Journal of Distribution Science (유통과학연구)

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Necessity of the Slow City Management and Distributional Values by Generations

  • Received : 2023.02.15
  • Accepted : 2023.07.05
  • Published : 2023.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how to perceive the role of the slow city and provide policy and managerial implications on the necessity of the slow city management and distributional values based on perspectives of millennials and generation Z. This study examined i) how do millennials and generation Z perceive economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors on attitude toward the slow city? ii) how does attitude affect overall satisfaction and intention to recommend the slow city to other cities' residents? iii) how do millennials perspectives on proposed factors differ from generation Z? Research design, data and methodology: This study conducted an online survey and applied t-test, factor, ANOVA, and regression analysis. Results: This study found that effects of economic and quality of life factors on attitude toward the slow city showed significance in cases of millennials and generation Z, while effects of environment factor on overall attitude showed significance in the case of generation Z. Conclusions: Governments should foster how millennials and generation Z understand the meanings of the slow city to form a better attitude in a society and put efforts to build a better image and management of the slow city.

Keywords

1. Introduction

Kotler and Gertner (2022) addressed the importance of place marketing with a marketing management perspective and examined that strategic place marketing concerns the enhancement of a country’s position in the global marketplace with understanding the environmental forces. Hanna et al. (2021) stated that associations of places differ in their influence within the network and in importance of the place consumers’ attitude and behavior. Rinaldi et al. (2021) critically examined sustainable development within the contemporary practices of city branding with a prominent business philosophy that underpins market-led development strategies of urban areas. Ahn (2022) examined that the ultimate goal of city branding must be to increase behavioral intentions among tourists by creating a city brand, while a successful destination brand should harmoniously embrace a variety of stakeholders and tangible and intangible resources around the destination (Raimkulov et al., 2021). How to foster a country, city, and region as a brand with the consideration of sustainability and quality of life? Chan and Marafa (2014) highlighted the existence of green resources with the concept of city branding and contributed to the establishment of a city brand to achieve sustainability by demonstrating green branding that considers green resources. Zhang and Zhao (2009) asserted that a key challenge of city branding is the difficulty of delimiting a city’s identity and core values in a manner that is widely acceptable, easily marketable, presentable, and open to experience in a daily manner. The Cittaslow movement was born in 1999 with philosophies including slow for a better life, improving the quality of the environment, etc. (www.cittaslow.org). According to Çiçek et al. (2019), the slow city concept represents an emerging global trend where participant small cities commit to growing sustainably by preserving their authenticity while celebrating their local culture and diversity. Jung and Sohn (2010) addressed that the slow city is to protect the traditional culture and nature of a region for the community and next generation and become a significant source of income in a town by heightening its brand value and attractiveness. Mayer and Knox (2013) addressed that member towns of the slow city are obligated to pursue local projects that protect local traditions and cultures and contribute to a relaxed pace of life, create conviviality and hospitality, and promote a unique sense of place and local distinctiveness. Previous studies addressed criteria for the cittaslow and policies for the slow cities include energy and environmental policy, quality of urban life policies, social cohesion, (Ada & Yener, 2017) cultural sustainability, the transfer of beliefs, values, and behaviors shared by society and considering future generations (Altman & Chembers, 1980).

Based on the consideration, the purpose of this study is to investigate how to perceive the role of the slow city and provide policy and managerial implications on the necessity of the slow city management and distributional value based on perspectives of millennials and generation Z. Among generations, this study focused on millennials and generation Z, known as generations consider environment issues and global sustainability than older generations. In particular, millennials distinguished from other cohorts with differences in values, preferences, and behavior (Bolton et al., 2012) and raised in a different era in terms of socio-economic, cultural, and technology change (Schewe & Noble, 2000; Ting et al., 2018). This study focused on millennials and generation Z as how younger generations might perceive the importance of the slow city that might be different from the older generations. By applying factors that meet the meanings of the slow city including economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors (www.cittaslow.org), this study developed the following research questions: i) how do millennials and generation Z perceive economic factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city? ii) i) how do millennials and generation Z perceive environment factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city? iii) how do millennials and generation Z perceive cultural factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city? iv) how do millennials and generation Z perceive community factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city? v) how do millennials and generation Z perceive quality of life factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city? vi) how do the effects of economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors on attitude differ millennials perspectives from generation Z’s perspectives? and vii) how attitude toward the slow city affects overall satisfaction and intention to recommend to other cities’ residents? By selecting millennials and generation Z among generation cohorts, this study also proposed how millennials’ perspectives on the slow city might differ from generation Z’s perspectives. While various studies discussed the issues of the slow city, there is lack of research on how millennials and generation Z actually perceive the meanings of the slow city in a society to form attitude and how millennials and generation Z’s perceive the slow city differently.

