Here's a reaction to Peter's burst of lucidity and a taxing multiple choice "test." Identity of any kind is not a chimera because most sane people need one. The idea of an independent or unaffiliated individual is a bit overblown. We need to belong to something, a race, a creed, a place, a nation. I don't think the identity part is so much a problem as the "civic" is.
As to measurement, it seems better to have a clear sense of what we want to measure before delving into its statistical composition. Some folks feel comfortable letting statistical results lead to definitions. But the conceptual part ought to come first and then remain open to revision as statistical analyses inform us.
The "good" of it comes from its essentialness. The Nazis consciously sought to deprive victims of their identity by moving them out of place away from family without familiar work, etc. When so reduced to one's own skin and fading memory, personhood is assaulted and lost.
As to being morally better or neutral, I think neutrality wins hands down, at least in a democracy which is composed of people of diverse types. The proverbial critic and the naïve patriot live in the same system and get along because they assent to the same system of governance and justice.
Democratic civic identity is probably not context dependent any more it is based on a certain moral stance. What is likely to be dependent on context is the developmental path toward civic identity. Children and youth are exposed to different aspects democracy because of the conditions in which they grow up. Thus, they see different aspects and are shielded from other aspects.
Of the several synonyms offered, "political" identity seems closest.