Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment

Abstract

Using data collected from residents surrounding a large urban park setting, we examined the relationship between their motivation to visit the park and their attachment to the setting. Based on the literature suggesting that natural environments provide humans with a variety of desired psychological, social, and physiological outcomes, we hypothesized that these outcomes would motivate respondents to interact with the park environment and facilitate the development of their attachment to the setting. Our data were analysed using covariance structure analysis. The results of this analysis offered partial support for our hypothesized model. Using multidimensional conceptualizations of motivation and place attachment, we observed that not all dimensions of motivation had a significant effect on the dimensions of place attachment. The valence of the significant predictors, however, was consistent with our hypotheses and prior literature.

Introduction

Place attachment has been used by scholars in a number of fields to describe the phenomena of human–place bonding. Their work has shown that the nature of humans’ attachment to place can be considered in a variety of ways. While authors have used a number of terms to describe the phenomena of human–place bonding (e.g. ‘sense of place’, ‘rootedness’, ‘insidedness’, ‘environmental embeddedness’), Low and Altman (1992) indicated that most conceptualizations, to varying degrees, include three components: affect, cognition, and practice. The affective component is most often reflected in emotional attachments to place, whereas the cognitive component concerns thoughts, knowledge, and beliefs related to place. Practice or conative action refers to the behaviors and activities that occur within spatial contexts.

In the context of natural resource management¹ within the United States, both managers and researchers have recently begun to appreciate the construct's utility for addressing a variety of natural resource management issues. For example, in the context of stakeholder conflict, research has shown that competing claims to a resource or setting can be negotiated with an understanding of the bonds stakeholders share with the contested landscape (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002; Clark & Stein, 2003). An understanding of these bonds and the meanings that gird them, provides insight on why stakeholders value particular settings. With this understanding, managers are better able to facilitate compromises between affected groups. Thus, efforts to refine our understanding of place attachment and its formative processes have important implications for public land management.

With regard to understanding place attachment's antecedent processes, studies of residential settings (e.g. house, neighborhood, and city) have shown that the development of place attachment is influenced by a number of factors. For example, several authors have shown that place bonds develop over time in response to individual interaction with the environment (Hay, 1998; Milligan, 1998). Other work has reinforced the importance of the person–environment interaction and has illustrated that past experience and the memories of those experiences also contributes to the development of place bonding (Rowles, 1983; Vorkinn & Riese, 2001). Finally, studies have shown that social ties and memories of significant others can also contribute to the development of place bonds (Mesch & Manor, 1998; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002). Research in natural settings, however, suggests that other processes may also be influential in fostering attachments to natural environments. For example, Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) have suggested that humans’ preference for nature is driven by the desire to satiate specific needs. They noted that natural environments offer a variety of psychological, social, and physiological benefits not typically found in developed or human-influenced environments. In addition to providing pleasure and satisfaction, they suggested that natural ‘settings support human functioning. They provide a context in which people can manage information effectively; they permit people to move about and explore with comfort and confidence. And, finally, such environments foster the recovery from mental fatigue. They permit tired individuals to regain effective functioning’ (p. 196). Given these benefits, it is possible that in natural settings humans’ attachment to the setting could emerge from their interaction with the setting—interactions driven by their desire to satiate specific needs. That is, humans are drawn to natural environments by the expectation of experiencing specific desired outcomes (i.e. psychological, social, and physiological). Through their engagements with the setting and others within the setting, psychological bonds between the self and the setting may then develop. To explore this issue further, we drew on motivation theory to explore the relationship between individuals’ motives for visiting a public recreation setting and their attachment to the setting.