2. Literature Review

2.1. What is the Slow City?

The Cittaslow movement was born in 1999 from the intuition of Paolo Saturnini, then Mayor of Greve in Chianti with philosophies such as slow for a better life, improving the quality of the environment, etc. (www.cittaslow.org). As of April 2022, Cittaslow international network involves 282 cities in 32 countries including Italia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, South Korea, etc. (cittaslow.co.kr). Hanna et al. (2021) addressed that these associations differ in their influence within the network and in importance of the place consumers’ attitude and behavior. Mayer and Knox (2006) investigated that slow city movement is a spinoff from the slow food movement and slow cities are places where citizens and local leaders pay attention to local history and utilize the distinct local context to develop in better and more sustainable ways. According to Aygün et al. (2021), the slow city movement emerged to increase the recognition of cities and ensure local sustainable development. Mayer and Knox (2013) highlighted that the criteria of the slow city represent a unique community quality of life indicator system and address issues of environmental protection and sustainable urban development, urban design and form, the support of local products, and educational awareness.

2.2. The Slow City for Place Branding & Management

City branding, alternative term of place branding, is a common practice adopted by many cities in the context of intensified urban competition for mobile resources, markets, opportunities and attention (Zhang & Zhao, 2009). Zenker et al. (2017) contributed to a broader understanding of how the branding of places affects both residents and tourists. Liu (2003) addressed the importance of sustainable tourism development by highlighting the need of present tourist and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. Çiçek et al. (2019) examined that the slow city movement offers much promise for place marketing and has potential to slow down the heavy migration from rural to urban areas in emerging markets. Zhang and Zhao (2009) stated that a crucial strategy within city branding is the creation of the city’s identity by building identifiable image and core values. Rinaldi et al. (2021) suggested an opportunity to rethink city-branding practices toward more sustainable trajectories and avoid a return to a business as usual model based on a paradigm of mere growth. Giovanardi et al. (2013) addressed that it is important to attempt to lay down the foundation for a more refined understanding of how brand-management philosophy changes when moving into and across places and in which way places change when affected by this way of thinking. Green et al. (2016) mapped the development of city brand management covering primitive attempts to adjust what cities mean to people, boosterish city promotion, entrepreneurial urban governance, formalized city management and a rhetorical city brand focus.

2.3. What is a Generation?

A generation and a cohort refers to age-related groups of people (Meredith & Schewe, 1994), while generations differ from cohorts (Schewe & Noble, 2000). A cohort can be conceptualized as groups of individuals born during the same time interval, traveling together, and experiencing similar external events during late adolescence or early adulthood (Meredith & Schewe, 1994) and at a similar age (Williams & Page, 2011). A cohort defined by the external events that occurred during the formative years (Duh & Struwig, 2015) unlike generations (Schewe & Noble, 2000). Schewe and Noble (2000) stated that external events such as wars, social upheavals, political, cultural, economic and technological changes which individual experience together accounts for differences in values, beliefs, attitudes, and preferences that exist between age cohorts and created the essence of generational marketing. Nilsen (2014) summarized that cohort, based on the definition by Ryder (1965), unlike generations (Mannheim 1952), there is no discussion of social location, of social bond, nor of any coordinated response to historical events. Mannheim (1952) brought crucial input to the development of the term “generation”, highlighting the fact that the phenomenon of generations is one of the basic factors contributing to the origin of the dynamics of historical development. Generations are defined as an identifiable group that share birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical developmental stages (Kupperschmidt, 2000). A generation refers a set of people involuntarily grouped in a period of history which extends from 20 to 25 years of duration, or approximately the time necessary for a person to grow and reproduce (Meredith & Schewe, 1994). A cohort generation refers to a group of persons born during a specific span of time who share a unique character created by their common age location in history (Mannheim 1952).

Generation theories, such as the generational cohort theory, posited that a group of individuals who experience the same catastrophic events such as political, economic and social events during individuals’ formative years and develop similar characteristics (Inglehart, 1997; Meredith & Schewe, 1994; Ting et al., 2018). Williams and Page (2011) classified generations as follows: i) The Baby Boomers (a.k.a. Boomers, Me Generation) were born during 1946-1964, ii) Generation X was born during 1965-1977, iii) Generation Y (a.k.a. Gen Y, Millennials, Echo Boomers, Net Generation) was born during 1977-1994, and iv) Generation Z (a.k.a. Baby Bloomers) was born after 1994.

