comprehensive economic growth but also significantly altered both urban and rural landscapes. This transformation often results in cities losing their distinctive characteristics [1], thereby diminishing residents’ sense of identity and leading to a homogenization of tourism resources. Consequently, Chinese urban spatial planners and managers are actively seeking methods to preserve and shape urban landscapes. Some urban planning theories describe urban landmark landscapes as the most representative places or landscapes within a city for both residents and visitors from other places [2,3]. The interrelation between urban landmarks and tourism is well-established [4]. A destination’s distinctiveness is crucial in attracting tourists [5,6], and the development and promotion of a unique identity can mitigate homogenization and drive tourism growth [7]. Indeed, numerous landmarks have emerged in cities, including very tall buildings, isolated towers, towering sculptures, and other landmarks [8]. Extant research indicates that place identity plays a crucial role in mobilizing communities. Therefore, urban planners are encouraged to actively incorporate this element into their strategies, as suggested by Saleh [9]. Additionally, place identity can provide a visionary framework for the planning process, as proposed by Stewart et al. [10]. Nevertheless, it remains ambiguous whether landscapes with landmark significance contribute to social solidarity among residents, bolster their sense of identity, or augment tourism. This uncertainty underscores the need for quantitative research to analyze the influence of landmark landscapes on strengthening the connection between residents and their cities. To date, few studies have employed robust quantitative methods to investigate the correlation between landmark landscapes and place identity. This study, grounded in environmental psychology, investigates the impact of landmark landscapes on place identity, aiming to derive practical insights for urban spatial planning and tourism development.

1.1. Landmark Landscape

Extensive research has been devoted to landmark landscape theory. Kevin Lynch, a prominent American urban planner, was the pioneer in introducing the concept of “landmarks” in urban design. According to his theory, landmarks serve as distinct elements within city centers, aiding individuals, particularly non-local tourists, in differentiating geographic locations through cognitive references in external space.
Further research has rigorously examined the interplay between various identities and landmark landscapes. Residents, vacationers, and tourists are the research objects of different identities, and their identity characteristics need to be carefully considered in the planning and construction of landmark landscapes [11]. Diverse methodologies have been employed in this field. Notably, chart analysis [12] and model construction [13] have been prevalent in studies concerning the conservation and management of landmark landscapes.
In the current study, landmark landscapes are categorized into artificial and natural types. Artificial landmark landscapes, characterized by urban features, are pivotal to urban development, reflecting typology, social history, and societal and city perspectives. Their morphological characteristics mirror social and economic conditions. Urban space development can be explored by studying landmark landscapes [14,15]. In contrast, the protection and development of natural landmark landscapes are predominantly examined through ecological lenses, focusing on aspects such as climate change [16] and environmental changes. Regardless of their type, the aesthetics of landmark landscapes significantly influence urban development and visitor experiences [17]. Moreover, the interplay between landmark landscapes and human behavioral experiences is a crucial factor in determining their value [3].

1.2. Place Identity Approach

The theory of place originated internationally, with Tuan introducing the concept of “place” into human geography in 1974. In 1983, Proshansky et al. brought the idea of “place identity” into the realm of environmental psychology [18]. Place identity is conceptualized as a multifaceted connection between the individual and the physical environment, encompassing cognitive, emotional, and intentional dimensions. It incorporates functions of recognition, meaning, expressive requirements, mediation of change, and anxiety and defense. Fundamentally, place identity intertwines an individual’s personal identity with their environment, reflecting a complex amalgamation of conscious and unconscious thoughts, beliefs, preferences, emotions, values, goals, behavioral tendencies, and skills. It is a comprehensive construct involving cognitive, emotional, and intentional psychological dimensions [18,19]. Building on this foundational work, the theory and empirical research on place identity have continued to evolve, informed by environmental psychology and human geography perspectives. Paasi [20,21,22] conceptualizes place identity as encompassing distinctive elements of nature, culture, and regional life, including inhabitants and populations, that set one area apart from others. This identity is categorized into two aspects: subjective image and objective categorization. Groote and Haartsen [23] further define place identity as an amalgamation of both physical and anthropogenic processes, specific elements and structures in places, and the ascribed meanings to these places. Despite varied interpretations across domestic and international scholarly discourse due to diverse disciplinary perspectives, the core of place identity invariably links to both places and people. This interdependence suggests that, while differences between places are recognized or perceived by both local and external inhabitants, these distinctions stem from the physical, symbolic, institutional, and other aspects of the place [24]. Thus, place identity can be viewed as a subjective social construct, grounded in the objective physical environment [25]. In this study, the focus is on the objective physical environment, the historical–cultural importance of landmark landscapes, and the functional attributes of places to examine urban residents’ sense of place identity. Acknowledging the interaction between people and places as a continuous, dynamic, and reciprocal process, the formation and nurturing of place identity are similarly characterized as mutual, dynamic, and cyclical [26].
Place identity research currently employs two primary methodologies: the phenomenology-based qualitative approach, championed by human geographers [27], and the quantitative method rooted in environmental psychology [28]. Pioneering the quantitative assessment of place identity, Lalli [29] developed the Urban Identity Scale. Subsequent research often utilized Likert scales for evaluating individual place identities [30,31,32]. Additionally, some studies have captured the unique identity of places through textual analysis [33] and visual representations such as photographs [34], focusing on identity markers like architecture, street symbols, landscapes, cultural traditions, area names, dialects, attire, and more [35].
Research on place identity has primarily focused on three areas: dimensions, applications, and influencing factors, considering public spaces [36], international areas [37], special groups [38], and urban communities [39]. Dimensionalization is central to place identity research and a crucial step in empirical studies. Given the varying interpretations of place identity, influenced by different disciplinary perspectives and research objectives, scholars have proposed multiple dimensional models, including single-dimensional [40], two-dimensional [36], three-dimensional [41,42], four-dimensional [43,44,45], and five-dimensional [46,47] frameworks. This study, grounded in environmental psychology and supplemented by a literature review and interviews, adopts the widely recognized tripartite classification of cognition, emotion, and intention to categorize place identity.
Influencing factors of place identity are categorized into local natural environments and socio-cultural elements [48], which work together to influence place identity. Individual characteristics such as gender, age, and psychological characteristics of individuals also impact place identity [49]. Social factors like a place’s culture, infrastructure [50], living spaces [39], and social class [41] can influence place identity independently or in conjunction with other elements. Additionally, natural environmental factors, such as recreation spaces [51], climate [52], and other environmental variables [53], significantly influence people’s comfort and, consequently, their place identity. Based on these considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
The landscape characteristics of landmark landscapes positively influence the construction of place identity.
Previous research has explored the relationships between urban landscapes and place identity. Studies have examined the influence of place identity on landscape protection willingness [54], landscape satisfaction [55], and landscape perception [56]. Various factors, such as function, history, aesthetics [56], accessibility, culture, and typicality [55], have been identified as contributing to the formation of place identity. These findings offer a theoretical basis for subsequent research. However, the specific impact of urban landscapes, particularly unique and representative ones, on place identity has been less frequently studied. Local landmark landscapes often embody artistic expressions, living needs, and the cultural consciousness of the populations in a given area [1]. Research indicates that the incorporation of local landscape elements can significantly enhance people’s sense of place in a new environment [57]. Additionally, symbolic signs are a prevalent method for recognizing settings and connecting places with physical things [50]. Based on these insights, we propose:
Hypothesis 2.
The function of landmark landscapes positively influences the construction of place identity.
Hypothesis 3.
The historical–cultural importance of landmark landscapes positively influences the construction of place identity.
Gender, age, and individual psychological characteristics significantly influence the psychological makeup of individuals and, consequently, their place identity. This linkage has garnered considerable attention both nationally and internationally in place identity studies [18]. Place identity embodies an individual’s emotional attachment to a location, evolving over time [58]. Residency facilitates the development of social relationships, and prolonged residence in a place reinforces place identity [49,59]. Based on these insights, we propose:
Hypothesis 4.
Residence duration moderates the relationship between the characteristics, function, and historical–cultural importance of landmark landscapes and place identity.
However, these assumptions require experimental validation. Consequently, this study employed a robust and reliable quantitative evaluation methodology, grounded in the principles of environmental psychology, to examine the influence of landmark landscapes on the formation of place identity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

