Island Place Branding and Investor Perceptions: A Structural Analysis of Corsica and Kerkennah

Island Place Branding and Investor Perceptions: A Structural Analysis of Corsica and Kerkennah | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Island Place Branding and Investor Perceptions: A Structural Analysis of Corsica and Kerkennah imen Abdennadher Gdoura This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Island territories increasingly compete for investments, talent, and legitimacy in a globalized environment, positioning themselves not only as geographic spaces but as place brands shaped by symbolic, institutional, and functional signals. While place branding research has extensively examined cities and nations, island place branding remains underexplored, particularly in comparative and stakeholder based perspectives. This study reframes territorial attractiveness as an outcome of island place branding, constructed through the interactions between strategic, socio-economic, and governance-related brand drivers. Adopting a prospective and qualitative methodology, the research applies structural analysis using the MICMAC method to identify and classify the key determinants of island place branding as perceived by investors, considered here as external place brand audiences. Empirical evidence is drawn from a comparative analysis of two Mediterranean islands with contrasting institutional and development contexts: Corsica (France) and Kerkennah (Tunisia). Data were collected from two groups of investors (25 per island) and analyzed through influence–dependence maps generated by MICMAC. The results reveal distinct place brand architectures, highlighting differences in brand drivers, relay mechanisms, and brand outcomes, particularly in terms of reputation and attractiveness. The findings contribute to the place branding literature by demonstrating how investor perceptions structure island place brands through complex interdependencies between governance, infrastructure, culture, and human capital. From a policy perspective, the study emphasizes the role of public action and institutional signaling in shaping island reputation and investment attractiveness, offering actionable insights for place branding strategies and public diplomacy in island contexts. Place branding Island territories Investor perceptions Territorial reputation MICMAC Public policy Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction increasingly competitive global environment, territories are no longer evaluated solely on their economic performance or physical endowments, but on their ability to project a coherent, credible, and attractive place brand. This evolution has led scholars and policymakers to conceptualize territories as brands, actively managed through public policies, institutional communication, and stakeholder engagement (Anholt, 2007 ; Kavaratzis, 2015 ). Within this framework, place branding has emerged as a strategic approach to enhance territorial reputation, legitimacy, and attractiveness among key external audiences such as investors, tourists, and skilled workers. Island territories occupy a particularly distinctive position in this competitive landscape. Characterized by geographical isolation, limited market size, environmental vulnerability, and strong cultural identities, islands face structural constraints that challenge traditional development models (Baldacchino, 2018 ). At the same time, these specificities offer powerful symbolic and reputational assets that can be mobilized through place branding strategies. As such, islands should not be viewed merely as peripheral regions, but as complex place brands, whose attractiveness depends on the coherence between functional attributes (infrastructure, accessibility), institutional signals (governance, security, business climate), and symbolic dimensions (culture, identity, reputation). Despite the growing body of research on place branding, island place branding remains relatively underexplored, particularly from a comparative and stakeholder-oriented perspective. Existing studies tend to focus on cities or nations, often overlooking the unique branding challenges faced by islands, especially those located in developing or transitional economies. Moreover, much of the literature treats territorial attractiveness as an objective outcome, rather than as a perceived and socially constructed result of place brand signals interpreted by external stakeholders. Investors represent a critical yet underutilized lens in place branding research. As strategic audiences of public diplomacy and economic promotion policies, investors do not merely respond to economic indicators; they interpret a territory’s brand through signals related to institutional quality, stability, reputation, and long-term vision (Dunning, 2015 ; Zenker & Braun, 2017). Understanding how investors cognitively structure these signals is therefore essential for designing effective place branding strategies, particularly in island contexts where margins for error are limited. This study addresses these gaps by proposing a structural and comparative analysis of island place branding, focusing on investor perceptions as a central mechanism through which place brands are formed and evaluated. Specifically, the research examines two Mediterranean islands with contrasting socio-economic and institutional profiles: Corsica (France), an island embedded in a developed European economy, and Kerkennah (Tunisia), a peripheral island within a developing national context. This comparison enables the exploration of how different governance frameworks and development trajectories shape island place brand architectures. Methodologically, the study adopts a prospective qualitative approach, employing MICMAC (Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to a Classification) to analyze the interdependencies between place brand variables. Rather than assessing linear causal relationships, MICMAC allows for the identification of brand drivers, relay variables, and brand outcomes, offering a systemic view of how island place brands are structured through stakeholder perceptions. The objectives of this research are threefold: To identify the key determinants of island place branding as perceived by investors; To analyze the structural interactions between these determinants and their role in shaping territorial reputation and attractiveness; To compare the place brand architectures of Corsica and Kerkennah, highlighting context-specific branding dynamics. By reframing territorial attractiveness as an outcome of place branding, this study contributes to the theoretical advancement of island place branding and offers practical insights for policymakers seeking to align public action, branding strategies, and investor-oriented public diplomacy. The article is structured as follows: the next section presents the methodology and MICMAC approach; the third section discusses the results and influence–dependence maps; the fourth section provides a place branding oriented discussion; and the final section concludes with implications and future research directions. 2. Literature Review 2.1. From Place Branding to Territorial Brand Management Over the past three decades, branding has progressively expanded beyond products and corporations to encompass organizations, institutions, and territories. This evolution has given rise to the conceptualization of territories as brands, managed through strategic processes similar to those applied in corporate brand management (Balmer & Greyser, 2006 ; Keller, 2013 ). Territorial brand management refers to the coordinated efforts of public and hybrid actors to design, implement, and govern a coherent brand identity that enhances a territory’s attractiveness, reputation, and long-term value. Unlike traditional place branding approaches, which often emphasize communication and promotion, territorial brand management adopts a strategic and systemic perspective, focusing on governance, stakeholder alignment, and brand equity creation (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). In this view, the territory is not merely marketed but managed as a complex brand system, integrating functional attributes (infrastructure, accessibility), institutional dimensions (governance quality, security), and symbolic elements (culture, identity, reputation). 2.2. Territorial Brands as Complex and Multidimensional Brand Systems Brand management literature highlights that strong brands are built through the interaction of multiple brand dimensions rather than isolated attributes (Aaker, 1996 ; Keller, 2013 ). Applying this logic to territories, scholars argue that territorial brands operate as multidimensional systems, where economic, social, institutional, and cultural factors interact to generate brand meaning and value (Balmer, 2012 ). Territorial brands differ from corporate brands in several respects. First, they are characterized by multi-actor governance, involving public authorities, private organizations, and local communities. Second, they address multiple stakeholder groups simultaneously, including residents, investors, tourists, and diaspora communities. Third, territorial brands are deeply embedded in institutional and socio-political contexts, making brand control more complex and less centralized (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013). As a result, managing territorial brands requires tools capable of capturing interdependencies and feedback loops between brand dimensions. Traditional linear models of brand equity may therefore be insufficient to explain how territorial brand value emerges, particularly in complex and constrained contexts such as island territories. 2.3. Brand Equity and Brand Attractiveness in Territorial Contexts Brand equity is commonly defined as the value added to a product or organization by its brand, reflected in stakeholder perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Aaker, 1996 ; Keller, 2001 ). In territorial contexts, brand equity manifests through outcomes such as reputation, attractiveness, trust, and investment intentions. Several studies emphasize that territorial brand attractiveness is not solely driven by economic indicators but by perceived brand signals related to governance quality, institutional stability, quality of life, and long-term development vision (Zenker & Braun, 2017). These signals shape stakeholders’ cognitive evaluations of territorial brands and influence their engagement decisions. In investor-oriented branding, brand equity plays a critical role in reducing uncertainty and perceived risk. Investors rely on brand cues such as security, regulatory transparency, and human capital quality to assess the credibility of territorial brands (Dunning, 2015 ). Consequently, brand attractiveness can be conceptualized as a dependent brand outcome, resulting from the interaction of multiple brand drivers rather than a standalone objective. 