Generation Y, also called Millennials, often referred to as digital natives, strive for values such as balance, passion, learning, security, and willingness to work at their workplace (Dries et al., 2008; Gayeski, 2015). Bolton et al. (2012) distinguishing Generation Y from other cohorts in terms of systematic differences in values, preferences, and behavior that are stable over time as opposed to maturational or other differences. Generation Y who are now in their adulthood, were raised in an era of remarkable socio-economic, cultural and technological change, which makes them different from other generations (Schewe & Noble, 2000; Ting et al., 2018). Cennamo and Gardner (2008) addressed that differences between generations are confounded with changes due to ageing, experience, life stage and career stage. Generation Y and Z have the responsibility for the environment much more seriously compared to earlier generations (Dabija, 2018). Previous studies addressed the different perspectives based on generations, while how millennials and generation Z perceive the slow city and how perceptions might differ by generations were rarely studied.

3. Hypotheses Development

As shown in Figure 1, this study hypothesized effects of economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors on overall attitude and effects of overall attitude on satisfaction and intention to recommend to other cities’ citizen. Five factors are addressed as key aspects to form the value of the slow city (http://www.cittaslow.org).

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Proposed Model of the Study

3.1. Impact of Economic Factor on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

According to Çiçek et al. (2019), the slow city movement involves encouraging the locals to start up their own businesses and promote local products by protecting the authentic environment of cities and anticipated that it would have a positive impact on the economy as a whole. Aygün et al. (2021) addressed that in the cities declared as slow cities, local governments and residents often want to develop their local economies and open them to the international market. Generation Y, The Millennial Generation, on the other hand, has been significantly affected by the economic downturn and suffered from numerous potential ramifications to the unemployment and underemployment status (Ross & Rouse, 2015). This study developed the economic dimension of how a slow city helps develop the local economy, local tourism, local goods and services, helps build local image, helps improve local awareness, etc. This study hypothesized how millennials and generation Z perceive the slow city with the consideration of economic issues. Therefore, this study hypothesized how the effects of economic factors perceived by millennials and generation Z on attitude toward the slow city and how perceptions differ by millennials and generation Z.

H1a~b: Perceived economic factors positively affect overall attitude in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H1c: Effects of perceived economic factor on overall attitude differ based on millennials and generation Z.

3.2. Impact of Environment Factor on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

Millennials or Generation Y are much more concerned with taking responsibility for the environment than generation X and Baby Boomers (Royne et al., 2011). A study by Ogiemwonyi (2022) found that Generation Y believed that green environmental awareness is essential because it is their responsibility to protect the environment that is getting worse due to pollution. According to Adnan, Ahman, and Khan (2017), generation Z consumers are more aware of the knowledge related to ecological problems and motivated to act on pro-environmental behavior. Previous studies have widely studied perception of Generation Y and Z on green products and the role of corporate responsibility. Previous studies (Laroche et al., 2001; Martin & Tulgan, 2001; Smith & Brower, 2012) analyzed that both generation Y and Z prefer companies that defined their actions with sustainability development, actively involved in the welfare of local communities, and contributed to the protection of the environment. However, previous studies rarely examined how millennials and generation Z perceive the development of cities in harmony with echo-friendly and sustainability. Therefore, this study hypothesized how the effects of environmental factors perceived by millennials and generation Z on attitude toward the slow city and how perceptions differ by millennials and generation Z.

H2a~b: Perceived environment factors positively affect overall attitude in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H2c: Effects of perceived environment factor on overall attitude differ based on millennials and generation Z.

3.3. Impact of Cultural Factor on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

Cittaslow (http://www.cittaslow.org) addressed that the Cittaslow movement believes that to really stop climate change we need to protect local cultures and heritages in addition to the natural environment. According to Ada and Yener (2017), the slow city has the philosophy that encourages the preservation of the world landscape heritage and transferring it to the next generations. Ada and Yener (2017) also confirmed that the historical and cultural heritage that will remain to the next generations has been carried in slow cities where quiet lives take place as also implied in the orange snail Cittaslow logo. According to Altman and Chembers (1980), in terms of cultural sustainability, the transfer of beliefs, values, and behaviors shared by society plays an important role in the socialization of future generations. Dabija (2018) confirmed that both millennials and generation Z are more actively involved in cultural and social events than previous generations. Therefore, this study hypothesized how the effects of cultural factors perceived by millennials and generation Z on attitude toward the slow city and how perceptions differ by millennials and generation Z.

H3a~b: Perceived cultural factors positively affect overall attitude in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H3c: Effects of perceived cultural factor on overall attitude differ based on millennials and generation Z.