Nanjing, recognized as one of China’s first national historical and cultural cities, holds immense significance as a cradle of Chinese civilization and serves as the political, economic, and cultural hub of South China. As both an ancient and provincial capital, Nanjing showcases a unique blend of old and new urban areas, enriched by abundant natural resources. This diversity makes it an ideal location for investigating a range of typical and representative landmark landscapes.
In this study, landmark landscapes in Nanjing are categorized into two types: historical–cultural and modern landscapes. Based on prior research, a total of 20 landmark landscapes in Nanjing have been identified by scholars. Among these, 13 are historical–cultural landmarks, which include eight famous buildings or structures: the Confucius Temple, the Ming Dynasty City Wall, the Jiming Temple, the Presidential Palace, the Rain Flower Terrace, the Yuejiang Tower, the Zhan Garden, and Drum Tower Park. Additionally, three are situated on mountains: the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, the Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum, and Purple Mountain. The remaining two, the Qinhuai River and Xuanwu Lake, are noted as traditional waterscapes. The study also encompasses seven modern landmarks, namely the Yangtze River Bridge, the Nanjing Eye, the Nanjing Youth Olympic Sports Park, the Nanjing International Youth Culture Center, the Zifeng Mansion, the Jinling Hotel, and the Nanjing Radio and TV Tower.

2.2. Scale Development

This study meticulously followed the established procedures for scale development. The initial items were derived from extensive literature reviews and detailed interviews, followed by systematic coding. Through collaborative discussions with various experts and peers, these items were refined and consolidated, culminating in the formation of the preliminary scale. Pretest questionnaires were then administered to assess the scale’s reliability using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, leading to the development of the final scale.

2.2.1. Question Item Generation

The item generation methodology of this study consisted of obtaining items from academic literature and personal interviews, both analyzing national and international literature on place identity and supplementing it with personal interviews. This strategy not only validated the content of the scale but also made it appropriate for the specific research context. The questionnaire comprises two scales: the first measures perceptions of landmark landscapes, while the second assesses place identity. The former scale was developed based on a theoretical three-dimensional model of landscape perception. The latter scale utilized Proshansky et al.’s identity construction theory, which delineates place identity in three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and intentional [18].
Secondly, this study enhanced the scale’s relevance to the actual context by gathering descriptions of place identity and landmark landscapes through interviews as complementary information. Insights from the literature were integrated with comprehensive interviews to derive coded outcomes and hypothesize the factors affecting place identity due to landmark landscapes. Respondents were engaged in interviews, encouraging the articulation of their thoughts, and informal discussions supplemented these sessions. With participants’ approval and the signing of informed consent, cell phone recordings of these conversations facilitated subsequent data organization, analysis, and coding. Interviewees were required to be Nanjing residents with stable employment or students with extensive learning experiences. A total of 30 interviews, each lasting between 5 and 20 min, were conducted and deemed valid, achieving a validity rate of 100.00%. Data from these interviews underwent coding using open, axial, and selective methods. Initially, each recording was dissected sentence by sentence to distill representative concepts, yielding 66 concepts for axial coding. These concepts, linked to similar phenomena, were then logically and semantically categorized into 10 axial codes. Selective coding further refined these into four main categories (Table 1), positing hypothesized influences. Subsequently, experts and peers were invited to suggest revisions. The final scale, comprising 18 questions across multiple dimensions, utilized a Likert five-point scale. The comprehensive questionnaire included sections on respondent demographics, a measurement scale for landmark landscape perception, and a scale for place identity. The questionnaire’s introduction elucidates the study’s objectives, societal benefits, information collection scope, associated privacy risks, and mitigation strategies.
An ethical review of the study was conducted to safeguard participant rights comprehensively. Participants were required to peruse the questionnaire introduction and provide written informed consent. Participant anonymity and confidentiality were assured, their participation was strictly voluntary, and the study’s ethical risks were significantly minimized.

2.2.2. Testing of Scales

  • Exploratory Factor Analysis
This research utilized SPSS 27.0 software for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to investigate the dimensional structure of the landmark landscape and place identity scale. The scale’s reliability was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, alongside correlation analysis, factor loadings, and other pertinent indicators. Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed with the varimax rotation method. The determination of the number of factors incorporated results from the total explained variance of the questionnaire, factor loadings, and the logical coherence and reasonableness of the extracted common factors. The outcomes are presented below.
2.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
After the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 27.0 software. This analysis focused on the measurement items identified previously, applying structural and discriminant validity analyses to ascertain the most fitting model alignment. The findings of this phase are summarized below.

