Marketing and branding-oriented goals for the development of Functional Urban Areas: evidence from Poland
, and | Oct 15, 2020
Published Online: Oct 15, 2020
Page range: 57 - 73
Received: Jan 30, 2020
Accepted: Sep 30, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2020-0019
Keywords
© 2020 Anna Matwiejczyk et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Strategic and operational marketing goals of the FUA development
| Bialystok | Attractiveness of investments | Support of the investors and the network of investment areas | Attractiveness for investments |
| Bydgoszcz–Toruń | Building the image of the region for various relations | Support for the process of internationalisation of enterprises | Image/brand, Relations, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Gdańsk–Gdynia–Sopot | Implementation of integrated projects responding to the needs and problems of the FUA | Promoting the region as ecological, Support for entrepreneurship, Supporting cultural events | Image/brand, Integration, Attractiveness for tourists, Attractiveness for residents, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Gorzów Wielkopolski | Creation of a positive image, Development of economic relations | Intensified economic promotion, Greater involvement of external communes | Image/brand, Relations |
| Katowice | Promotion of the FUA as an important metropolitan area | Promoting the region as pro-ecological, Promoting entrepreneurship, Equal opportunities | Strengthening the metropolitan area function, Support for entrepreneurship, Image/brand, Attractiveness for residents |
| Kielce | Development of territorial marketing instruments, Shaping the Voivodship brand | Promoting as an ecological region, Spatial integration and poly-centric structure, Openness to modern solutions, Protecting natural and cultural heritage | Image/brand, Attractiveness for investments, Attractiveness for tourists |
| Kraków | Improvement of the quality of life, Creation of the ecological image | Reinforcement of science, culture and sport, participation in metropolitan networking | Attractiveness for residents, Image/brand |
| Lublin | Improvement of the external contacts, Creating new opportunities for development | Development of external relations and metropolitan links, Strengthening cultural openness, Improving a bad image | Relations, Image/brand, Strengthening the metropolitan area function |
| Łódź | Integrated revitalisation measures in various dimensions | Increase in economic attractiveness and competitiveness | Attractiveness for investments, Integration |
| Olsztyn | Promoting the FUA outside its area | The image of the FUA as pro-ecological, Promoting social inclusion | Image/brand, Attractiveness for residents |
| Opole | Building a trans-regional cultural brand | Sustainable use of existing resources, Infrastructure preparation of investment areas, Supporting cultural events | Image/brand, Attractiveness for investments |
| Poznań | Development of an innovative economy, Improving the attractiveness of the city's space, Promoting the FUA as highly-developed, Improving the quality of life | Creation of a recognisable “Poznań Metropolis” brand, Creation of an offer for tourists, Joint economic promotion, Creating the image as pro low carbon | Image/brand, Attractiveness for investments, Attractiveness for tourists, Strengthening the metropolitan area function |
| Rzeszów | The development of the FUA's partnership in various spheres of activity | A culture-oriented image. Promoting low-carbon image, Good working and living conditions, Protecting heritage, Promoting entrepreneurship | Image/brand, Integration, Attractiveness for residents, Attractiveness for tourists, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Szczecin | Spatial and functional integration, dynamic development, Raising the standards of living | Implementation of the “Floating Garden” brand, Marketing of water tourism, Promotion of entrepreneurship and ecology, Protection of heritage, The partnership model of cooperation | Image/brand, Integration, Attractiveness for residents, Attractiveness for tourists, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Szczecin | Spatial and functional integration, dynamic development, Raising the standards of living | Implementation of the “Floating Garden” brand, Marketing of water tourism, Promotion of entrepreneurship and ecology, Protection of heritage, The partnership model of cooperation | Image/brand, Integration, Attractiveness for residents, Attractiveness for tourists, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Warszawa | Promotion of functional integration and development factors, Exploiting the potential of all territories | Promoting entrepreneurship, Support for the cultural area | Relations, Support for entrepreneurship, Integration |