3.4. Impact of Community Factor on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

According to cittaslow, one of the objectives is to preserve the spirit of community and share traditional knowledge with the new generations to preserve the regions’ cultural heritage (http://www.cittaslow.org). According to Ye et al. (2011), the sense of community appeared affects residents’ attitude toward the slow city positively, while attachment of the slow city affects residents’ attitude toward the slow city negatively. Greenberg and Weber (2008) claimed that millennials are more interested in civic participation and community affairs, while Twenge et al. (2012) showed that millennials are actually not as concerned about civic participation as other generations. Bolton et al. (2012) addressed that social norms and behavior may be changing due to millennials’ use of social media affecting civic engagement, attitudes toward privacy, health care practices, nutrition, and public safety in the general population. Community dimension applied in this study including the sense of belonging in the community, interaction with older generations living in the region, relations with the local people might differ by generations particularly with the slow city movement. Therefore, this study hypothesized how the effects of community factors perceived by millennials and generation Z on attitude toward the slow city and how perceptions differ by millennials and generation Z.

H4a~b: Perceived community factors positively affect overall attitude in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H4c: Effects of perceived community factor on overall attitude differ based on millennials and generation Z.

3.5. Impact of Quality of Life Factor on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

According to cittaslow, the idea of building a slow city is to improve the quality of life of people (http://www.cittaslow.org). Based on the comparison analysis of two slow cities, Brown and Jeong (2018) addressed that slow cities aim to change the quality of life of residents through both physical and infrastructural improvements and linking residents to the economy in an equitable manner. From the study on the cittaslow movement based on a critical point of view, Özmen and Can (2018) addressed that there is a need for more academic studies that emphasize sustainability and quality of life. Çiçek et al. (2019) investigated that the slow city movement and authenticity directly and positively impact economic development and entrepreneurial opportunities, and thereby the quality of life and intention to live are presented. Therefore, this study hypothesized how effects of quality of life factor perceived by millennials and generation Z on attitude toward the slow city and how perceptions differ by millennials and generation Z.

H5a~b: Perceived quality of life factor positively affects overall attitude in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H5c: Effects of perceived quality of life factor on overall attitude differ based on millennials and generation Z.

3.6. Impact of Overall Attitude on Satisfaction and Recommendation

Previous studies proposed to use the term attitude to refer to the evaluation of an object, concept, or behavior along a dimension of favor or disfavor, good or bad, like or dislike (Ajzen, & Fishbein 2000; Ajzen, & Fishbein, 1980). A study by Shahbandi and Farrokhshad (2021) examined relationships of customer satisfaction, customer attitude, customer loyalty and customer trust. A previous study by La and Yi (2015) critically reviewed customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, relationship marketing, and customer relationship management. Word-of-mouth recommendations are often applied as an indicator to measure loyalty and later effects of satisfaction (Chen & Wang, 2009; Picón et al., 2014). This study hypothesized effects of attitude on overall satisfaction and effects of overall attitude on intention to recommend the slow city to residents of other cities that are not registered as the slow city.

H6a: Perceived attitudes positively affect overall satisfaction toward the slow city in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H6b: Perceived attitudes positively affect intention to recommend the slow city to other cities’ residents besides slow cities in both cases of millennials and generation Z.

H6c: Effects of attitudes on overall satisfaction and intention to recommend differ based on millennials and generation Z.

4. Methodology

This study conducted an online survey with the assistance of a well-known research firm. The questionnaire consists of major questions with warm up and demographic questions. Major questions include questionnaire items regarding perceived slow city with five factors that include economic, cultural, environmental, community, and quality of life dimensions. Questionnaire items also include attitude and satisfaction toward the slow city and intention to recommend the slow city. This study applied a 5-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly disagree, 5 – Strongly agree) for major questionnaire items. The survey was conducted voluntarily and anonymous and the data was stored confidentially. This study conducted a survey in slow cities in South Korea. A total of 449 respondents answered the survey. Among respondents, 238 respondents were millennials and 211 respondents were generation Z. Table 1 summarized demographics of respondents.

Table 1: Demographics of Respondents

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0001.png 이미지

Among 17 slow cities in South Korea, this study selected 6 cities rather than counties by considering a larger number of residents who are in cohorts of millennials and generation Z. 6 selected cities include Chuncheon, Jecheon, Jeonju, Mokpo, Sangju, and Gimhae. Those cities are located in different provinces in South Korea. Registered slow cities in South Korea are located in rural areas relatively rather than metropolitan and spheres of regional central cities. Table 2 summarized number of respondents by six cities applied in this study. Samples applied in this study were selected based on proportional allocation and population composition ratio considered by generations, gender, and six cities.