2.3. Structural Model Hypothesis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a prevalent analytical tool in environmental psychology, primarily used for examining the relationships among latent variables and validating theoretical propositions. Place identity (PI), as a social construct, eludes direct observation and is thus considered a latent variable. It is indirectly measured through explicit SEM indicators, as outlined by Xu et al. [60]. SEM consists of two primary components: the measurement model and the structural model. The measurement model is utilized first to validate the latent variables, followed by the structural model to analyze causality among these variables. Based on the findings of prior research, a conceptual model illustrating these relationships is depicted in Figure 1.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Samples

3.1.1. First Survey

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the public perception of Nanjing’s landmark landscapes, a structured questionnaire survey was carried out in March 2021, focusing on the previously identified landmarks. The survey participants were primarily local residents with stable employment. Additionally, students possessing extensive study experience in the area were included to enrich the sample diversity. This approach resulted in the accumulation of 123 valid questionnaires. Descriptive statistical analyses of the sample data are presented in Table 2.
In the surveys, the balance between historical–cultural and modern landmark landscapes was carefully considered, including specific criteria for the number of survey points necessary to satisfy subsequent survey requirements. Before the survey, participants were briefed on the distinct characteristics and differences of these two categories of landmarks. Subsequently, they were presented with two questions: (1) “Please select the top four historical–cultural landmarks that you believe best represent Nanjing”, and (2) “Please select the top two modern landmarks that you believe best represent Nanjing”. The most frequently chosen historical–cultural landmarks were the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, Xuanwu Lake, the Confucius Temple, and the Ming Dynasty City Wall. In contrast, the Zifeng Mansion and the Nanjing Eye emerged as the top modern landmarks.

3.1.2. Second Survey

At least 200 questionnaires were needed to ensure that the sample size was over five times the items while taking into account the sample recovery rate and possible differences in the cognition of residents on different landmark landscapes. The survey, employing random sampling, was conducted between 31 March 2021, and 5 April 2021, at six significant landmarks: the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, Xuanwu Lake, the Confucius Temple, the Ming Dynasty City Wall, the Zifeng Mansion, and the Nanjing Eye. The criteria for selecting interviewees remained consistent with previously stated standards. Out of the 211 questionnaires collected, 8 were deemed invalid, yielding an effective response rate of 96.20%. The locations of the survey points are depicted in Figure 2, while Table 3 presents the basic demographic information of the respondents, reflecting the general characteristics of visitors to these landmark landscapes.
Respondents in this study generally rated landmark landscapes and place identity highly, as indicated in Table 4. Most items scored around 4 points or higher, suggesting a predominantly positive attitude towards landmark landscapes and a recognition or appreciation of their features. Notably, the statement “You visit this landscape frequently” received the lowest score (3.25), whereas “You are willing to protect the landscape actively” achieved the highest score (4.62). However, the current study requires a group of respondents who have an intuitive experience of the overall and detailed environments of landmark landscapes to explore the perception of landmark landscapes on place identity. Therefore, it was necessary to select a group that visits the landmark landscapes in person as survey respondents.

3.2. Reliability and Validity Tests

To assess the reliability of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha index was calculated using SPSS 27.0, a widely recognized metric for this purpose. According to Hinkin [61], an alpha value greater than 0.70 typically indicates good internal consistency and reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.776 for landscape characteristics, 0.719 for function, 0.863 for historical–cultural importance, and 0.850 for place identity, all suggesting high data reliability (Table S1).
The structural validity of the scale was evaluated using KMO and Bartlett’s sphere tests to ascertain the suitability of variables for factor analysis. The KMO values for both landmark landscape perception and place identity exceeded 0.8 (0.814 and 0.852, respectively), indicating appropriateness for factor analysis (Table S2). Additionally, Bartlett’s sphere tests yielded a p-value of 0.000, further confirming the data’s suitability for this analytical approach.

3.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor analysis of the questionnaire data, using the principal component analysis method, extracted four main components with eigenvalues greater than 1. These components were identified as place identity, historical–cultural importance, landscape characteristics, and function. Their respective variance loading contribution rates were 19.351%, 17.163%, 14.104%, and 11.620%, with a cumulative explanatory variance contribution of 62.239% (Table S3).
The analysis utilized maximum variance rotation to ascertain factor attribution for each item. The most significant factor, place identity, contributed 19.351%, with PI6 exhibiting the highest influence (weight of 0.788). Historical–cultural importance, the second factor, had a contribution rate of 17.163%, strongly correlating with items HCS1, HCS2, and HCS3. Landscape characteristics, the third factor, accounted for 14.104% of the variance, with LC4 having the greatest impact (weight of 0.801). The fourth factor, function, showed associations with items F1, F2, and F3 (Table S4). These findings indicate that the factor loadings and achievement of the minimum standard for each measurement item meet the specified numerical criteria, affirming the suitability of factor analysis for this data.

3.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS 27.0 software to ascertain if the observed variables accurately reflected the latent variables and to examine the correlations among them. The measurement model’s path coefficients for landscape characteristics, functions, and historical–cultural importance were all significant, with t-values exceeding the threshold of 1.96 (Table S5). For normalized factor loading, the threshold is set above 0.5. In this study, the factor loadings ranged from 0.560 to 0.874, surpassing this threshold. The combined reliability (CR) for each latent variable was between 0.720 and 0.866, exceeding the critical value of 0.7. Although the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable ranged from 0.420 to 0.684, falling below the standard value of 0.5 in some cases, previous research, such as Huang Tao et al.’s study on the influence of tourist places’ cultural atmosphere on tourists’ behavior intentions [62], has shown that an AVE greater than 0.4 can still indicate acceptable convergent validity. Therefore, despite some AVE values being below 0.5, the overall convergent validity of the model in this study is considered satisfactory.
The analysis reveals a significant correlation among landscape characteristics, function, and historical–cultural importance of landmark landscapes. Furthermore, the absolute values of the correlation coefficients are below 0.5 and less than the square roots of the corresponding average variance extracted (AVE), suggesting a discernible degree of correlation and distinctiveness among each latent variable. This pattern indicates that the discriminant validity between the scales is robust (Table S6).

3.5. Assessment of Normality

The maximum approximation assessment method, implemented via AMOS 27.0 software, was employed to evaluate the distribution of the observed variables. As depicted in Table 5, the skewness coefficients of the 18 indicators ranged from −0.22 to −1.323, all with absolute values less than 1.5. Similarly, the kurtosis coefficients varied between −0.911 and 0.67, with absolute values under 1. This pattern suggests that the data adheres to a normal distribution, thereby validating the use of the maximum approximation method for modeling the statistical parameters.