2.4. Stakeholder-Based Brand Management and Investor Perceptions Contemporary brand management research increasingly recognizes brands as socially constructed phenomena, co-created by organizations and stakeholders (Merz et al., 2009 ). In territorial branding, this perspective is particularly relevant due to the multiplicity of stakeholders involved in brand formation and diffusion. Investors represent a strategic stakeholder group whose perceptions significantly influence territorial brand equity. As external brand audiences, investors interpret signals sent by public institutions, local ecosystems, and socio-economic conditions. Their perceptions shape not only investment decisions but also the broader reputation of the territory through signaling and legitimacy effects (Suchman, 1995 ). However, empirical research on investor-based territorial brand perceptions remains limited, especially in island contexts. Existing studies often treat investors as homogeneous economic agents, neglecting the cognitive and perceptual processes through which they evaluate territorial brands. Addressing this gap requires methodological approaches capable of capturing how investors structure and prioritize brand dimensions. 2.5. Brand Governance and Institutional Brand Signaling Brand governance refers to the mechanisms through which brand meaning is coordinated, controlled, and sustained over time (Hatch & Schultz, 2008). In territorial contexts, governance plays a central role in ensuring consistency between brand identity, public action, and stakeholder expectations. Public policies, regulatory frameworks, and development strategies act as institutional brand signals, continuously shaping stakeholder perceptions. Misalignment between governance actions and brand promises can weaken brand credibility and erode brand equity, while coherent and transparent governance strengthens trust and long-term brand value (Balmer, 2012 ). In island territories, where structural constraints amplify perceived risks, brand governance becomes particularly critical. Effective brand management in such contexts requires aligning infrastructure investment, human capital development, environmental policies, and communication strategies within a unified brand vision. 2.6. Structural Approaches to Brand Management: The Relevance of MICMAC Traditional brand management research has largely relied on linear and causal modeling techniques. While these approaches provide valuable insights, they often fail to capture the complex interdependencies inherent in territorial brand systems. Structural analysis methods, such as MICMAC, offer an alternative by focusing on influence–dependence relationships between variables. By identifying brand drivers, relay variables, and brand outcomes, MICMAC enables a systemic diagnosis of brand structures. This approach is particularly suited to territorial brand management, where multiple dimensions interact dynamically and non-linearly. Despite its relevance, MICMAC remains underutilized in brand management research, especially in territorial and public-sector contexts. This study addresses this methodological gap by applying MICMAC to analyze investor-based perceptions of territorial brand dimensions in island contexts. By doing so, it contributes to the development of structural brand management approaches capable of informing both theory and practice. 3. Methodology 3.1. Prospective Methodology : The prospective methodology involves several successive phases, with the ultimate phase focusing on the development of frameworks and the determination of strategic choices aimed at improving the attractiveness of nations in the future. In this study, we have focused on structural analysis. This analysis can be used to create an overview of territorial attractiveness and to identify key questions related to its enhancement. 3.2.Structural Analysis: The Cross-Impact Matrix Method Godet M. and Durance P. provided a precise definition of structural analysis: "as a systematic method, in matrix form, for analyzing the relationships between the constituent variables of the system under study and those of its explanatory environment" (Godet M., Durance P., 2008). 3.2.1. Variable Selection: The selection of variables (as presented in the table below) was carried out through an exhaustive literature review complemented by exploratory interviews with domain experts. Table 1 Variable Selection N° Variable Short Title 1 Infrastructure V1 2 Market size and dynamism V2 3 Economic fabric V3 4 Education and human capital V4 5 Business climate V5 6 Green growth V6 7 Accessibility V7 8 Research & Development V8 9 Quality of life V9 10 Clusters V10 11 Security V11 12 Culture V12 13 Employment V13 14 Attractiveness V14 15 Reputation V15 Source: Author 3.2.2. Sample Two groups of investors were surveyed during thematic conferences: 1. Group 1: Investors in Kerkennah − 25 participants, including existing and potential investors. 2. Group 2: Investors in Corsica − 25 participants, including existing and potential investors. The small number of respondents is justified by the quality of the participants and the richness of the data collected. In line with qualitative methodologies, it is often preferable to prioritize the depth and relevance of data over the sample size. According to Wahnich (2008), a sample of 20 to 25 individuals per group is generally sufficient for qualitative studies, especially when data saturation is achieved. 3.2.3 . The Questionnaire The questionnaire is presented in the form of a double-entry table, which establishes relationships between variables. This allows us to identify key variables in our model and assign them specific roles. The cross-impact matrix is filled both qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative filling is used to determine all direct influence relationships between variables. For example, when considering variables X and Y, the following questions are asked: 1) Does variable X have a direct influence on variable Y? 2) Does variable Y have a direct influence on variable X? If there is no direct influence relationship between two variables, a value of 0 is assigned in the matrix. Conversely, if a direct influence relationship exists, its importance is estimated by assigning a value from 1 to 3: A strong influence relationship is assigned a value of 3. A moderate influence relationship is assigned a value of 2. A weak influence relationship is assigned a value of 1. A potential influence relationship is marked with a "P." There is also a second part of the questionnaire, which helps rank the importance of the variables to create a simpler conceptual model. 3.2.4 . Characteristics of the Matrix (for Group 1 and Group 2: Investors in Kerkennah and Corsica) Table 2 Characteristics of the Cross-Impact Matrix (MIC) for G1 and G2: INV.D.C Indicator Value (INV. Kerkennah) Value (INV. Corsica) Matrix size 15 15 Number of zeros 85 69 Number of ones 45 48 Number of twos 64 46 Number of threes 31 62 Total 140 156 Filling rate 62,22% 69,33% Source: MICMAC software output The matrix size refers to the number of variables retained during the first stage of the structural analysis. Since 15 variables were retained, the cross-impact matrix consists of 225 cases. Group 1: Investors in Kerkennah Out of these 225 cases: − 85 times a "0" was recorded, meaning that in 37.77% of cases, no direct influence relationship was identified between two variables. − 45 times a "1" was recorded, meaning that in 20% of cases, a weak influence relationship was identified. − 64 times a "2" was recorded, meaning that in 28.44% of cases, a moderate influence relationship was identified. − 31 times a "3" was recorded, meaning that in 13.77% of cases, a strong influence relationship was identified. Out of 225 cases, 140 showed a direct influence relationship, representing 62.22%. Group 2: Investors in Corsica Out of these 225 cases: − 69 times a "0" was recorded, meaning that in 30.66% of cases, no direct influence relationship was identified between two variables. − 48 times a "1" was recorded, meaning that in 21.33% of cases, a weak influence relationship was identified. − 46 times a "2" was recorded, meaning that in 20.44% of cases, a moderate influence relationship was identified. − 62 times a "3" was recorded, meaning that in 27.55% of cases, a strong influence relationship was identified. Out of 225 cases, 156 showed a direct influence relationship, representing 69.33%. 4. Results 4.1. Typology of Variables Using the MICMAC Method The MICMAC software generates influence-dependence maps. Each variable is associated with an influence and dependence indicator and is positioned on the influence-dependence map. This positioning allows for the distinction of four types of variables, as illustrated in Fig. 1 . - Zone 1: Driving Variables These variables are highly influential and minimally dependent. They play an explanatory role in the model and are considered input variables. - Zone 2: Relay Variables These variables are both influential and dependent. They act as catalysts in the system, potentially amplifying the effects of driving variables on outcome variables. According to Khélil and Smida (2011), they represent a factor of instability for the system. - Zone 3: Outcome Variables These variables are highly dependent but minimally influential. Their evolution is determined by driving and relay variables. - Zone 4: Inert Variables These variables are minimally influential and minimally dependent, justifying their exclusion from the analysis system (Godet, 2007). Godet and Durance (2008) add a Zone 5, which includes "peloton" variables. These variables have average influence and dependence, and their role may vary depending on the context. 4.2. Analysis and Interpretation of the Maps The perspectives of investors in Kerkennah and Corsica are presented in the following maps: According to the map above, we can clearly see how investors in Kerkennah identify the role of each variable: • Zone 1 groups together the driving variables characterized by their strong influence and low dependence: security, education and human capital, market size and dynamism, and infrastructure • Zone 2 brings together the following variables: R&D, business climate, and green growth, but each of them has a different role. -The business climate and R&D perfectly fulfill their roles as relays and can also act as driving variables relative to green growth. -Green growth is a relay variable characterized by its strong dependence, which explains its secondary role as a variable dependent on the business climate and R&D variables. • Zone 3 represents the set of outcome variables, which are as follows: First, employment, economic fabric, and quality of life are dependent variables characterized by their relay roles. These variables can act as relays for attractiveness and reputation, which are, in turn, dependent and consequential variables. These latter two are explained by the variables in the zone as well as by the economic fabric, quality of life, and employment. • Zone 4 consists of inert variables, characterized by their low dependence and influence. According to our mapping, security constitutes the most moderating variable, which can have a strong influence on the driving and relay variables in our system. However, clusters and accessibility are almost excluded from our system given the context of our research in Kerkennah, and their role is limited to weakly moderating the remaining variables. According to the map above, we can clearly see how investors in Corsica identify the role of each variable: - Zone 1 includes driving variables: culture, infrastructure, accessibility, business climate, and economic fabric. - Zone 2 includes relay variables: education and human capital, security, market size, R&D, and quality of life. - Zone 3 represents outcome variables: employment, reputation, and attractiveness. - Zone 4 consists of inert variables: clusters and green growth. This study demonstrated the importance of the variables presented in our system. Each variable exhibits different facets of influence and dependence. Consequently, we conclude that the perception of the role of each determinant of territorial attractiveness varies depending on the type of territorial actor. 