Table 2: Respondents by Six Cities Applied in this Study

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0002.png 이미지

This study conducted Cronbach alpha to check reliability. The results of Cronbach alpha include the following: .896 for economic dimension, 0.757 for environment dimension, 0.831 for cultural dimension, 0.912 for community dimension, and 0.850 for Quality of life in the case of millennials, while 0.868 for economic dimension, 0.788 for environment dimension, 0.796 for cultural dimension, 0.919 for community dimension, and 0.883 for Quality of life in the case of generation Z.

5. Findings

5.1. Perceived Mean Differences on Factors: Millennials vs. Generation Z

This study conducted t-test to examine mean differences for proposed factors including economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors. The results found that following items for economic factor showed mean differences between millennials and generation Z with higher mean values in the case of generation Z: i) the slow city helps develop local economy and tourism and ii) helps build local image and awareness, and iii) goods and services that are conductive to the community have been developed. The results also showed mean differences of the following items for environmental factors with higher mean values in the case of generation Z; i) the slow city has helped sustainable development and protect the environment; and iii) slow city was helpful for a safe living environment. The results also showed mean differences of the following items for cultural factors with higher mean values in the case of generation Z; i) the slow city was helped preserve the local culture, local traditional values, and ii) the slow city helped to promote local culture. The results found the following items for community factor showed mean differences between millennials and generation Z with higher mean values in the case of generation Z: i) the sense of belonging in the community has increased, ii) interaction with other generations living in the region has increased, iii) relationships with the local people have improved, iv) intergenerational exchanges among local residents have increased, v) citizenship for the community has improved, and iv) satisfaction with the residential area has increased. However, items including relationships with the local people, intergenerational exchanges among local residents, and citizenship for the community showed values between disagree and neutral for both millennials and generation Z. The results also showed mean differences of the following items for quality of life factor with higher mean values in the case of generation Z; i) the slow city helped me to live a healthy life, ii) my hobby has improved because of slow city, iii) slow city has reduced anxiety or stress, and iv) overall, the quality of life has improved. However, in the case of item happiness, living in the current residence because of the slow city does not show difference between millennials and generation Z, while mean values showed positive agreement in the case of both generations. Further, among quality of life factor items, improvement of my hobby showed negative agreement. This study also found that mean values of overall attitude, overall satisfaction, and intention to recommend the slow city to other cities’ residents significantly differ based on millennials and generation Z. The results showed that mean values of overall attitude, overall satisfaction, and intention to recommend the slow city to other cities’ residents showed higher with generation Z than millennials.

5.2. Hypotheses Testing

This study conducted factor analysis to check validity of constructs. By applying factor analysis, items were extracted by constructs. Principal component analysis was used as the method for extraction with maximum iterations for convergence as 25, and factors whose eigenvalue is greater than 1 are extracted. VARIMAX with Kaiser Normalization was applied as the rotation method with maximum iterations for convergence. Table 3 and 4 summarized the results of factor analysis in cases of millennials and generation Z.

Table 3: Component Matrix: A Case of Millennials

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0003.png 이미지

*EC: Economic, EN: Environment, CU: Cultural, CO: Community, QL: Quality of Life

Table 4: Component Matrix: A Case of Generation Z

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0004.png 이미지

*EC: Economic, EN: Environment, CU: Cultural, CO: Community, QL: Quality of Life

After obtaining factor scores from factor analysis, this study conducted multiple regression analyses to explore effects of five proposed factors on attitudes toward the slow city. Proposed independent variables include economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors, while dependent variable applied in this study was overall attitude to the slow city. By classifying groups based on generations, this study compared the results of regression analyses based on cases of millennials and generation Z. Table 5 summarized the results of multiple regression analysis. The results showed that R-square = 0.607 in the case of millennials and R-square = 0.555 in the case of generation Z. The results of ANOVA showed that F = 71.728 (significant at 1%) in the case of millennials and F = 51.070 (significant at 1%) in the case of generation Z. The results showed that effects of economic factor and quality of life factor were significant in the case of both groups of generations, while effects of environment factor on overall attitude showed significant only in the case of generation Z. In terms of effect size, effects of economic factor on overall attitude showed higher than other effects in the case of both groups of generations. In the case of generation Z, effect size was higher with quality of life factor after the economic factor than environment factor. Therefore, H1a, H5a, H1b, H2b, and H5b were accepted. Further, effect size of economic factor on attitude was higher in the case of millennials than generation Z. Therefore, H1c was accepted. Effect size of quality of life factor on overall attitude showed higher in the case of generation Z than millennials. Therefore, H5c was accepted. This study checked multi-collinearity and found that there was no multi-collinearity based on VIF for both cases of generations.