3.6. Model Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing

The conceptual model depicted in Figure 1 was evaluated using the AMOS 27.0 software to assess the model’s fit with the data (Table S7). This analysis indicated that, while the initial structural model showed a reasonable fit, modifications are necessary to optimize it further (Figure 3).
Data analysis of the hypothetical model revealed elevated modification indices (MI) for the error terms of certain observed variables, suggesting a potential correlation. Consequently, path additions were contemplated. Within the place identity measurement model, a notably higher MI between “PI1” (This landscape offers a unique experience) and “PI6” (This landscape is enjoyable to visit) was observed. This indicates a probable correlation between the landscape’s uniqueness and the visitors’ enjoyment. It implies an interaction where the distinctiveness of the landscape enhances the visitors’ experience. Furthermore, elevated MI values between “PI5” (This landscape fosters a sense of belonging in Nanjing) and “PI6” suggests that the sense of belonging engendered by the landscape is influenced by the visitors’ enjoyment. This further indicates a reciprocal relationship: increased enjoyment of the landscape correlates with a stronger sense of belonging. Additionally, a significant MI between “PI6” and “PI7” (This landscape is recommendable to others) suggests a link between visitors’ enjoyment and their likelihood to recommend the landscape. Consequently, these insights have led to the addition of respective paths and subsequent modifications to the model.
The finalized modified model is shown in Figure 4. Specifically, all the indicators met the threshold requirements of each index, including χ2/DF (2.171) being < 3.000, the CFI (0.902) being > 0.900, the GFI (0.868) being > 0.800, the AGFI (0.820) being > 0.800, the IFI (0.904) being > 0.900, and the RMSEA (0.076) being < 0.080. These indices collectively indicate that the general model fittingly represents the data.
The significance criteria for path coefficient analysis stipulate that a critical ratio exceeding 1.96 indicates significance at a t-value of less than 0.05, while a critical ratio above 2.58 signifies a t-value of less than 0.01. According to the results of hypothesis testing presented in Table 6, the path coefficients for the hypothesized relationships H1, H2, and H3 are 0.295, 0.436, and 0.291, respectively. The absolute critical ratios for these hypotheses all exceed 1.96, satisfying the significance criteria. Therefore, it can be concluded that the function, historical–cultural importance, and landscape characteristics of landmark landscapes significantly influence place identity, validating hypotheses H1, H2, and H3.
The analysis results suggest that the model demonstrated a good fit. For landscape characteristics (LC), LC1 showed a high explanatory degree at 0.76, while LC2, LC3, and LC4 had explanatory degrees of 0.69, 0.64, and 0.60, respectively. Within the function (F) category, F3 exhibited strong explanatory power with a path coefficient of 0.77, followed by F1 at 0.68 and F2 at 0.58. Regarding the historical–cultural importance (HCI) factors, HCI1-3 all indicated strong explanations with values of 0.81, 0.87, and 0.79, respectively. The place identity (PI) variables also showed high explanatory degrees, notably PI2 (0.76), PI4 (0.71), PI7 (0.68), PI3 (0.68), and PI8 (0.58), signifying their significance. Conversely, PI1, PI5, and PI6 had slightly lower path coefficients of 0.54, 0.53, and 0.53, respectively. Overall, these results suggest that the observed variables effectively reflected the latent variables, thus exerting direct influences on place identity.

3.7. Moderating Effect of Residence Duration

We employed the process plug-in in SPSS 27.0 to examine the moderating effects of respondents’ residence duration on the relationship between independent variables and the sense of place identity. The analysis indicated that residence duration itself was not a significant predictor of place identity. However, the interaction between residence duration and historical–cultural importance emerged as a significant predictor, suggesting a notable moderating effect of residence duration on this relationship (Table 7). To further elucidate this moderating effect, a diagram was plotted (Figure 5), depicting the influence of residence duration among the variables. Figure 5 shows a steeper slope for higher years of residence compared to lower years. This implies that the impact of historical–cultural importance on place identity is more pronounced with longer residence durations. Conversely, this influence is diminished with shorter residence durations, thus affirming that residence duration positively moderates the relationship between historical–cultural importance and the sense of place identity.
This research identified three primary factors influencing place identity in the context of landmark landscapes: landscape characteristics, functions, and historical–cultural importance. Notably, historical–cultural importance exerted the most substantial positive impact on place identity. Landscape characteristics and functions also significantly influenced place identity, albeit to a lesser extent. The study yielded several new insights: (1) While all three factors—landscape characteristics, historical–cultural importance, and function—positively impact place identity, their degrees of influence vary. Historical–cultural importance is the most influential, followed by landscape characteristics and function, which have comparable effects. (2) Residence duration positively moderates the relationship between historical–cultural importance and place identity. Specifically, longer residence duration amplifies the impact of historical–cultural importance on place identity. (3) Within the cognitive, emotional, and intentional dimensions of place identity, the most influential factors are the perception of a “special landscape”, the “sense of pride” elicited by landmark landscapes, and the “recommendation intention” for visiting these landscapes, respectively.

4. Discussion

This study represents a pioneering effort to employ quantitative analysis and structural equation modeling to elucidate the relationship between landmark landscapes and place identity. The findings affirm the viability of examining place identity through the lens of landmark landscapes. This approach not only facilitates the measurement of the impact of landmark landscapes on place identity construction but also reveals the dimensional nuances of this construction and the variable differences within each dimension. Uncovering how landmark landscapes shape the formation of place identity yields critical insights into the evolution of these landscapes, the reinforcement of residents’ sense of place identity, and the formulation of tourism marketing strategies.