5. Discussion This study advances place branding research by demonstrating that island attractiveness is not an isolated economic outcome but the result of a structured place brand architecture, shaped by interdependent functional, institutional, and symbolic dimensions. By mobilizing MICMAC as a structural analysis tool, the research responds to calls for more systemic and stakeholder-oriented approaches in place branding studies (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013; Zenker & Braun, 2017). 5.1. Island place branding as a structured brand architecture The influence–dependence maps reveal that island place brands are composed of hierarchically organized brand components, which can be classified into brand drivers, brand relays, and brand outcomes. This typology contributes conceptually to place branding by extending brand architecture logic, traditionally applied to corporate and product brands, to island territories. In both cases studied, variables such as infrastructure, security, education, and business climate function as foundational brand drivers, shaping the credibility and coherence of the place brand. These elements correspond to what Anholt ( 2007 ) defines as place brand substance , which underpins reputation formation. However, the relative positioning of these drivers differs significantly between Corsica and Kerkennah, confirming that place brand architecture is inherently context-dependent. 5.2. Investor perceptions as a mechanism of place brand construction By focusing on investors as key external stakeholders, this study reinforces the argument that place brands are co-constructed through perception and interpretation, rather than solely through top-down communication strategies. Investors act as interpretive agents, decoding institutional quality, governance stability, and long-term development signals embedded in public action. The findings show that in Kerkennah, security and human capital dominate the brand driver zone, reflecting a context where institutional reassurance is central to place brand credibility. In contrast, the Corsican place brand relies more heavily on cultural identity, accessibility, and economic fabric, highlighting the symbolic and experiential dimensions of island branding in more mature institutional environments. This distinction supports Kavaratzis’ ( 2015 ) view that place brands are shaped by both material conditions and symbolic narratives, which vary according to development stage and governance maturity. 5.3. Public action and institutional signaling in island place branding A key contribution of this research lies in its articulation of public policy as a place branding instrument. Variables such as business climate, security, and infrastructure are not merely technical or economic factors; they act as institutional brand signals that influence investor trust and long-term commitment. From a public diplomacy perspective, island territories engage in a continuous process of signaling reliability, openness, and strategic vision to external audiences. The study demonstrates that when these signals are fragmented or weakly coordinated, place brand outcomes such as reputation and attractiveness remain highly dependent and vulnerable. Conversely, coherent public action strengthens relay variables, enabling the transformation of structural assets into reputational capital. 5.4. Methodological contribution to place branding research Methodologically, this study contributes to the place branding literature by demonstrating the relevance of MICMAC as a diagnostic and strategic tool for mapping place brand architectures. Unlike traditional regression-based approaches, MICMAC captures non-linear interactions and feedback loops, which are particularly relevant in complex territorial systems such as islands. This approach aligns with recent calls for methodological pluralism in place branding research (Lucarelli & Berg, 2011 ), offering a robust framework for identifying strategic leverage points in branding and policy design. The use of influence-dependence mapping provides policymakers with a visual and operational understanding of how interventions in one domain may cascade across the place brand system. 6. Conclusion This study set out to examine island place branding through the lens of investor perceptions, proposing a structural and comparative analysis of two Mediterranean islands: Corsica and Kerkennah. By reframing territorial attractiveness as a place brand outcome, the research demonstrates that island competitiveness emerges from a complex configuration of interdependent brand drivers, relay mechanisms, and symbolic outcomes. The findings confirm that island place brands are not uniform constructs, but context-sensitive architectures shaped by institutional maturity, governance frameworks, and socio-economic trajectories. While Corsica’s place brand is anchored in cultural identity, accessibility, and economic fabric, Kerkennah’s brand structure emphasizes security, education, and institutional reassurance. These differences underline the necessity of tailored place branding strategies rather than standardized policy models. 6.1. Theoretical implications Theoretically, this research contributes to the place branding literature by: Extending brand architecture theory to island territories; Demonstrating the central role of investors as place brand audiences; Positioning MICMAC as a methodological bridge between branding theory and public policy analysis. By doing so, the study enriches ongoing debates on the governance of place brands and the systemic nature of territorial reputation building. 6.2. Managerial and policy implications From a managerial and public policy perspective, the results suggest that effective island place branding requires: Alignment between infrastructure development, institutional quality, and symbolic communication; Recognition of investors as long-term brand partners rather than passive targets; Integration of place branding into public diplomacy and territorial governance strategies. Public authorities should therefore move beyond promotional campaigns and adopt evidence-based place branding policies, grounded in stakeholder perceptions and structural interdependencies. 6.3. Limitations and future research Despite its contributions, this study has limitations. First, cultural dimensions were not explored in depth, despite their relevance in island branding. Second, the analysis focused exclusively on investors, leaving room for future research to incorporate other place brand audiences such as residents, tourists, and diaspora communities. Finally, extending the analysis to additional island contexts would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Future research could build on this framework by combining MICMAC with longitudinal data or by integrating digital place branding and narrative analysis to capture the evolving dynamics of island place brands. Declarations Author Contribution Imen Abdennadher Gdoura drafted and reviewed the manuscript. References Aaker, David A. 1996. Building Strong Brands . New York: Free. Aaker, David A., Richard P. Bagozzi. 1979. Unobservable Variables in Structural Equation Models with an Application in Industrial Selling. Journal of Marketing Research 16(2):147–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150696 Akrout, Faouzi. 2000. Méthodes d’analyse des données de deuxième génération et applications en marketing . Séminaire de méthodologie de recherche en gestion, LIGUE. Anholt, Simon. 2007. Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Anholt, Simon. 2010. Definitions of Place Branding – Working Towards a Resolution. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2010.3 Arrègle, Jean-Luc. 2003. Les Modèles Linéaires Hiérarchiques: Principes et Illustration. M@n@gement 6(1):1–28. Baldacchino, Godfrey. 2018. The Routledge International Handbook of Island Studies . London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315556642 Baldacchino, Godfrey, Geoffrey Bertram. 2019. The Beak of the Finch: Insights into Island Development. Island Studies Journal 14(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.85 Balmer, John M. T. 2012. Strategic Corporate Brand Alignment: Perspectives from Identity-Based Views of Corporate Brands. European Journal of Marketing 46(7/8):1064–1092. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230105 Balmer, John M. T., and Stephen A. Greyser. 2006. Corporate Marketing: Integrating Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding, Corporate Communications, Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation. European Journal of Marketing 40(7/8):730–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669964 Benraiss, Laila. 2004. Méthodologie de Construction d’une Échelle de Mesure: Application du Paradigme de Churchill. In Actes du XVe Congrès de l’AGRH . Bryk, Anthony S., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Business France. 2017. Tableau de Bord de l’Attractivité de la France . Capello, Roberta, Andrea Caragliu. 2018. Regional Growth and Territorial Disparities: The Role of Human Capital in Regional Development. Regional Studies 52(12):1617–1632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1447098 Cœuré, Benoît, Isabelle Rabaud, and Thierry Madiès. 2003. Attractivité de la France: Analyse, Perception et Mesure. Économie et Statistique 363(1):97–127. https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2003.7438 Depraetere, Claude. 1991. L’Insularité dans la Géographie Française. Annales de Géographie 99(553):257–280. https://doi.org/10.3406/geo.1990.20923 Dunning, John H. 2015. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy . 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dunning, John H. 2015. The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production: A Restatement and Possible Extensions. Journal of International Business Studies 46(1):9–37. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.54 Akremi, El. 2005. Anis. Analyse des Variables Modératrices et Médiatrices par les Méthodes d’Équations Structurelles. In Méthodes de Recherche en Management , 325–348. Eurostat. 1994. Definition of Islands. European Commission . https://doi.org/10.2785/85017 Florida, Richard, Christian Mellander. 2016. The Geography of Inequality. Regional Studies 50(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.884275 Garoui, Nassim, Amine Jarboui. 2012. Stakeholder Theory and Mental Models. Management Science Letters 2(2):1–12. Glaeser, Edward L., and Joshua Kolko, Albert Saiz. 2018. Consumer City Revisited. Journal of Economic Geography 18(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx030 Godet, Michel, Pierre Durance. 2008. La Prospective Stratégique: Pour les Entreprises et les Territoires . Paris: Dunod. Hatch, Mary Jo, Majken Schultz. 2008. Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture, and Identity Through Corporate Branding . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kavaratzis, Mihalis. 2004. From City Marketing to City Branding: Towards a Theoretical Framework for Developing City Brands. Place Branding 1(1):58–73. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.5990005 Kavaratzis, Mihalis. 2015. Place Branding Scholars and Practitioners: ‘Strangers in the Night’? Journal of Place Management and Development 8(3):266–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-10-2015-0049 Kavaratzis, Mihalis, Mary Jo Hatch. 2013. The Dynamics of Place Brands: An Identity-Based Approach to Place Branding Theory. Marketing Theory 13(1):69–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593112467268 Keller, Kevin Lane. 2001. Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands . Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Keller, Kevin Lane. 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity . 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Khélil, Nizar, Amel Smida. 2011. Contribution à la Compréhension de l’Échec des Nouvelles Entreprises. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat 11(1):39–72. Lucarelli, Andrea, and Per O. Berg. 2011. City Branding: A State-of-the-Art Review of the Research Domain. Journal of Place Management and Development 4(1):9–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538331111117133 Merz, Michael A., Yong He, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2009. The Evolving Brand Logic: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37(3):328–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0143-3 Porter, Michael E. 2017. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review 95(6):77–90. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. 2018. The Revenge of the Places That Don’t Matter. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society 11(1):189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024 Storper, Michael. 2018. The Resurgence of Regional Economies. European Urban and Regional Studies 25(1):3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776417714296 Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3):571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 Zenker, Sebastian, Erik Braun. 2017. Questioning a ‘One Size Fits All’ City Brand. Journal of Place Management and Development 10(3):270–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-04-2016-0018 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8414242","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":566742487,"identity":"4bae9440-38d1-4485-8cc1-c2de5e48fcad","order_by":0,"name":"imen Abdennadher Gdoura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"imen","middleName":"Abdennadher","lastName":"Gdoura","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-20 20:53:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99272043,"identity":"ec4000a7-604f-4a29-b906-7bf429a0200d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":182793,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"kerk10.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/7be48d5a84ad71a0cbee678f.docx"},{"id":99272040,"identity":"7e699d78-371f-4480-9f30-b6f5f9098f2c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3668,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"053f8281d6cc44fd867b2a11b1aebd3d.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/ce23eec26ce87dea96d925c4.json"},{"id":99272039,"identity":"4b5ca97c-1c15-4cdc-8702-d45b70f4cb8f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":91790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"053f8281d6cc44fd867b2a11b1aebd3d1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/8b2946d669006b6289cf1201.xml"},{"id":99272037,"identity":"d54897df-02af-41e7-aa26-c92611c37842","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":101485,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/b2950fac006dd8bcdeb7a693.jpeg"},{"id":99320215,"identity":"775acfd8-8840-40fb-b006-d12d73589f55","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:24","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66365,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/ace81e79ebd074bdada4b467.jpeg"},{"id":99272042,"identity":"ba87d0a7-1bbc-490f-9cd5-8d81e2d2bcbe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":21025,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/013d9c1a8a0dd72f8c42ab7d.jpeg"},{"id":99272041,"identity":"8d7f941c-1c8e-4c47-b8cf-72b4549561dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":229381,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/1a3e7b6811bee4d4df94f9c5.jpeg"},{"id":99272044,"identity":"14df199f-53b3-4423-b76f-7ce7aa2adc72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17365,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/1ef0ff61b46cbd0e57b3ffc9.png"},{"id":99272049,"identity":"bc1a8f57-8396-4186-adce-db48730dbcf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":39380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/38f5e559b6e3d030eb1ca7c4.png"},{"id":99272046,"identity":"ed388b5d-819f-425a-a91d-c6217071e035","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8281,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/46df38ed9959a1684a0ba6a8.png"},{"id":99272052,"identity":"f3146c85-ae54-435f-a57a-5707caad4f1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41710,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/e4dfd736fd0671b98ae02b86.png"},{"id":99272047,"identity":"eafcceb1-ca15-41d1-a2cb-e816ce25270a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":87572,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"053f8281d6cc44fd867b2a11b1aebd3d1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/17a2d78625ae2ada3230438c.xml"},{"id":99272051,"identity":"707df7e9-cbf8-4a02-974d-01fad05354b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:40","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":100257,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/6e4e3fd3bd9f67ee6ae55515.html"},{"id":99272038,"identity":"97e73b8f-6ec5-4917-aec6-320b1451bab7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101485,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInfluence/Dependence Map According to MICMAC©. Source: Godet \u0026amp; Durance (2008).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/0d2144a3e4f2ba9e162facff.jpg"},{"id":99272035,"identity":"091cbb95-08a0-420e-a1ed-84da1d7d0100","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 06:10:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66365,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDifferent Types of Variables on the Influence/Dependence Map. Source: Godet \u0026amp; Durance (2008).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/ac432b28a307c628fcde9dc5.jpg"},{"id":99319836,"identity":"5bce3c02-220c-418c-b28e-84f33942ad55","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:37:56","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21025,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDirect Influence/Dependence Map According to MICMAC© for Group 1 (Investors in Kerkennah) .\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/43254c368d8d20968cc7b021.jpg"},{"id":99319045,"identity":"bf83e830-09a3-451e-a9ca-c90f8a94eb35","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:36:08","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51408,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDirect Influence/Dependence Map According to MICMAC© for Group 2 (Investors in Corsica). Source: Author.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/68029316f5a3d8ccc80e0cd7.jpg"},{"id":99324217,"identity":"9087f1ea-d461-483d-97ff-07271d45cdc2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:47:04","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1123881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8414242/v1/065d2de5-71e9-43e0-b974-cab22fea155a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Island Place Branding and Investor Perceptions: A Structural Analysis of Corsica and Kerkennah","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eincreasingly competitive global environment, territories are no longer evaluated solely on their economic performance or physical endowments, but on their ability to project a coherent, credible, and attractive place brand. This evolution has led scholars and policymakers to conceptualize territories as brands, actively managed through public policies, institutional communication, and stakeholder engagement (Anholt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Kavaratzis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, place branding has emerged as a strategic approach to enhance territorial reputation, legitimacy, and attractiveness among key external audiences such as investors, tourists, and skilled workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsland territories occupy a particularly distinctive position in this competitive landscape. Characterized by geographical isolation, limited market size, environmental vulnerability, and strong cultural identities, islands face structural constraints that challenge traditional development models (Baldacchino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, these specificities offer powerful symbolic and reputational assets that can be mobilized through place branding strategies. As such, islands should not be viewed merely as peripheral regions, but as complex place brands, whose attractiveness depends on the coherence between functional attributes (infrastructure, accessibility), institutional signals (governance, security, business climate), and symbolic dimensions (culture, identity, reputation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the growing body of research on place branding, island place branding remains relatively underexplored, particularly from a comparative and stakeholder-oriented perspective. Existing studies tend to focus on cities or nations, often overlooking the unique branding challenges faced by islands, especially those located in developing or transitional economies. Moreover, much of the literature treats territorial attractiveness as an objective outcome, rather than as a perceived and socially constructed result of place brand signals interpreted by external stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestors represent a critical yet underutilized lens in place branding research. As strategic audiences of public diplomacy and economic promotion policies, investors do not merely respond to economic indicators; they interpret a territory\u0026rsquo;s brand through signals related to institutional quality, stability, reputation, and long-term vision (Dunning, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Zenker \u0026amp; Braun, 2017). Understanding how investors cognitively structure these signals is therefore essential for designing effective place branding strategies, particularly in island contexts where margins for error are limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses these gaps by proposing a structural and comparative analysis of island place branding, focusing on investor perceptions as a central mechanism through which place brands are formed and evaluated. Specifically, the research examines two Mediterranean islands with contrasting socio-economic and institutional profiles: Corsica (France), an island embedded in a developed European economy, and Kerkennah (Tunisia), a peripheral island within a developing national context. This comparison enables the exploration of how different governance frameworks and development trajectories shape island place brand architectures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodologically, the