Table 5: Effects of Proposed Factors on Overall Attitude to the Slow City

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0005.png 이미지

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05 denotes statistical significance

Table 6 summarized the results of regression analyses. The results showed that R-square = 0.686 (dependent variable: satisfaction) and 0.483 (dependent variable:recommendation to other city residents) in the case of millennials and R-square = 0.646 (dependent variable: satisfaction) and 0.490 (dependent variable: recommendation to other city residents) in the case of in the case of generation Z. The results of ANOVA showed that F = 515.683 (dependent variable: satisfaction, significant at 1%) and 220.528 (dependent variable: recommendation to other city residents, significant at 1%) in the case of millennials and F = 380.898 (dependent variable: satisfaction, significant at 1%) and 220.469 (dependent variable: recommendation to other city residents, significant at 1%) in the case of generation Z.

Table 6: Effects of Attitude on Satisfaction and Intention to Recommend

OTGHB7_2023_v21n7_21_t0006.png 이미지

*** p < 0.01 denotes statistical significance

The results showed that effects of attitude on overall satisfaction and effects of attitude on intention to recommend to other cities’ residents regarding the slow city were significant. Therefore, H6a and H6b were accepted. Further, effect size of attitude on overall satisfaction showed slightly higher with millennials than generation Z, while effect size of attitude on intention to recommend to other cities’ residents regarding the slow city was slightly higher with generation Z than millennials. The results also found that the effect size differ based on millennials and generation Z. Therefore, H6c was accepted.

6. Conclusion

6.1. Findings

This study investigated how millennials and generation Z perceive the role of the slow city and to provide policy and managerial implications on the necessity of the slow city management and the importance of distributional value. This study proposed five factors that support goals and meanings of the slow city including economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors and examined how proposed factors affect overall attitude toward the slow city. This study also compared effects based on millennials and generation Z. The results of this study found that effects of economic and quality of life factors on overall attitude toward the slow city were significant in both cases of millennials and generation Z. The effect size on the economic factor was higher than the quality of life factor in the case of millennials, while the effect size on the quality of life factor was higher than the economic factor in the case of generation Z. Therefore, effect sizes of economic and quality of life factors were different by millennial and generation Z. The effect of environment factor on overall attitude toward the slow city showed significance in the case of generation Z, while the effect of environment factor on overall attitude toward the slow city do not show significance in the case of millennials. The effect of cultural and community factors on overall attitude toward the slow city do now show significance in both cases of millennial and generation Z.

Based on the results of mean differences for proposed factors including economic, environment, cultural, community, and quality of life factors, this study found that mean values showed significantly differ based on millennials and generation Z. Overall, mean values of items of proposed factors showed higher with generation Z than millennials. Mean values of items for including relationships with the local people, intergenerational exchanges among local residents, and citizenship for the community showed negative values for both millennials and generation Z. Among quality of life factors, the mean value of happiness to live in current residence because of the slow city does not show the mean difference between millennials and generation, while mean values showed positive agreement. Therefore, intergenerational exchanges and social ties are an important part of the slow city, while both millennials and generation Z do not perceive such a meaning of the slow city in practice. This study also found that mean values of overall attitude, overall satisfaction, and intention to recommend the slow city to other cities’ residents significantly differ based on millennials and generation Z with higher mean values with generation Z than millennials. Additionally, the results of this study found that mean values of overall attitude, overall satisfaction, and intention to recommend the slow city to other cities’ residents do not differ based on selected slow cities applied in this study.

The results showed that effects of economic factors and quality of life factors were significant in both cases of millennials and generation Z, while effects of environment factor on overall attitude showed significance only in the case of generation Z. Therefore, the results implied that environmental consciousness is more strongly formed by generation Z. Among significant factors, the effect size of economic factors on overall attitude showed higher in both cases of millennials and generation Z, while the effect size of economic factors was higher with millennials than generation Z. The effect size of quality of life factor on overall attitude toward the slow city was higher with generation Z than millennials. The results also showed that effects of attitude on overall satisfaction and effects of attitude on intention to recommend to other cities’ residents regarding the slow city were significant in both cases of millennials and generation Z. The effect size of attitude on overall satisfaction showed higher with millennials than generation Z, while the effect size of attitude on intention to recommend to other cities’ residents regarding the slow city was slightly higher with generation Z than millennials.

