An Evaluation of Users’ Place Attachment and Identity in a Recreational Urban Setting

Sarah E. Mount^1,

¹Department of Kinesiology & Health Education, University of Texas, Austin, Tx 78705

Cite this paper:
Sarah E. Mount. An Evaluation of Users’ Place Attachment and Identity in a Recreational Urban Setting. Journal of City and Development. 2020; 2(1):18-21. doi: 10.12691/jcd-2-1-3

Abstract

The validity of Williams and Roggenbuck’s [1] place attachment scale has been examined in numerous studies and the results indicate that it is a valid instrument for measuring place dependence and place identity in a variety of settings. The purpose of this study is to expand previous construct validity research on items related to the latent variable identified as place identity on a recreational resource in an urban setting. Participants included 126 trail users (58% female, 42% male, age 20-66) who completed an online survey designed to measure individual perceptions of trail characteristics and patterns of use. A single-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with goodness-of-fit tested using chi-square. When performed using the Maximum Likelihood method, the test was not significant, χ²(2) = 4.74, p = .09. When performed using the Generalized Least Squares method, the test also was not significant, χ²(2) = 4.54, p = .10, thus failing to reject the null hypothesis that the data do not fit the model. The results suggest that the 4-item place identity scale may be a valid measurement tool for use on recreational spaces in urban settings.

Keywords:
place attachment place identity biophilic cities urban planning recreation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results (Abstract). In Proceedings of the National Recreation and Parks Association Symposium on Leisure Research, 1989. San Antonio, TX (October, 1989).
[2]	Beatley, T., Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328-3345.
[3]	Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People and places: A transactional view of settings. In. J. Harvey (Ed.). Cognition, Social Behavior and the Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.441-488.
[4]	Taylor, R., Gottfredson, S., & Brower, S. (1984). Neighborhood naming as an index of attachment to place. Population and Environment, 7(2), 103-125.
[5]	Altman, I., Low, S. (1992). Place attachment, human behavior, and environment: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press.
[6]	Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
[7]	Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11, 305-328.
[8]	Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward and integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
[9]	Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., & Senes, G. (2018). An Individual’s Connection to Nature Can Affect Perceived Restorativeness of Natural Environments. Some Observations about Biophilia. Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 34.
[10]	Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230.
[11]	Smaldone, D., Harris, C., & Sanyal, N. (2005). An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 397-414.
[12]	Kelly, G., Hosking, K. (2008). Nonpermanent Residents, Place Attachment, and “Sea Change” Communities. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 575-594.
[13]	Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An Examination of the Relationship Between Leisure Activity Involvement and Place Attachment Among Hikers Along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research. 35. 249-273.
[14]	Hammitt, W., Backlund, E., Bixler, R. (2006). Place Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual and Empirical Development. Leisure Studies, 25(1), 17-41.
[15]	Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.
[16]	Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.
[17]	Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22, 233-257.
[18]	Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 153e177.
[19]	Raymond, C., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 422-434.
[20]	Cervero, R. & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Design, 2(3), 199-219.
[21]	Scannell, L., Gifford, R. (2017). The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 256-269.