study adopts a prospective qualitative approach, employing MICMAC (Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to a Classification) to analyze the interdependencies between place brand variables. Rather than assessing linear causal relationships, MICMAC allows for the identification of brand drivers, relay variables, and brand outcomes, offering a systemic view of how island place brands are structured through stakeholder perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objectives of this research are threefold:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify the key determinants of island place branding as perceived by investors;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo analyze the structural interactions between these determinants and their role in shaping territorial reputation and attractiveness;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo compare the place brand architectures of Corsica and Kerkennah, highlighting context-specific branding dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy reframing territorial attractiveness as an outcome of place branding, this study contributes to the theoretical advancement of island place branding and offers practical insights for policymakers seeking to align public action, branding strategies, and investor-oriented public diplomacy. The article is structured as follows: the next section presents the methodology and MICMAC approach; the third section discusses the results and influence\u0026ndash;dependence maps; the fourth section provides a place branding oriented discussion; and the final section concludes with implications and future research directions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. From Place Branding to Territorial Brand Management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver the past three decades, branding has progressively expanded beyond products and corporations to encompass organizations, institutions, and territories. This evolution has given rise to the conceptualization of territories as brands, managed through strategic processes similar to those applied in corporate brand management (Balmer \u0026amp; Greyser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Territorial brand management refers to the coordinated efforts of public and hybrid actors to design, implement, and govern a coherent brand identity that enhances a territory\u0026rsquo;s attractiveness, reputation, and long-term value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike traditional place branding approaches, which often emphasize communication and promotion, territorial brand management adopts a strategic and systemic perspective, focusing on governance, stakeholder alignment, and brand equity creation (Hatch \u0026amp; Schultz, 2008). In this view, the territory is not merely marketed but managed as a complex brand system, integrating functional attributes (infrastructure, accessibility), institutional dimensions (governance quality, security), and symbolic elements (culture, identity, reputation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Territorial Brands as Complex and Multidimensional Brand Systems\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrand management literature highlights that strong brands are built through the interaction of multiple brand dimensions rather than isolated attributes (Aaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Applying this logic to territories, scholars argue that territorial brands operate as multidimensional systems, where economic, social, institutional, and cultural factors interact to generate brand meaning and value (Balmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTerritorial brands differ from corporate brands in several respects. First, they are characterized by multi-actor governance, involving public authorities, private organizations, and local communities. Second, they address multiple stakeholder groups simultaneously, including residents, investors, tourists, and diaspora communities. Third, territorial brands are deeply embedded in institutional and socio-political contexts, making brand control more complex and less centralized (Kavaratzis \u0026amp; Hatch, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a result, managing territorial brands requires tools capable of capturing interdependencies and feedback loops between brand dimensions. Traditional linear models of brand equity may therefore be insufficient to explain how territorial brand value emerges, particularly in complex and constrained contexts such as island territories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Brand Equity and Brand Attractiveness in Territorial Contexts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrand equity is commonly defined as the value added to a product or organization by its brand, reflected in stakeholder perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (Aaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). In territorial contexts, brand equity manifests through outcomes such as reputation, attractiveness, trust, and investment intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies emphasize that territorial brand attractiveness is not solely driven by economic indicators but by perceived brand signals related to governance quality, institutional stability, quality of life, and long-term development vision (Zenker \u0026amp; Braun, 2017). These signals shape stakeholders\u0026rsquo; cognitive evaluations of territorial brands and influence their engagement decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn investor-oriented branding, brand equity plays a critical role in reducing uncertainty and perceived risk. Investors rely on brand cues such as security, regulatory transparency, and human capital quality to assess the credibility of territorial brands (Dunning, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, brand attractiveness can be conceptualized as a dependent brand outcome, resulting from the interaction of multiple brand drivers rather than a standalone objective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Stakeholder-Based Brand Management and Investor Perceptions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary brand management research increasingly recognizes brands as socially constructed phenomena, co-created by organizations and stakeholders (Merz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In territorial branding, this perspective is particularly relevant due to the multiplicity of stakeholders involved in brand formation and diffusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestors represent a strategic stakeholder group whose perceptions significantly influence territorial brand equity. As external brand audiences, investors interpret signals sent by public institutions, local ecosystems, and socio-economic conditions. Their perceptions shape not only investment decisions but also the broader reputation of the territory through signaling and legitimacy effects (Suchman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, empirical research on investor-based territorial brand perceptions remains limited, especially in island contexts. Existing studies often treat investors as homogeneous economic agents, neglecting the cognitive and perceptual processes through which they evaluate territorial brands. Addressing this gap requires methodological approaches capable of capturing how investors structure and prioritize brand dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Brand Governance and Institutional Brand Signaling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrand governance refers to the mechanisms through which brand meaning is coordinated, controlled, and sustained over time (Hatch \u0026amp; Schultz, 2008). In territorial contexts, governance plays a central role in ensuring consistency between brand identity, public action, and stakeholder expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic policies, regulatory frameworks, and development strategies act as institutional brand signals, continuously shaping stakeholder perceptions. Misalignment between governance actions and brand promises can weaken brand credibility and erode brand equity, while coherent and transparent governance strengthens trust and long-term brand value (Balmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn island territories, where structural constraints amplify perceived risks, brand governance becomes particularly critical. Effective brand management in such contexts requires aligning infrastructure investment, human capital development, environmental policies, and communication strategies within a unified brand vision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Structural Approaches to Brand Management: The Relevance of MICMAC\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional brand management research has largely relied on linear and causal modeling techniques. While these approaches provide valuable insights, they often fail to capture the complex interdependencies inherent in territorial brand systems. Structural analysis methods, such as MICMAC, offer an alternative by focusing on influence\u0026ndash;dependence relationships between variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy identifying brand drivers, relay variables, and brand outcomes, MICMAC enables a systemic diagnosis of brand structures. This approach is particularly suited to territorial brand management, where multiple dimensions interact dynamically and non-linearly. Despite its relevance, MICMAC remains underutilized in brand management research, especially in territorial and public-sector contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this methodological gap by applying MICMAC to analyze investor-based perceptions of territorial brand dimensions in island contexts. By doing so, it contributes to the development of structural brand management approaches capable of informing both theory and practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.1. Prospective Methodology\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe prospective methodology involves several successive phases, with the ultimate phase focusing on the development of frameworks and the determination of strategic choices aimed at improving the attractiveness of nations in the future. In this study, we have focused on structural analysis. This analysis can be used to create an overview of territorial attractiveness and to identify key questions related to its enhancement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.Structural Analysis: The Cross-Impact Matrix Method\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGodet M. and Durance P. provided a precise definition of structural analysis: \"as a systematic method, in matrix form, for analyzing the relationships between the constituent variables of the system under study and those of its explanatory environment\" (Godet M., Durance P., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.1.