This study provides policy and managerial implications. The result found that the effect of the environment factor on attitude towards the slow city showed significance only with the case of generation Z. The result is supported by the previous study (Nguyen et al., 2022) investigated how generation Z perceives environmental consciousness including environmental responsibility, green attitude, green knowledge, and green product value. The results also found that effects of cultural and community factors on attitude toward the slow city showed insignificance in both cases of millennials and generation Z, while cultural and community factors are significantly important for the meanings of the slow city. Cittaslow (http://www.cittaslow.org) addressed the slow city movement to protect local cultures and heritages and to preserve the spirit of community and share traditional knowledge and Çiçek et al. (2019) also highlighted that the slow city concept represents to celebrate their local culture and diversity, while such effects do not show significance based on the results of this study. Therefore, both central and local governments should foster how millennials and generation Z among citizens understand the meanings and values of the slow city to form a better attitude in a society. Such efforts will help build a better image and management of the slow city as a place to reside as citizens and to visit as tourists. Therefore, this study implied that application of the slow city concepts helps build a city’s identity and core values (Zhang & Zhao, 2009) not only with consideration of economic, environment, and quality of life aspects, but also with consideration of cultural and community aspects. How citizens perceive the necessity of slow city management by considering economic, environment, and quality of life aspects will help improve distributional values and citizen relationship management. Further, the application of the slow city movement helps build the image and awareness of the city for place marketing.

6.2. Future Study and Limitations

This study has limitations and suggests implications on future studies. This study selected data from six cities among 17 slow cities in South Korea, while future study might consider to collect data from other slow cities and different counties. Future study should increase the sample size. Future study might compare millennials and generation Z with other generations such as generation X and consider to compare with cases of slow cities in other countries.