4.1. Effects of Landmark Landscapes in the Construction of Place Identity

In recent years, the dimensional categorization of place identity has continued to evolve, adapting and transforming to accommodate diverse research themes and objectives. Proshansky [18] pioneered the concept of place identity in environmental psychology, and Bernardo [63] suggested that place identity included spatial, physical environment, and multidimensional social problem components. Zhao Hongjie [64] defined place identity as an individual’s emotional level, psycho-cognitive attachment, and belonging to a specific place, aligning with the views of scholars like Yang, L. et al. [65], who emphasize the emotional aspects within place identity that encapsulate people’s feelings and connections to their neighborhood. Sloan [66] explored the influence of culture and religion on the formation of a sense of place and its relationship with community shaping. Nurlisa [67] argued that place identity comprises continuity, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and distinctiveness. Sun Jiuxia [68] approached place identity from the perspective of symbolic symbols, positing that it is a fusion of the psyche and symbolic symbols that evoke emotional attachments to a place, which are then expressed through certain signs.
Distinguishing itself from prior research, this study innovatively adopts the perspective of landmark landscapes to explore place identity. It identifies 10 influencing factors by comprehensively examining three dimensions: landscape characteristics, function, and historical–cultural importance. A structural equation model based on these dimensions was constructed to gain a more precise understanding of the factors influencing place identity, representing a significant innovation. The study’s findings reveal that the historical–cultural importance of landmark landscapes notably enhances the public’s sense of place identity, addressing gaps in previous research and contributing to the theoretical development of “place identity” and “landmark landscapes”. Additionally, the study discovers that public residence duration has a positive moderating effect on place identity. This finding corroborates the assertions of Giuliani [58] and Tuan et al. [59] and suggests that future research should delve deeper into the mechanisms of place identity from various theoretical angles.
Structural equation modeling in this study reveals that historical–cultural importance exerts the most substantial direct impact on place identity. As Korpela [43] notes, place identity is shaped by an individual’s adaptation to their environment, fostering a sense of belonging through social, cultural, and emotional ties. The process inherently incorporates historical and cultural aspects of societal evolution. Landmark landscapes, as quintessential symbols of place identity, encapsulate memories and sustain historical continuity. These places evoke past recollections, significantly contributing to the formation of place identity, as Lewicka notes [69]. Particularly, when landmark landscapes are deeply intertwined with local history and culture, they effectively foster the establishment and evolution of place identity. Place identity is a dynamic psychological construct that adapts and reconfigures in response to changes in the local and external socio-economic, cultural, and political milieu. As urban history and culture evolve, the historical significance and cultural attributes of landmark landscapes significantly influence place identity. The place of residence significantly influences the development of social relationships within a community. According to Stokols and Shumaker [70], the duration and frequency of an individual’s interaction with a place are primary determinants in strengthening their connection to it. Prolonged and repeated engagements between individuals and their surroundings result in more robust relational bonds. Thus, prolonged residence in a location strengthens place identity. This association is further reinforced by the connection of residency with notable life events [49,59]. The influence of landmark landscapes on place identity is moderated by the duration of residence. This finding suggests that the longer residents live in a city, the stronger their sense of place identity becomes. In line with De Bres et al. [71] and Hernández et al. [72], this study also finds a significant correlation between the function of landmark landscapes and place identity. Place identity formation is frequently associated with specific signs or symbols, rendering landmark landscapes pivotal in establishing place identity. Both individual and group identities are manifested through various secular activities, festivals, events, and landscapes, as well as through emotions, perceptions, and actions. Activities and events at these landscapes can reinforce place identity through public engagement, echoing social and cultural memories. Moreover, the characteristics of landmark landscapes significantly impact place identity. This aligns with Sun et al.’s [68] perspective on the role of symbolic symbols in place identity formation. Factors like the scale, nature, identification, and geography of the landscape have been identified as influential to place identity. Consequently, the deliberate design and development of urban landmark landscapes not only mirrors urban traits but also fosters social cohesion and augments residents’ sense of belonging, pride, and identification with the city. Such efforts are vital for sustainable urban development.

4.2. Implications for Landmark Landscape Construction and Tourism

Paasi [22] highlights that politicians and policymakers frequently leverage place identity narratives in placemaking initiatives. Saleh [9] contends that place identity plays a crucial role in mobilizing communities, elucidating planners’ keen interest in its integration and application. Stewart et al. [10] argue that place identity could act as a visionary element in the planning process. The findings of this study hold significant implications for the planning and management of landmark landscapes. Firstly, the study underscores the substantial positive impact of landmark landscapes on place identity, emphasizing the importance of incorporating this role in landscape planning and design. Secondly, the relatively modest effects of landscape features and functions on place identity suggest a need for enhancing the construction of urban landmark landscapes. Notably, the historical–cultural importance of these landscapes emerged as the paramount factor influencing place identity. This underscores the necessity of integrating historical–cultural considerations into the construction and preservation of landmark landscapes, striving to showcase their historical–cultural connotations without compromising their inherent values. An inward exploration of the deeper historical–cultural values of these landscapes is also recommended, facilitating their more intuitive and consistent presentation, thereby augmenting the influence of historical cultures on place identity. Additionally, the study reveals that the public’s residence duration positively moderates the relationship between historical–cultural importance and place identity. Consequently, landscape planning and design should also focus on the temporal aspects of landmark landscapes’ historical influence, accentuating cultural characteristics and enhancing cultural promotion. This approach not only directly influences the development of landmark landscapes but also strengthens their positive impact on the sense of place identity. The construction of landmark landscapes not only directly influences their development but also significantly enhances their positive impact on the sense of place identity.
Additionally, since tourists often comprehend the historical background and cultural characteristics of a landmark primarily through tangible mediums, the historical–cultural connotations expressed through locally distinctive elements play a crucial role in shaping their perceptions. These factors indirectly influence the degree of place identity. Therefore, in the development and preservation of landmark landscapes, particular emphasis should be placed on landscape characteristics such as scale, detail, location, and natural environments. When landmark landscapes emphasize local culture, foreign tourists often find it easier to develop a sense of place identity, despite the differences in these landscapes, compared to local residents who may struggle to foster a positive sense of place identity within the same context. While several landmarks with prominent historical–cultural features in this study have undergone rigorous protection and management, limiting their daily recreational utility, their contribution to place identity is substantial.
Moreover, the advent of globalization has led to a homogenization of tourism offerings [7]. The concept of local destination identity is increasingly tied to perceptions of homogeneity. Tourism destinations face growing pressure to establish and promote unique urban identities to counteract these homogenizing effects and foster tourism growth. In European urban societies, both architectural heritage and innovative design are pivotal in reinforcing place identity [73]. These elements not only bolster tourism but also build social solidarity among residents, offering a counterbalance to the place identity crisis amidst economic and cultural globalization. The individualization of social development can be addressed through the creation of landmark landscapes, which familiarize diverse races, cultures, and social groups with a common space, fostering social consensus, enhancing place identity, accentuating city characteristics, and thereby boosting tourism.

4.3. Limitations and Further Research

The study’s findings underscore the importance of management actively engaging with public opinion and considering not just visual aspects but also functional and historical–cultural elements in landmark landscape development. This approach ensures that landmark landscapes more effectively reflect a city’s history and culture, thereby contributing to shaping its local brand image and facilitating cultural publicity. It is noteworthy that historical–cultural importance has a significant impact on place identity. Given Nanjing’s unique regional culture and local people’s distinct understanding of their history and culture, the questionnaire results may vary across different regions. Consequently, the structural model developed in this study should be applied objectively, taking into account the varied perceptions of residents from different regions regarding landmark landscapes. Furthermore, social variables, including ethnicity and culture, alongside natural factors, warrant greater consideration in scholarly research.
This research developed and empirically tested a structural equation conceptual model to explore the role of landmark landscapes in constructing place identity. The findings offer valuable insights for similar studies in other regions. As a dynamically evolving psychological structure, place identity can be examined through cross-sectional research to understand specific temporal contexts. Longitudinal studies, although challenging and time-consuming, offer deeper insights into the causal relationships between antecedents and outcomes of place identity. This approach, despite its complexities, represents a promising direction for future in-depth research. Moreover, the observed differences in the roles of different types of landmark landscapes in constructing place identity merit further investigation.