\u003c/em\u003e Variable Selection:\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe selection of variables (as presented in the table below) was carried out through an exhaustive literature review complemented by exploratory interviews with domain experts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVariable Selection\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN\u0026deg;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\nShort Title\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarket size and dynamism\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEconomic fabric\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation and human capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBusiness climate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreen growth\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccessibility\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch \u0026amp; Development\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuality of life\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClusters\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecurity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCulture\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAttractiveness\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV14\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReputation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.2.\u003c/em\u003eSample\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo groups of investors were surveyed during thematic conferences:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Group 1: Investors in Kerkennah\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;25 participants, including existing and potential investors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Group 2: Investors in Corsica\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;25 participants, including existing and potential investors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe small number of respondents is justified by the quality of the participants and the richness of the data collected. In line with qualitative methodologies, it is often preferable to prioritize the depth and relevance of data over the sample size. According to Wahnich (2008), a sample of 20 to 25 individuals per group is generally sufficient for qualitative studies, especially when data saturation is achieved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.3\u003c/em\u003e. The Questionnaire\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire is presented in the form of a double-entry table, which establishes relationships between variables. This allows us to identify key variables in our model and assign them specific roles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cross-impact matrix is filled both qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative filling is used to determine all direct influence relationships between variables. For example, when considering variables X and Y, the following questions are asked:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Does variable X have a direct influence on variable Y?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Does variable Y have a direct influence on variable X?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf there is no direct influence relationship between two variables, a value of 0 is assigned in the matrix. Conversely, if a direct influence relationship exists, its importance is estimated by assigning a value from 1 to 3:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA strong influence relationship is assigned a value of 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA moderate influence relationship is assigned a value of 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA weak influence relationship is assigned a value of 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA potential influence relationship is marked with a \"P.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is also a second part of the questionnaire, which helps rank the importance of the variables to create a simpler conceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2.4\u003c/em\u003e. Characteristics of the Matrix (for Group 1 and Group 2: Investors in Kerkennah and Corsica)\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of the Cross-Impact Matrix (MIC) for G1 and G2: INV.D.C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValue (INV. Kerkennah)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValue (INV. Corsica)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatrix size\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumber of zeros\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumber of ones\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumber of twos\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumber of threes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e156\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFilling rate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e62,22%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e69,33%\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: MICMAC software output\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe matrix size refers to the number of variables retained during the first stage of the structural analysis. Since 15 variables were retained, the cross-impact matrix consists of 225 cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGroup 1: Investors in Kerkennah\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of these 225 cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;85 times a \"0\" was recorded, meaning that in 37.77% of cases, no direct influence relationship was identified between two variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;45 times a \"1\" was recorded, meaning that in 20% of cases, a weak influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;64 times a \"2\" was recorded, meaning that in 28.44% of cases, a moderate influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;31 times a \"3\" was recorded, meaning that in 13.77% of cases, a strong influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of 225 cases, 140 showed a direct influence relationship, representing 62.22%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGroup 2: Investors in Corsica\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of these 225 cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;69 times a \"0\" was recorded, meaning that in 30.66% of cases, no direct influence relationship was identified between two variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;48 times a \"1\" was recorded, meaning that in 21.33% of cases, a weak influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;46 times a \"2\" was recorded, meaning that in 20.44% of cases, a moderate influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;62 times a \"3\" was recorded, meaning that in 27.55% of cases, a strong influence relationship was identified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOut of 225 cases, 156 showed a direct influence relationship, representing 69.33%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Typology of Variables Using the MICMAC Method\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe MICMAC software generates influence-dependence maps. Each variable is associated with an influence and dependence indicator and is positioned on the influence-dependence map. This positioning allows for the distinction of four types of variables, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 1: Driving Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese variables are highly influential and minimally dependent. They play an explanatory role in the model and are considered input variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 2: Relay Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese variables are both influential and dependent. They act as catalysts in the system, potentially amplifying the effects of driving variables on outcome variables. According to Kh\u0026eacute;lil and Smida (2011), they represent a factor of instability for the system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 3: Outcome Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese variables are highly dependent but minimally influential. Their evolution is determined by driving and relay variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 4: Inert Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese variables are minimally influential and minimally dependent, justifying their exclusion from the analysis system (Godet, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGodet and Durance (2008) add a Zone 5, which includes \"peloton\" variables. These variables have average influence and dependence, and their role may vary depending on the context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Analysis and Interpretation of the Maps\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe perspectives of investors in Kerkennah and\u003c/em\u003e Corsica are presented in the following maps:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the map above, we can clearly see how investors in Kerkennah identify the role of each variable:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Zone 1 groups together the driving variables characterized by their strong influence and low dependence: security, education and human capital, market size and dynamism, and infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Zone 2 brings together the following variables: R\u0026amp;D, business climate, and green growth, but each of them has a different role.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-The business climate and R\u0026amp;D perfectly fulfill their roles as relays and can also act as driving variables relative to green growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Green growth is a relay variable characterized by its strong dependence, which explains its secondary role as a variable dependent on the business climate and R\u0026amp;D variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Zone 3 represents the set of outcome variables, which are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, employment, economic fabric, and quality of life are dependent variables characterized by their relay roles. These variables can act as relays for attractiveness and reputation, which are, in turn, dependent and consequential variables. These latter two are explained by the variables in the zone as well as by the economic fabric, quality of life, and employment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Zone 4 consists of inert variables, characterized by their low dependence and influence. According to our mapping, security constitutes the most moderating variable, which can have a strong influence on the driving and relay variables in our system. However, clusters and accessibility are almost excluded from our system given the context of our research in Kerkennah, and their role is limited to weakly moderating the remaining variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the map above, we can clearly see how investors in Corsica identify the role of each variable:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 1 includes driving variables: culture, infrastructure, accessibility, business climate, and economic fabric.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 2 includes relay variables: education and human capital, security, market size, R\u0026amp;D, and quality of life.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 3 represents outcome variables: employment, reputation, and attractiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Zone 4 consists of inert variables: clusters and green growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrated the importance of the variables presented in our system. Each variable exhibits different facets of influence and dependence. Consequently, we conclude that the perception of the role of each determinant of territorial attractiveness varies depending on the type of territorial actor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study advances place branding research by demonstrating that island attractiveness is not an isolated economic outcome but the result of a structured place brand architecture, shaped by interdependent functional, institutional, and symbolic dimensions. By mobilizing MICMAC as a structural analysis tool, the research responds to calls for more systemic and stakeholder-oriented approaches in place branding studies (Kavaratzis \u0026amp; Hatch, 2013; Zenker \u0026amp; Braun, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Island place branding as a structured brand architecture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe influence\u0026ndash;dependence maps reveal that island place brands are composed of hierarchically organized brand components, which can be classified into brand drivers, brand relays, and brand outcomes. This typology contributes conceptually to place branding by extending brand architecture logic, traditionally applied to corporate and product brands, to island territories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn both cases studied, variables such as infrastructure, security, education, and business climate function as foundational brand drivers, shaping the credibility and coherence of the place brand. These elements correspond to what Anholt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) defines as \u003cem\u003eplace brand substance\u003c/em\u003e, which underpins reputation formation. However, the relative positioning of these drivers differs significantly between Corsica and Kerkennah, confirming that place brand architecture is inherently context-dependent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Investor perceptions as a mechanism of place brand construction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy focusing on investors as key external stakeholders, this study reinforces the argument that place brands are co-constructed through perception and interpretation, rather than solely through top-down communication strategies. Investors act as interpretive agents, decoding institutional quality, governance stability, and long-term development signals embedded in public action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings show that in Kerkennah, security and human capital dominate the brand driver zone, reflecting a context where institutional reassurance is central to place brand credibility. In contrast, the Corsican place brand relies more heavily on cultural identity, accessibility, and economic fabric, highlighting the symbolic and experiential dimensions of island branding in more mature institutional environments. This distinction supports Kavaratzis\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) view that place brands are shaped by both material conditions and symbolic narratives, which vary according to development stage and governance maturity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Public action and institutional signaling in island place branding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key contribution of this research lies in its articulation of public policy as a place branding instrument. Variables such as business climate, security, and infrastructure are not merely technical or economic factors; they act as institutional brand signals that influence investor trust and long-term commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a public diplomacy perspective, island territories engage in a continuous process of signaling reliability, openness, and strategic vision to external audiences. The study demonstrates that when these signals are fragmented or weakly coordinated, place brand outcomes such as reputation and attractiveness remain highly dependent and vulnerable. Conversely, coherent public action strengthens relay variables, enabling the transformation of structural assets into reputational capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4. Methodological contribution to place branding research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodologically, this study contributes to the place branding literature by demonstrating the relevance of MICMAC as a diagnostic and strategic tool for mapping place brand architectures. Unlike traditional regression-based approaches, MICMAC captures non-linear interactions and feedback loops, which are particularly relevant in complex territorial systems such as islands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach aligns with recent calls for methodological pluralism in place branding research (Lucarelli \u0026amp; Berg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), offering a robust framework for identifying strategic leverage points in branding and policy design. The use of influence-dependence mapping provides policymakers with a visual and operational understanding of how interventions in one domain may cascade across the place brand system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to examine island place branding through the lens of investor perceptions, proposing a structural and comparative analysis of two Mediterranean islands: Corsica and Kerkennah. By reframing territorial attractiveness as a place brand outcome, the research demonstrates that island competitiveness emerges from a complex configuration of interdependent brand drivers, relay mechanisms, and symbolic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings confirm that island place brands are not uniform constructs, but context-sensitive architectures shaped by institutional maturity, governance frameworks, and socio-economic trajectories. While Corsica\u0026rsquo;s place brand is anchored in cultural identity, accessibility, and economic fabric, Kerkennah\u0026rsquo;s brand structure emphasizes security, education, and institutional reassurance. These differences underline the necessity of tailored place branding strategies rather than standardized policy models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Theoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this research contributes to the place branding literature by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtending brand architecture theory to island territories;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstrating the central role of investors as place brand audiences;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositioning MICMAC as a methodological bridge between branding theory and public policy analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy doing so, the study enriches ongoing debates on the governance of place brands and the systemic nature of territorial reputation building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Managerial and policy implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a managerial and public policy perspective, the results suggest that effective island place branding requires:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlignment between infrastructure development, institutional quality, and symbolic communication;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition of investors as long-term brand partners rather than passive targets;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration of place branding into public diplomacy and territorial governance strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic authorities should therefore move beyond promotional campaigns and adopt evidence-based place branding policies, grounded in stakeholder perceptions and structural interdependencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.3. Limitations and future research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, this study has limitations. First, cultural dimensions were not explored in depth, despite their relevance in island branding. Second, the analysis focused exclusively on investors, leaving room for future research to incorporate other place brand audiences such as residents, tourists, and diaspora communities. Finally, extending the analysis to additional island contexts would enhance the generalizability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research could build on this framework by combining MICMAC with longitudinal data or by integrating digital place branding and narrative analysis to capture the evolving dynamics of island place brands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eImen Abdennadher Gdoura drafted and reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAaker, David A. 1996. \u003cem\u003eBuilding Strong Brands\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Free.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAaker, David A., Richard P. Bagozzi. 1979. Unobservable Variables in Structural Equation Models with an Application in Industrial Selling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Research\u003c/em\u003e 16(2):147\u0026ndash;158. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/3150696\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/3150696\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkrout, Faouzi. 2000. \u003cem\u003eM\u0026eacute;thodes d\u0026rsquo;analyse des donn\u0026eacute;es de deuxi\u0026egrave;me g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ration et applications en marketing\u003c/em\u003e. S\u0026eacute;minaire de m\u0026eacute;thodologie de recherche en gestion, LIGUE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnholt, Simon. 2007. \u003cem\u003eCompetitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions\u003c/em\u003e. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnholt, Simon. 2010. Definitions of Place Branding \u0026ndash; Working Towards a Resolution. \u003cem\u003ePlace Branding and Public Diplomacy\u003c/em\u003e 6(1):1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2010.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/pb.2010.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArr\u0026egrave;gle, Jean-Luc. 2003. Les Mod\u0026egrave;les Lin\u0026eacute;aires Hi\u0026eacute;rarchiques: Principes et Illustration. \u003cem\u003eM@n@gement\u003c/em\u003e 6(1):1\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaldacchino, Godfrey. 2018. \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge International Handbook of Island Studies\u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315556642\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781315556642\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaldacchino, Godfrey, Geoffrey Bertram. 2019. The Beak of the Finch: Insights into Island Development. \u003cem\u003eIsland Studies Journal\u003c/em\u003e 14(1):3\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24043/isj.85\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24043/isj.85\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalmer, John M. T. 2012. Strategic Corporate Brand Alignment: Perspectives from Identity-Based Views of Corporate Brands. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e 46(7/8):1064\u0026ndash;1092. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/03090561211230105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalmer, John M. T., and Stephen A. Greyser. 2006. Corporate Marketing: Integrating Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding, Corporate Communications, Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e 40(7/8):730\u0026ndash;741. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669964\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/03090560610669964\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenraiss, Laila. 2004. M\u0026eacute;thodologie de Construction d\u0026rsquo;une \u0026Eacute;chelle de Mesure: Application du Paradigme de Churchill. In \u003cem\u003eActes du XVe Congr\u0026egrave;s de l\u0026rsquo;AGRH\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBryk, Anthony S., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992. \u003cem\u003eHierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods\u003c/em\u003e. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBusiness France. 2017. \u003cem\u003eTableau de Bord de l\u0026rsquo;Attractivit\u0026eacute; de la France\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCapello, Roberta, Andrea Caragliu. 2018. Regional Growth and Territorial Disparities: The Role of Human Capital in Regional Development. \u003cem\u003eRegional Studies\u003c/em\u003e 52(12):1617\u0026ndash;1632. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1447098\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00343404.2018.1447098\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCœur\u0026eacute;, Beno\u0026icirc;t, Isabelle Rabaud, and Thierry Madi\u0026egrave;s. 2003. Attractivit\u0026eacute; de la France: Analyse, Perception et Mesure. \u003cem\u003e\u0026Eacute;conomie et Statistique\u003c/em\u003e 363(1):97\u0026ndash;127. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2003.7438\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3406/estat.2003.7438\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepraetere, Claude. 1991. L\u0026rsquo;Insularit\u0026eacute; dans la G\u0026eacute;ographie Fran\u0026ccedil;aise. \u003cem\u003eAnnales de G\u0026eacute;ographie\u003c/em\u003e 99(553):257\u0026ndash;280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3406/geo.1990.20923\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3406/geo.1990.20923\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunning, John H. 2015. \u003cem\u003eMultinational Enterprises and the Global Economy\u003c/em\u003e. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunning, John H. 2015. The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production: A Restatement and Possible Extensions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Business Studies\u003c/em\u003e 46(1):9\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.54\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/jibs.2014.54\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkremi, El. 2005. Anis. Analyse des Variables Mod\u0026eacute;ratrices et M\u0026eacute;diatrices par les M\u0026eacute;thodes d\u0026rsquo;\u0026Eacute;quations Structurelles. In \u003cem\u003eM\u0026eacute;thodes de Recherche en Management\u003c/em\u003e, 325\u0026ndash;348.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEurostat. 1994. Definition of Islands. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Commission\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2785/85017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2785/85017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlorida, Richard, Christian Mellander. 2016. The Geography of Inequality. \u003cem\u003eRegional Studies\u003c/em\u003e 50(1):79\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.884275\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00343404.2014.884275\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaroui, Nassim, Amine Jarboui. 2012. Stakeholder Theory and Mental Models. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science Letters\u003c/em\u003e 2(2):1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlaeser, Edward L., and Joshua Kolko, Albert Saiz. 2018. Consumer City Revisited. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Geography\u003c/em\u003e 18(1):1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jeg/lbx030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGodet, Michel, Pierre Durance. 2008. \u003cem\u003eLa Prospective Strat\u0026eacute;gique: Pour les Entreprises et les Territoires\u003c/em\u003e. Paris: Dunod.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHatch, Mary Jo, Majken Schultz. 2008. \u003cem\u003eTaking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture, and Identity Through Corporate Branding\u003c/em\u003e. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKavaratzis, Mihalis. 2004. From City Marketing to City Branding: Towards a Theoretical Framework for Developing City Brands. \u003cem\u003ePlace Branding\u003c/em\u003e 1(1):58\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.5990005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/palgrave.pb.5990005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKavaratzis, Mihalis. 2015. Place Branding Scholars and Practitioners: \u0026lsquo;Strangers in the Night\u0026rsquo;? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Place Management and Development\u003c/em\u003e 8(3):266\u0026ndash;270. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-10-2015-0049\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JPMD-10-2015-0049\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKavaratzis, Mihalis, Mary Jo Hatch. 2013. The Dynamics of Place Brands: An Identity-Based Approach to Place Branding Theory. \u003cem\u003eMarketing Theory\u003c/em\u003e 13(1):69\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1470593112467268\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1470593112467268\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeller, Kevin Lane. 2001. \u003cem\u003eBuilding Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeller, Kevin Lane. 2013. \u003cem\u003eStrategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity\u003c/em\u003e. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKh\u0026eacute;lil, Nizar, Amel Smida. 2011. Contribution \u0026agrave; la Compr\u0026eacute;hension de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026Eacute;chec des Nouvelles Entreprises. \u003cem\u003eRevue de l\u0026rsquo;Entrepreneuriat\u003c/em\u003e 11(1):39\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLucarelli, Andrea, and Per O. Berg. 2011. City Branding: A State-of-the-Art Review of the Research Domain. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Place Management and Development\u003c/em\u003e 4(1):9\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/17538331111117133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/17538331111117133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerz, Michael A., Yong He, and Stephen L. Vargo. 2009. The Evolving Brand Logic: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e 37(3):328\u0026ndash;344. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0143-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11747-009-0143-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorter, Michael E. 2017. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review\u003c/em\u003e 95(6):77\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Pose, Andr\u0026eacute;s. 2018. The Revenge of the Places That Don\u0026rsquo;t Matter. \u003cem\u003eCambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society\u003c/em\u003e 11(1):189\u0026ndash;209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/cjres/rsx024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStorper, Michael. 2018. The Resurgence of Regional Economies. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Urban and Regional Studies\u003c/em\u003e 25(1):3\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0969776417714296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0969776417714296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e 20(3):571\u0026ndash;610. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZenker, Sebastian, Erik Braun. 2017. Questioning a \u0026lsquo;One Size Fits All\u0026rsquo; City Brand. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Place Management and Development\u003c/em\u003e 10(3):270\u0026ndash;287. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-04-2016-0018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JPMD-04-2016-0018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Place branding, Island territories, Investor perceptions, Territorial reputation, MICMAC, Public policy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIsland territories increasingly compete for investments, talent, and legitimacy in a globalized environment, positioning themselves not only as geographic spaces but as place brands shaped by symbolic, institutional, and functional signals. While place branding research has extensively examined cities and nations, island place branding remains underexplored, particularly in comparative and stakeholder based perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study reframes territorial attractiveness as an outcome of island place branding, constructed through the interactions between strategic, socio-economic, and governance-related brand drivers. Adopting a prospective and qualitative methodology, the research applies structural analysis using the MICMAC method to identify and classify the key determinants of island place branding as perceived by investors, considered here as external place brand audiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence is drawn from a comparative analysis of two Mediterranean islands with contrasting institutional and development contexts: Corsica (France) and Kerkennah (Tunisia). Data were collected from two groups of investors (25 per island) and analyzed through influence\u0026ndash;dependence maps generated by MICMAC. The results reveal distinct place brand architectures, highlighting differences in brand drivers, relay mechanisms, and brand outcomes, particularly in terms of reputation and attractiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings contribute to the place branding literature by demonstrating how investor perceptions structure island place brands through complex interdependencies between governance, infrastructure, culture, and human capital. From a policy perspective, the study emphasizes the role of public action and institutional signaling in shaping island reputation and investment attractiveness, offering actionable insights for place branding strategies and public diplomacy in island contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Island Place Branding and Investor Perceptions: A Structural Analysis of Corsica and Kerkennah","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-31 06:10:32","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8414242/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b677d919-3960-4f1d-b585-c330b3296f6d","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-31T06:10:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-31 06:10:32","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8414242","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8414242","identity":"rs-8414242","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}