References

  1. Ada, E., & Yener, D. (2017). Evaluation of Cittaslow-Slow City Association within the Conservation of Landscape Potential. Inonu University Journal of Arts and Design, 7(16), 66-78.
  2. Adnan, A., Ahman, A., & Khan, M. N. (2017). Examining the Role of Consumer Lifestyles on Ecological Behavior among Young Indian Consumers. Young Consumers, 18(4), 348-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-05-2017-00699
  3. Ahn, Y-J. (2022). City Branding and Sustainability Destination Management. Sustainability, 14(9), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2021-0268
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116
  5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  6. Altman, I., & Chembers, M. (1980). Culture and Environment. California, U.S.: Wadsworth, Inc.
  7. Aygun, A., Kalonya, D. H., & Gulhan, G. (2021). Analyzing the Impacts of Slow City Branding on Urban Space: The Case of Sigacik. Planlama, 31(2), 232-260.
  8. Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y. K., Migchels, N., & Solnet, D. (2012). Understanding Generation Y and Their Use of Social Media: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267.
  9. Brown, A., & Jeong, B. (2018). International Comparison and Implementation of Slow City Success Determinants: The Case of Damyang Slow City, South Korea, and Seferihisar Slow City, Turkey. Development and Society, 47(4), 613-631.
  10. Cennamo. L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes, and Person-Organization Values Fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385
  11. Chan, C. H., & Marafa, L. M. (2014). Developing a Sustainable and Green City Brand for Hong Kong: Assessment of Current Brand and Park Resources. International Journal of Tourism Science, 14(1), 93-117.
  12. Chen, M. F., & Wang, L. H. (2009). The Moderating Role of Switching Brriers on Customer Loyalty in the Life Insurance Industry. The Service Industries Journal, 29(8), 1105-1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060902764574
  13. Cicek, M., Ulu, S., & Uslay, C. (2019). The Impact of the Slow City Movement on Place Authenticity, Entrepreneurial Opportunity, and Economic Development. Journal of MacroMarkeing, 39(4), 400-414.
  14. Dabija, D. (2018). Enhancing Green Loyalty towards Apparel Retail Stores: A Cross-generational Analysis on an Emerging Market. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 4(8), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-0090-7
  15. Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring Four Generations Beliefs about Career is "Satisfied" the New "Successful"? Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23(8), 908-928.
  16. Duh, H., & Struwig, M. (2015). Justification of Generational Cohort Segmentation in South Africa. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 10(1), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2012-0078
  17. Gayeski, D. (2015). Will Gen Z care about HR Technology? Workforce Solution Review, 6(3), 9-11.
  18. Giovanardi, M., Lucarelli, A., & Pasquinelli, C. (2013). Towards Brand Ecology: An Analytical Semiotic Framwork for Interpreting the Emergence of Place Brands. Marketing Theory, 13(3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593113489704
  19. Green, A., Grace, D., & Perkins, H. (2016). City Branding Research and Practice: An Integrative Review. Journal of Brand Management, 23, 252-272.
  20. Greenberg, E. H., & Weber, K. (2008). Generation We: How Millennial Youth are taking over America and Changing Our World Forever. Emeryville, CA: Pachatusan.
  21. Hanna, S., Powley, J., & Keegan, B. (2021). Place and Destination Branding: A Review and Conceptual Mapping of the Domain. European Management Review, 18, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12433
  22. Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  23. Jung, P. H., & Sohn, D. (2010). The Effects of Slow City Brand Association Characteristic on Brand Attitude and Visit Intention. Journal of Tourism Sciences, 34(8), 11-31.
  24. Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as Brand, Product and Beyond: A Place Marketing and Brand Management Perspective. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (pp.40-56), Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
  25. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration Employees: Strategies for Effective Management. Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200019010-00011
  26. La, S., & Yi, Y. (2015). A Critical Review of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, Relationship Marketing, and Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Korean Marketing Association, 30, 53-104.
  27. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting Consumers who are willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
  28. Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667216
  29. Mannheim, K. (1952). The Problem of Generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (pp.276-320), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  30. Martin, C. A., & Tulgan, B. (2001). Managing Generation Y. Amherst: Amherst HRD Press.
  31. Mayer, H., & Knox, P. L. (2013). Pace of Life and Quality of Life: The Slow City Charter. In M. J. Sigy, R. Phillps, & D. Rahtz (Eds.), Community Quality of Life Indicators (pp.21-40), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  32. Mayer, H., & Knox, P. L. (2006). Slow Cities: Sustainable Places in a Fast World. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(4), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2006.00298.x
  33. Meredith, G. E., & Schewe, C. D. (1994). The Power of Cohorts. American Demographics, 16(12), 22-29.
  34. Nguyen, T. L., Huynh, M. K., Ho, N. N., Le, T. G. B., & Doan, N. D. H. (2022). Factors Affecting of Environmental Consciousness on Green Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study of Generation Z in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 9(1), 0333-0343.
  35. Nilsen A. (2014). Cohort and Generation: Concepts in Studies of Social Change from a Lifecourse Perspective. Families, Relationships and Societies, 3(3), 475-479. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674314X14110459685627
  36. Ogiemwonyi, O. (2022). Factors influencing Generation Y Green Behavior on Green Products in Nigeria: An Application of Theory of Planned Behavior. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 13, 1-14.
  37. Ozmen, A., & Can, M. C. (2018). Cittaslow Movement from a Critival Point of View. Planning, 28(2), 91-101.
  38. Picon, A., Castro, I., & Roldan, J. L. (2014). The Relationship between Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Mediator Analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 746-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.038
  39. Raimkulov, M., Juraturgunov, H., & Ahn, Y. (2021). Destination Attractiveness and Memorable Travel Experiences in Silk Road Tourism in Uzbekistan. Sustainability, 13(2252), 1-14.
  40. Rinaldi, C., Giovanardi, M., & Lucarelli, A. (2021). Keeping a Foot in both Camps: Sustainability, City Branding and Boundary Spanner. Cities, 115, 1-4.
  41. Ross, A. D., & Rouse, S. M. (2015). Economic Uncertainty, Job Threat, and the Resiliency of the Millennial Generations' Attitudes toward Immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1363-1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12168
  42. Royne, M. B., Levy, M., & Martinez, J. (2011). The Public Health Implications of Consumer's Environmental Concern and their Willingness to Pay for an Eco-Friendly Product. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(2), 329-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01205.x
  43. Ryder, N. (1965). The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change. American Sociological Review, 30(3), 843-861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090964
  44. Schewe, C. D., & Noble, S. M. (2000). Market Segmentation by Cohorts: The Value and Validity of Cohorts in America and Abroad. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1-3), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700785100479
  45. Shahbandi, M., & Farrokhshad, H. (2021). Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Customer Attitude and Loyalty According to the Mediating Variable of Customer Trust (Case Study: Matin Abad Eco Camp). International Business & Economics Studies. 3(2), 1-19.
  46. Smith, K. T., & Brower, T. (2012). Longitudinal Study of Green Marketing Strategies that Influence Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(6), 535-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.711345
  47. Ting, H., Lim, T. Y., de Run, E. C., Koh, H., & Sahdan, M. (2018), Are we baby boomers, gen X and Gen Y? A Qualitative Inquiry into Generation Cohorts in Malaysia. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(1), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.06.004
  48. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). General Differences in Young Adults' Life Goals, Concern for Others, and Civic Orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045-1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027408
  49. Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the Generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3(1), 37-53.
  50. Ye, S. H., Park, H. J., & Jang, H. J. (2011). A Study on the Effects of Attachment and Sense of Community on Residents' Attitude in the Slow City. Journal of Rural Tourism, 18(1), 1-26.
  51. 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, 15-27.
  52. Zhang, L., & Zhao, S. X. (2009). City Branding and the Olympic Effect: A Case Study of Beijing. Cities, 26, 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.05.002