5. Conclusions

As globalization escalates and urban competition intensifies, leading to increased homogeneity among cities, landmark landscapes emerge as visual symbols that city residents can readily recognize. Interaction with these landscapes, through observation and visitation, nurtures residents’ cultural connections and sense of identity with their locality. This process plays a pivotal role in guiding urban planning, construction, and tourism marketing, thereby contributing to urban development and enhancement. In this study, we conducted field interviews, building upon prior research, to explore how landmark landscapes influence the place identity of Nanjing residents. The study assessed the impact across three dimensions: landscape characteristics, historical–cultural importance, and function. Using structural equation modeling, we analyzed the potential pathways between various factors of landmark landscapes and place identity. Our findings indicate that landmark landscapes positively affect the construction of place identity. Additionally, the functional attributes and historical–cultural importance of these landscapes significantly contribute to place identity development. Notably, residence duration emerges as a positive moderator in the relationship between historical–cultural importance and place identity, with a more substantial impact observed at higher levels of residence duration. The findings of this research elucidate the processes through which landmark landscapes foster place identity, establish urban distinctiveness and uniqueness, mitigate the effects of tourism product homogenization brought about by globalization, and bolster urban development and tourism expansion. Urban managers and planners are thus advised to consider residents’ capacity for developing place identity within the urban context.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16020761/s1, Table S1: Reliability test results of concepts; Table S2: Validity test results of concepts; Table S3: PCA and explained variance; Table S4: Exploratory factor analysis; Table S5: Structural validity s analysis; Table S6: Distinguishing validity analysis; Table S7: Fitting indices for the conceptual mode.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.Z.; methodology, B.Q.; validation, X.S. and C.L.; formal analysis, B.Q.; investigation, X.S. and C.L.; software, X.S. and C.L.; data curation, C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, F.Z. and X.S.; writing—review and editing, F.Z. and B.Q.; visualization, X.S.; supervision, B.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) General Project (31971721) and The Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project (19YJAZH072) and Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Forestry University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge the funding supported. Also many thanks for those who participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Q.; Wu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Fu, W.; Zhuo, Z.; Van Den Bosch, C.C.K.; Huang, Q.; Lan, S. More Meaningful, More Restorative? Linking Local Landscape Characteristics and Place Attachment to Restorative Perceptions of Urban Park Visitors. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 103763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Enache, C.; Craciun, C. The Role of the Landscape in the Identity Generation Process. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 92, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prentice, R.; Guerin, S. The Romantic Walker? A Case Study of Users of Iconic Scottish Landscape. Scott. Geogr. Mag. 1998, 114, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, X.; Zhao, L. Urban Landmark Designing and Urban Tourism Development. Urban Probl. 2007, 4, 002. [Google Scholar]
  5. Burgess, S.; Sellitto, C.; Cox, C.; Buultjens, J. Trust Perceptions of Online Travel Information by Different Content Creators: Some Social and Legal Implications. Inf. Syst. Front. 2011, 13, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ekinci, Y.; Hosany, S. Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality to Tourism Destinations. J. Travel Res. 2006, 45, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dredge, D.; Jenkins, J. Destination Place Identity and Regional Tourism Policy. Tour. Geogr. 2003, 5, 383–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ohsawa, Y.; Kobayashi, T. An Analytical Model to Assess the Visibility of Landmarks. Geogr. Anal. 2005, 37, 336–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saleh, M.A.E. Place Identity: The Visual Image of Saudi Arabian Cities. Habitat Int. 1998, 22, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stewart, W.P.; Liebert, D.; Larkin, K.W. Community Identities as Visions for Landscape Change. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Escalada, T.E. Aspectos icónicos e identitarios en la caracterización del paisaje rural de Millana. Comarca de la Baja Alcarria/Iconic and identifying features in rural landscape characterization about Millana. Alcarria Region. 2013, 63–83. Available online: http://polired.upm.es/index.php/territoriosenformacion/article/view/2078 (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  12. Torres, R.T.; Carvalho, J.; Serrano, E.; Helmer, W.; Acevedo, P.; Fonseca, C. Favourableness and Connectivity of a Western Iberian Landscape for the Reintroduction of the Iconic Iberian Ibex Capra Pyrenaica. Oryx 2016, 51, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Spiegal, S.; Bartolome, J.W.; White, M.D. Applying Ecological Site Concepts to Adaptive Conservation Management on an Iconic Californian Landscape. Rangelands 2016, 38, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ennen, E. Bonn—Wichtiger Standort der Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. VSWG Vierteljahr. Soz. Wirtsch. 1995, 82, 391–393. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mumford, L.; Moore, H.T.; Deutsch, K.W. City Planning for People. Pediatrics 1975, 55, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gontz, A.M.; Moss, P.T.; Sloss, C.R.; Petherick, L.M.; McCallum, A.; Shapland, F. Understanding Past Climate Variation and Environmental Change for the Future of an Iconic Landscape—K’gari Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chylińska, D. The Role of the Picturesque in Geotourism and Iconic Geotourist Landscapes. Geoheritage 2018, 11, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Proshansky, H.M. The City and Self-Identity. Environ. Behav. 1978, 10, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Droseltis, O.; Vignoles, V.L. Towards an Integrative Model of Place Identification: Dimensionality and Predictors of Intrapersonal-Level Place Preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paasi, A. Europe as a Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of Place, Boundaries and Identity. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2001, 8, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paasi, A. Region and Place: Regional Identity in Question. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2003, 27, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Paasi, A. The Resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in Europe. Rev. Int. Stud. 2009, 35, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Groote, P.; Haartsen, T. 10 The Communication of Heritage: Creating Place Identities. In The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Raagmaa, G. Regional Identity in Regional Development and Planning. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2002, 10, 55–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Peng, J.; Strijker, D.; Wu, Q. Place Identity: How Far Have We Come in Exploring Its Meanings? Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ramos, I.L.; Bernardo, F.; Ribeiro, S.C.; Van Eetvelde, V. Landscape Identity: Implications for Policy Making. Land Use Policy 2016, 53, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shannon, M.; Mitchell, C.J. Deconstructing Place Identity? Impacts of a “Racino” on Elora, Ontario, Canada. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lewicka, M. Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lalli, M. Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement, and Empirical Findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992, 12, 285–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. Effects of Place Attachment on Users’ Perceptions of Social and Environmental Conditions in a Natural Setting. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. In Proceedings of the National Parks and Recreation, Leisure Research Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 20–22 October 1989; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  32. White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; Van Riper, C.J. Effects of Place Identity, Place Dependence, and Experience-Use History on Perceptions of Recreation Impacts in a Natural Setting. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ritalahti, J. Regional identity in destination development. In Proceedings of the Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes, Porvoo-Borga, Finland, 5–7 March 2008. [Google Scholar]