| Wrocław | Development based on the improvement of innovation, competitiveness and image of the FUA | Promotion of local entrepreneurs, Improvement of communication | Attractiveness for investments, Image/brand, Support for entrepreneurship |
| Zielona Góra | Creating the brand and making it more attractive to visitors | Promotion of companies’ investments in R&D | Image/brand, Attractiveness for tourists, Support for entrepreneurship |
List of analysed documents
| Białystok Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Białystok for 2014–2020 | 393 | |
| Bydgoszcz–Toruń Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Bydgoszcz–Toruń | 290 | |
| Metropolitan Area Gdańsk–Gdynia–Sopot | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the Metropolitan Area of Gdańsk–Gdynia–Sopot up to 2020 | 153 | |
| Gorzów Wielkopolski Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Gorzów Wielkopolski | 202 | |
| Katowice Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the Central Subregion of Śląsk Voivodship for 2014–2020 | 332 | |
| Kielce Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Kielce for 2014–2020 | 475 | |
| Kraków Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Kraków Strategy for Integrated Territorial | 135 | |
| Lublin Functional Urban Area | Investments in the FUA of Lublin for 2014–2020 | 153 | |
| Łódź Functional Urban Area | Strategy for the Development in the FUA of Łódź 2020+ | 279 | |
| Olsztyn Functional Urban Area | Strategy for the FUA of Olsztyn | 215 | |
| Opole Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Opole Agglomeration | 148 | |
| Poznań Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Poznań | 182 | |
| Rzeszów Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Rzeszów | 319 | |
| Szczecin Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Szczecin | 300 | |
| Warszawa Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Warsaw 2014–2020+ | 173 | |
| Wrocław Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Wrocław | 327 | |
| Zielona Góra Functional Urban Area | Strategy for Integrated Territorial Investments in the FUA of Zielona Góra | 206 |
Summary of the frequency of appearance of different goal categories
| Image/brand | 14 | Bydgoszcz-Toruń, Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Katowice, Kielce, Kraków, Lublin, Olsztyn, Opole, Poznań, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Wrocław, Zielona Góra |
| Support for entrepreneurship | 8 | Bydgoszcz-Toruń, Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Katowice, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Warszawa, Wrocław, Zielona Góra |
| Attractiveness for investments | 6 | Białystok, Kielce, Łódź, Opole, Poznań, Wrocław |
| Attractiveness for residents | 6 | Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Katowice, Kraków, Olsztyn, Rzeszów, Szczecin |
| Attractiveness for tourists | 6 | Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Kielce, Poznań, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Zielona Góra |
| Integration | 5 | Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Łódź, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Warszawa |
| Relations | 4 | Bydgoszcz-Toruń, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Lublin, Warszawa |
| Strengthening the metropolitan area function | 3 | Katowice, Lublin, Poznań |
General characteristics of Polish FUAs that cover voivodship centres based on current Strategies for Integrated Territorial Investments until 2020
| Białystok | 1 728 | 10 | 411 531 | 65% |
| Bydgoszcz-Toruń | 3 744 | 25 | 852 705 | 70% |
| Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot | 5 500 | 57 | 1 500 000 | 62% |
| Gorzów Wielkopolski | 770 | 5 | 153 300 | 65% |
| Katowice | 5 577 | 81 | 2 784 951 | 54% |
| Kielce | 1 341 | 12 | 339 549 | 50% |
| Kraków | 4 065 | 15 | 1 508 900 | 62% |
| Lublin | 1 582 | 16 | 545 007 | 61% |
| Łódź | 2 500 | 30 | 1 100 000 | 60% |
| Olsztyn | 1 600 | 7 | 232 267 | 65% |
| Opole | 2 370 | 21 | 339 269 | 66% |
| Poznań | 3 082 | 23 | 1 014 194 | 65% |
| Rzeszów | 1 047 | 13 | 363 680 | 66% |
| Szczecin | 2 795 | 15 | 687 247 | 64% |
| Warszawa | 2 932 | 40 | 2 714 987 | 60% |
| Wrocław | 2 338 | 19 | 887 943 | 64% |
| Zielona Góra | 964 | 5 | 185 209 | 68% |