  34. Keegstra, R. Representations of the Loire Valley. 2009. Available online: https://frw.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/2308/ (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  35. Nogué, J.; Vicente, J. Landscape and National Identity in Catalonia. Polit. Geogr. 2004, 23, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leis. Sci. 1992, 14, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lucero, N.M. “It’s Not about Place, It’s about What’s inside”: American Indian Women Negotiating Cultural Connectedness and Identity in Urban Spaces. Womens Stud. Int. Forum 2014, 42, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peach, C. Book Reviews: Hopkins P and Gale R (Eds) (2009) Muslims in Britain: Race, Place and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. £60 Cloth, £19.99 Paper. ISBN: 978 07486 2587 1 Cloth, 978 07486 2588 8 Paper. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2011, 35, 274–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fitri, M.; Triyadi, S. Community Cultures in Creating the Place-Bound Identity in Musi Riparian, Palembang. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 184, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tuan, Y.-F. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. In Englewood cliffs; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kelly, S.; Bricker, D.L.K. Level of Specialization and Place Attachment: An Exploratory Study of Whitewater Recreationists. Leis. Sci. 2000, 22, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R. Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Korpela, K.M. Place-Identity as a Product of Environmental Self-Regulation. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989, 9, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shamai, S. Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement. Geoforum 1991, 22, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. An Examination of the Relationship between Leisure Activity Involvement and Place Attachment among Hikers Along the Appalachian Trail. J. Leis. Res. 2003, 35, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hammitt, W.E.; Backlund, E.A.; Bixler, R.D. Place Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual and Empirical Development. Leis. Stud. 2006, 25, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morgan, P. Towards a Developmental Theory of Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhuang, C.P.; Zhang, J.X. Place identity: Analysis from environmental psychology perspective. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 19, 1387–1396. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fleury-Bahi, G.; Félonneau, M.-L.; Marchand, D. Processes of Place Identification and Residential Satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 669–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ngesan, M.R.; Karim, H.A.; Zubir, S.S. Image of Urban Public Park during Nighttime in Relation to Place Identity. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ngesan, M.R.; Karim, H.A.; Zubir, S.S. Human Behaviour and Activities in Relation to Shah Alam Urban Park during Nighttime. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Knez, I. Attachment and Identity as Related to a Place and Its Perceived Climate. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J. Inequalities in the Quality and Proximity of Green Space Exposure Are More Pronounced than in Quantity Aspect: Evidence from a Rapidly Urbanizing Chinese City. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, D.; Lee, J.-H. A Structural Relationship between Place Attachment and Intention to Conserve Landscapes—A Case Study of Harz National Park in Germany. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Kaufmann, H.R. The Impact of Islands’ Image on Tourists’ Satisfaction and Place Identity. J. Int. Bus. Entrep. Dev. 2013, 7, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Peng, J.; Yan, S.; Strijker, D.; Wu, Q.; Chen, W.; Ma, Z. The Influence of Place Identity on Perceptions of Landscape Change: Exploring Evidence from Rural Land Consolidation Projects in Eastern China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cheng, C.-K.; Kuo, H.-Y. Bonding to a New Place Never Visited: Exploring the Relationship between Landscape Elements and Place Bonding. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 546–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Giuliani, M.V.; Feldman, R. Place Attachment in a Developmental and Cultural Context. J. Environ. Psychol. 1993, 13, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tuan, Y.-F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  60. Xu, M.; de Bakker, M.; Strijker, D.; Wu, H. Effects of Distance from Home to Campus on Undergraduate Place Attachment and University Experience in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hinkin, T.R. A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1998, 1, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Huang, T.; Liu, J.L. A study on the influence of tourists’ willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behaviours in the Great Wall National Park—The mediating role of place attachment. J. Cent. South For. Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 11, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bernardo, F.; Palma-Oliveira, J.-M. Urban Neighbourhoods and Intergroup Relations: The Importance of Place Identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, H.J.; Wu, B.H. A study on the relationship between place identity and leisure benefits of mainland tourists travelling freely to Taiwan. J. Tour. 2013, 28, 54. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yang, L.G.; Liu, P.L.; Lin, L. The role effect of traditional village landscape genes in the construction of local identity: The example of Dong villages. Geoscience 2015, 35, 593. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sloan, S.M. Negotiating a Sense of Place in the Salt River Valley: Urbanites and the Desert. Bachelor’s Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2003. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/250ac39f54cae632377af8c4e7e117bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  67. Ginting, N.; Rahman, N.V.; Nasution, A.D. Increasing Tourism in Karo District, Indonesia Based on Place Identity. Environ.-Behav. Proc. J. 2017, 2, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sun, J.X.; Zhou, Y. Place identity of residents in heritage tourism sites: Symbols, memories and space of “Diaoxiang”. Geogr. Res. 2015, 34, 2381–2394. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lewicka, M. In search of roots: Memory as enabler of place attachment. In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methodsand Applications; Manzo, L.C., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. Stokols, D.; Shumaker, S.A. People in places: A transactional view of settings. In Coenition, Social Behavior and the Environment; Harvey, J., Ed.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  71. De Bres, K.; Davis, J. Celebrating Group and Place Identity: A Case Study of a New Regional Festival. Tour. Geogr. 2001, 3, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hernández, B.; Carmen Hidalgo, M.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-Natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gospodini, A. Urban Morphology and Place Identity in European Cities: Built Heritage and Innovative Design. J. Urban Des. 2004, 9, 225–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00761 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical model construction.
Figure 1. Theoretical model construction.
Sustainability 16 00761 g001
Sustainability 16 00761 g002
Figure 2. Survey site map.
Figure 2. Survey site map.
Sustainability 16 00761 g002
Sustainability 16 00761 g003
Figure 3. Structural model path standard resolution for the relationships between landmark landscapes and place identity construction. (** p < 0.01).
Figure 3. Structural model path standard resolution for the relationships between landmark landscapes and place identity construction. (** p < 0.01).
Sustainability 16 00761 g003
Sustainability 16 00761 g004
Figure 4. Path standard resolution of the place identity structure model for landmark landscapes (revised). (** p < 0.01).
Figure 4. Path standard resolution of the place identity structure model for landmark landscapes (revised). (** p < 0.01).
Sustainability 16 00761 g004
Sustainability 16 00761 g005
Figure 5. Moderating effects of residence duration between historical–cultural importance and place identity.
Figure 5. Moderating effects of residence duration between historical–cultural importance and place identity.
Sustainability 16 00761 g005
Table 1. Concepts and categories after coding.
Table 1. Concepts and categories after coding.
Selective CodingAxial CodingOpen Coding Examples
Landscape Characteristics (LC)Natural landscapeObservations about the quality of air and extensive forest coverage.
Volume sizeDescriptions of the vastness of the lake and the expansiveness of views.
Geographic conditionsComments on favorable location and convenient traffic.
Appearance characteristicsPositive remarks about the aesthetic appeal, including features like mountains, rivers, and city walls.
Function (F)Activity carrierMention of events and activities, like Lantern Festival, walking, and commemorative activities.
Urban developmentInsights into how landmarks enhance Nanjing’s visibility and reflect its economic development level.
Direction guideReferences to landmarks being visible and identifiable from public transportation and roads.
Historical–Cultural Importance (HCI)Cultural atmosphereNotions of a strong cultural ambiance representing local characteristics.
Cultural heritageReflections on the continuation and evolution of historical culture.
Historical influenceAccounts of ancient living scenes and historical relics.
Individual Characteristics (IC)Psychological perceptionFeelings of pride and belonging.
Life experienceMemories associated with growing up or living in Nanjing.
Social participationInvolvement in bringing friends and relatives for visits.
Social identityConnections to the area through work or study.
Residence durationVaried duration of residence in Nanjing, ranging from short-term to lifelong.
Residential locationProximity of living quarters to landmark locations.
Table 2. Descriptive statistical results of first survey samples (N = 123).
Table 2. Descriptive statistical results of first survey samples (N = 123).
ProjectN (%)Category
Gender52 (42.28%)Male
71 (57.72%)Female
Age2 (1.63%)<18
93 (75.61%)18–30
7 (5.69%)31–45
13 (10.57%)46–60
8 (6.50%)≥61
Residence duration46 (37.40%)<3
17 (13.82%)3–5
18 (14.63%)5–10
10 (8.13%)10–20
32 (26.02%)≥20
Education1 (0.80%)Below junior high school
7 (5.69%)Junior high school and senior high school
10 (8.13%)Technical secondary school
21 (17.07%)Undergraduate course
84 (68.31%)Master’s degree or above
Table 3. Descriptive statistical results of second survey samples (N = 203).
Table 3. Descriptive statistical results of second survey samples (N = 203).
ProjectN (%)Category
Gender101 (49.80%)Male
102 (50.20%)Female
Age13 (6.40%)<18
99 (48.80%)18–30
49 (24.10%)31–45
32 (15.80%)46–60
10 (4.90%)≥61
Residence duration46 (22.70%)<3
35 (17.20%)3–5
33 (16.30%)5–10
33 (16.30%)10–20
56 (27.60%)≥20
Education8 (3.90%)Below junior high school
36 (17.70%)Junior high school and senior high school
42 (20.70%)Technical secondary school
72 (35.50%)Undergraduate course
45 (22.20%)Master’s degree or above
Income49 (24.10%)<2000 RMB
23 (11.30%)2000–4000 RMB
47 (23.20%)4000–6000 RMB
84 (41.40%)>6000 RMB
Professional30 (14.80%)Government, enterprise, and public institution staff
27 (13.30%)Service industry staff
3 (1.50%)Vendors
21 (10.30%)Private proprietor/self-employed
12 (5.90%)Workers
81 (39.90%)Students
11 (5.40%)Retiree
18 (8.90%)Other
Residential location69 (34.00%)Xuanwu
30 (14.80%)Qinhuai
31 (15.30%)Gulou
19 (9.40%)Qixia
24 (11.80%)Jianye
8 (3.90%)Pukou
10 (4.90%)Yuhuatai
9 (4.40%)Jiangning
1 (0.50%)Liuhe
2 (1.00%)Lishui
Table 4. Analysis of place identity factors of landmark landscapes.
Table 4. Analysis of place identity factors of landmark landscapes.
MetricAverage ValueStandard Deviation
LC1. This landscape can reflect the urban characteristics of Nanjing.4.160.757
LC2. This landscape has a good geographical location condition.4.070.832
LC3. The prominent elements of this landscape are highly identifiable.4.290.802
LC4. You can have a broad view here.4.100.821
F1. This landscape is a suitable place for leisure and sightseeing.4.050.803
F2. This landscape has provided orientation reference during daily trips.3.890.883
F3. This landscape can enhance the city’s image.4.230.750
HCS1. This landscape evokes a strong historical–cultural atmosphere.3.811.196
HCS2. This landscape facilitates an understanding of its represented culture.3.741.166
HCS3. This landscape offers a unique cultural experience compared to other places.3.941.099
PI1. This landscape can provide you with a unique experience.3.930.901
PI2. You consider this landscape to be a representative landscape of Nanjing.4.220.834
PI3. This landscape has characteristics of Nanjing.3.910.934
PI4. This landscape enhances a sense of pride in Nanjing.4.090.836
PI5. This landscape enhances feelings of belonging in Nanjing.3.640.909
PI6. This landscape is enjoyable to visit.3.810.982
PI7. This landscape is worthy of recommendation to others.4.050.955
PI8. This landscape inspires a willingness to actively protect the landscape.4.620.605
Table 5. Assessment of normality.
Table 5. Assessment of normality.
VariableMinMaxSkewc.r.Kurtosisc.r.
LC125−0.484−2.817−0.480−1.395
LC225−0.449−2.609−0.678−1.973
LC325−0.743−4.324−0.526−1.530
LC425−0.614−3.573−0.224−0.652
HCS115−0.733−4.261−0.407−1.184
HCS215−0.581−3.377−0.576−1.675
HCS315−0.769−4.475−0.323−0.939
F125−0.328−1.905−0.802−2.333
F225−0.220−1.277−0.911−2.650
F325−0.678−3.942−0.031−0.091
PI835−1.323−7.6960.6701.950
PI715−0.825−4.7990.2070.602
PI615−0.624−3.6320.0760.221
PI515−0.262−1.527−0.349−1.014
PI415−0.737−4.2870.2990.868
PI315−0.516−3.004−0.446−1.296
PI225−0.885−5.1480.1650.480
PI115−0.547−3.183−0.069−0.201
Multivariate 41.10010.912
Table 6. Research hypothesis testing results.
Table 6. Research hypothesis testing results.
HypothesisRouteStandardized
Estimate		S.E.TpConclusion
H1Place
Identity		←Function0.2950.0833.0080.003support
H2Place
Identity		←Historical–Cultural Importance0.4360.0504.946***support
H3Place
Identity		←Landscape Characteristics0.2910.1042.7830.005support
*** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Moderating effect of residence duration.
Table 7. Moderating effect of residence duration.
VariantCoeffSEtpLLCIULCI
HSI0.2870.0338.8240.0000.2230.351
I30.0460.0241.9410.054−0.0010.092
HIS × I30.0500.0222.2490.0260.0060.094
HSI: Historical–cultural importance. I3: Residence duration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, F.; Sun, X.; Liu, C.; Qiu, B. Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration. Sustainability 2024, 16, 761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020761

AMA Style

Zhang F, Sun X, Liu C, Qiu B. Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020761

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Fan, Xiumin Sun, Chang Liu, and Bing Qiu. 2024. "Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020761

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop