Arica Place Attachment and Community Attachment: A Primer Grounded in the Lived Experience of a Community Sociologist Carla Koons Trentelman 3% Pages 191-210 | Recewas 28 Aug 2006, ecaptes 20 Mar 2008, Pubes anne C6 Ea 2009 66 Dovirload cteton G@ hnp/éxdoiorg/10.1080/00941920802191712 FETT ieee cree cen ces rtm Abstract On the surface, the constructs of place attachment and community attachment appear to be quite similar; however, there are substantial differences between the multidisciplinary place literature and community sociology literature it comes from. For scholars trained in a relatively single. isciplinary area such as community sociology, the immensity and complexity of place literature can be difficult to navigate. This article is a primer on these two constructs, written from the perspective of a community sociologist. To give context to place attachment, an overview of the place literature is presented, including brief descrip primary debates within the scholarship. Place attachment and related place concepts are Introduced, followed by a brief review of the work on community attachment seen in community sociology. After contrasting the two, the overlap between constructs is discussed. The reader is left with suggestions for future work. is of various strands of place scholarship, along with the Keywords: community attachment, community sociology, place, place attachment, sense of olace Two fairly separate constructs dealing with people's attachment to localities have emerged in the social sciences, place attachment, and community attachment, These two constructs have different disciplinary origins, foci, and research traditions. However, on the surface the constructs appear similar enough that social science writers have sometimes moved back and forth between them without noting the difference, 2 practice that has created a degree of misunderstanding in some cases. My own experience can serve as exemplar. Having been reared academically in community and natural resource sociology, a particular project led me to the literature on place attachment. Like other community sociologists working on natural resource issues, | was concerned with the absence of the natural environment of communities in most community attachment literature. | wanted to include the natural, biophysical place. Being, accustomed to the relatively single-discipline scholarship one finds in community sociology, my first impression of the place literature was that it was immense and confusing, with a good deal of inconsistency in concept use. However, there seemed to be substantial similarities—as well as some differences—between the literatures on place attachment and community attachment. My first attempts at using place literature in my writing were met by encouragement from place scholars to dig deeper. ‘ My rather surface treatment of the literature missed substantial points, points I was oblivious to with my assumption that the two constructs and their literatures were similar. As | worked to sort out what | was missing, | was increasingly intrigued by the place scholarship; at some point | found myself thinking in terms of “we place scholars.” This construction itself is interesting, in that | think of myself as a community sociologist, a natural resourcesociologist, a rural sociologist—but a place scholar. Somehow disciplinary boundaries feel wanscended here, though | remain intentionally and stubbornly sociological in my approach. My experience is that, when going from community sociology (For example) to the place literature, it is easy to get a little lost and to make assumptions about the literature in the process. The goal of this essay is to provide a primer to help community sociologists and others better understand place work; the essay may aid in the other direction as well. It may also serve to provide other place scholars with somewhat of an “outside view" of themselves (ourselves). Inworking with the literature on place attachment, | found I needed grounding in the broader place scholarship. | start this primer here, to give the reader some context. | then present place attachment and other place-related concepts, followed by 2 relatively brief review of the work on ‘community attachment seen in community sociology. After contrasting the two, | discuss Issues of overlap between the constructs. I leave the reader with suggestions and encouragement for working with the intriguing issues of place attachment. Place and Place Attachment Although one definition of “place” is simply “a geographic area that has meaning to people” Galliano and Loeffler & 1999, 1), the social science work addressing place has been a complex, widely diverse, inter- and multidisciplinary literature from its beginnings. This can be seen not only in the disciplines in which it developed, but also in the research methodologies and paradigmatic approaches used to study it. This diversity has resulted in a very large literature. ? To give the reader an overview, | outline various strands of social science place scholarship and some of the debates within it, and introduce place attachment and related place concepts. Place in the Social Sciences The social science place literature is interdisciplinary in that geography, sociology, psychology, and other di iplines have each developed their own theoretical and research traditions for exploring issues related to place. It is multidisciplinary in that there is much cooperation and collaboration between disciplines, particularly among natural resource social scientists (e.g, those in areas such as recreation, leisure and tourism studies, or employed by resource management agencies). Because of the complex intertwining of the material, biophysical, geographic setting, and the human, social, meaning-rich elements of place—and the tendency for disciplines to see fragments rather than whole pictures—‘understanding place in its true complexity is a multidisciplinary exercise” (Stedman 2003b, 824). A number of strands of place literature have emerged from these varying perspectives, each responding to a different concern with the scholarship that preceded it. Phenomenological Roots of Place Scholarship Most scholars credit the phenomenological geographers Tuan (e.g... 1975, 1977) and Relph (@ 1976) with the initial development of place studies. Relph asserts that place holds an integral role in human identity: "to be human is to have and to know your place" (1976, 1, emphasis inin the disciplines in which it developed, but also in the research methodologies and paradigmatic approaches used to study it. This diversity has resulted in a very large literature. 2 To give the reader an overview, | outline various strands of social science place scholarship and some of the debates within it, and introduce place attachment and related place concepts. Place in the Social Sciences ‘The social science place literature is interdisciplinary in that geography, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines have each developed their own theoretical and research traditions for exploring issues related to place. It is multidisciplinary in that there is much cooperation and collaboration between disciplines, particularly among natural resource social scientists (e.g.. those in areas such as recreation, leisure and tourism studies, or employed by resource management agencies). Because of the complex intertwining of the material, biophysical, geographic setting, and the human, social, meaning,rich elements of place—and the tendency for disciplines to see fragments rather than whole pictures—’ understanding place in its true complexity is a multidisciplinary exercise” (Stedman 2003b, 824]. A number of strands of place literature have emerged from these varying perspectives, each responding to a different concern with the scholarship that preceded it. Phenomenological Roots of Place Scholarship Most scholars credit the phenomenological geographers Tuan (e.g,, 1975, 1977) and Relph (@ 1976) with the initial development of place studies. Relph asserts that place holds an integral role in human identity: “to be human is to have and to know your place” (J 1976, 1, emphasis in Despite places mattering a great deal to the social interactions that occur within them, place and space have not been incorporated into general sociological theory and research, only recently receiving more focus in the discipline (Gieryn & 2000; Lobao 4 1996). Exceptions to this aspatial pattern include early urban studies, which considered the environment of the city and the neighborhood as important to the social interactions that occurred there, as well as rural socialogy's long history of exploring spatial concerns; these remain somewhat of an anomaly in sociology (Lobao & 1396; Wilson & 1980). ‘There is an increasing recognition in sociology that space matters. Giddens posits the intersection of space and time where social interaction occurs plays an important role in structural and institutional patterns (e.g., 1990). Arguing for “emplacing” sociology and the key problems it addresses, Gieryn (& 2000) conceptualizes place as including (1) a geographic location—the “where’’ (2) material form—the “what” the place is made of; and (3) investment with meaning and value—what the place means. For Gieryn, place is an “agentic player ... a force with detectable and Independent effects on social life” (466). Recent place-oriented sociological work includes adaptations of symbol community sociologists, all of which | return to later. interactionism, social constructionism, and quantitative work done by Place Scholarship in Psychology Here, place has been explored primarily in two interrelated subfields, social psychology and environmental psychology. There are noteworthy differences in their approaches to studying place Social psychology, defined as “an attempt to understand how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviorsof individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (G. W. Allport as quoted in Aiello, Thompson, and Baum & 1981, 424), is known for theory-driven, testable hypotheses and for its rigorous scientific method. Focusing on these theoretical and methodological traditions, Stedman (& 2002) has called for a sacial psychological approach to the study of place using themes examined in the subfield that are issues of interest for place, specifically, beliefs, attitudes, identity, and behavior (see also Jorgensen and Stedman & 2001). Environmental psychology seeks “to situate the individual in a macroscale, ecological context. It views the individual both as embedded in the environment and as actively defining and giving shape to it," (Williams and Patterson @ 1996, 509). Bonnes and Bonaiuto (4 2002) argue the place construct is a “central sociophysical unit of analysis,” describing the construct as including spatial- physical properties, the a ities that occur there, and the meanings the place holds. They assert, “This place specificity of behavior is the fundamental fact of environmental psychology’ (30). Parallel to sociological place work, actions are seen as always situated in a specific place; the nature of that place is important to understanding the action and experience The methodologies and levels of analysis used in environmental psychology are more problem driven than in social psychology. Theory is less central and often brought in from other disciplines, methods are often triangulated, and an interdisciplinary approach is philosophically important (Aiello et al, & 1981; Rivlin & 2000). The subfiela's place orientation assumes complex causal relationships between environment and behavior. Prolific in place studies, environmental psychologists focus on place meanings. Widely used concepts in place literature, including place identity. olace dependence, and olace attachment. were develoved in this subfield. Environmental psychologists use a varlety of approaches, including psychometric (e.g., Pretty, Chipuer, and Bramston 2003) and transactional approaches (e.g, Stokols and Shumaker & 1981), phenomenology (e.g.. Seamion &@ 2000), and social constructionism (e.g., Williams 2000). Place Scholarship in the Natural Resource Social Sciences Natural resource social scientists have played a substantial role in theory bullding and research on place. This group includes social scientists trained in a variety of disciplines, ? who typically work for either natural resource management agencies (e.g., the Forest Service, state wildlife divisions), or multidisciplinary academic programs focused on resource management. “ Disciplinary boundarles appear to matter less here; the shared commanality is representing the social sciences in areas that typically focus on other aspects of physical, geographic locations. Much of this strand of place literature rose from attempts to convince resource managers to include the social, human, meaning-oriented dimension of “place” in management decisions for ecosystems (Farnum et al. @ 2005; Williams and Patterson & 1996), in contrast to a commodity perspective. Despite a move toward an ecosystem approach within management agencies, people were either not considered a real part of those ecosystems or else were seen only as resource commodity consumers (Galliano and Loeffler & 1999; Williams and Stewart 1998). The main management. concern was the distribution of “resource commodities.” This perspective emphasized Interchangeable and reproducible properties of resources; the management goal was to match setting types and use/user types (mainly recreationists and visitors) with places, seen as the sum of these functional attributes. A number of technical, analytic tools were developed to inventoryresource attributes and plan for their management, such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which allows the mapping of “specific biophysical, cultural (social), and managerial characteristics of a landscape that appear to facilitate particular recreation goals’ (Williams and Patterson & 1996, 511; see also Mitchell et al. @ 1993). This commodity perspective was a primary Impetus for the emergence of a meaning-orlented place scholarship within the natural resource social sciences. Resource managers relied on these technical tools (e.g., ROS) for decision making without consideration of the meaning of places, relationships between people and places, and affective experience with places (Galliano and Loeffler @ 1999; Schroeder @ 1996; Williams and Stewart @ 1998). Another concern was the idea that unique places with distinct meanings could be seen as substitutable or replaceable on the basis of recreation attributes, as mere means for recreation rather than being important in their own right (Mitchell et al. & 1993; Williams et al. @ 1992). In response to these issues, this strand moved away from the quantitative analyses of ROS inventories with their abstract, generalized views of places, criticized as reducing places to their instrumental attributes. These scholars worked on more holistic, qualitative, (e.g. Mitchell et al. 1993; Schroeder & 2000). Researchers have also done prolific work on ‘quantitative projects (e.g., Backlund and Williams @ 2004; Williams et al. 4 1992; Williams and Roggenbuck @ 1989; Williams and Vaske #2003). ° Both methodologies focus on meaning—the meanings places carry, which vary across individuals and social groups. .graphic studies concerned with the role of place-specific, unique meanings The Positivistic or Psychometric Response Another strand of place scholarship emerged as a response to the nonpositivistic trends within place literature noted earlier. The qualitative works were criticized as being “confused and vague" {Shamai & 1991), using “fuzzy” definitions (Lalli & 1992), and exhibiting a “relative lack of construct larity and an avoidance of hypothesis testing," (Stedman 4 2002, 562). Jorgensen and Stedman (& 2001) argue explicitly for positivistic research, characterized as ‘quantitative and using researcher-defined variables to conduct hypothesis testing (see also Stedman & 1999). Stedman (#2002, 2003b) argues that, while phenomenological approaches are useful with their attention to detail and intimate knowledge about specific settings for particular groups, they do not allow for generalizable principles (2003, 824; see also Shamai & 1991). Stedman (2003b) advocates studying place using testable hypotheses derived from place theory from phenomenological works, and considering causal relationships, concept precision, dimensionality, relationships between factors, and the influence of variables. He argues for a social psychological approach, using attitude and identity theories and the subfield's methodological rigor. This allows useful and potentially predictable variation to be seen both within and between places, which can be understood using traditional quantitative anal | techniques. An example of this is Shamai's (@ 1991) sense of place scale, developed using phenomenological place theory from Relph (@ 1976), a scale that other place scholars have borrowed from or adapted (e.g, Jorgensen and Stedman & 2001; Vorkinn and Riese & 2001). ‘The Social Construction of Place Increasing numbers of place scholars are turning to a social constructionist approach. With roots in“phendinenology an perspective in the social sciences grew in response to, and as a critique of, positivistic epistemology, although among place scholars this has not generally been in response to positivistism within place scholarship. There are a variety of rationales for this approach to place. Some use a constructionist approach specifically for its resistance to positivistic philosophy (e.g., Stokowsk’ é# 2002; Tuan @ 1991), while others choose constructionism or interactionism © for particular projects as a way to focus on meanings without linking that choice to philosophical perspectives (e.g., Eisenhauer, Kranich, and Blahna &# 2000; Freudenburg et al. & 1995; Greider and Garkovich & 1994). sractionism (Berger and Luckmann M 1966), the use of a constructionist, A constructionist approach is concerned with how place is socially constructed, by whom, and with what interests, as well as with how constructions are adopted and how various conceptualizations of places affect different groups (Stokowski & 2002; Williams @ 2000). Using an interactionist framework, some consider how understandings of places are created through social interactions, describing a reciprocal relationship between humans and landscape (Brandenburg and Carroll @ 1995; Eisenhauer et al. & 2000). Others acknowledge the material reality of specific geographic settings while looking beyond the physical properties of places (e.g., Stokowski é@ 2002), or argue that even our understanding of these physical properties is socially constructed (Freudenburg et al. 1995; Greider and Garkovich @ 1994). Questions of power and politics of place are examined (e.g, Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels é@ 2003; Williams &# 2002), as well as the inherently political legitimizing process seen in discourse about places (e.g., Petrzelka 4 2004; Tuan & 1991). Debates Within the Place Literature The place literature Is rather lively with debate, some of it calm, detached, and polite, and some rather pointed and, at times, given to sarcasm and exclamation points. As some understanding of these debates is necessary for the place reader, | visit these discussions next. There are four main points of debate: whether or not the scholarship on place is “messy'—and more to the point, whether or not any messiness is problematic; tension regarding the social versus the physical as the proper focus of place studies: the role of modernization with issues of place; and tension over what sort of approach or approaches should be used for furthering the place literature, A Messy Literature? As can be imagined, this inter- and muitidisciplinary literature, characterized by great diversity in theoretical, methodological, and paradigmatic 7 approaches, has been criticized by many as being “messy” (e.g, Beckley @ 2003; Hidalgo and Hernandez & 2001; Pretty et al. & 2003; Shamai 1991; Stedman & 2002). Researchers from varying disciplinary backgrounds and research areas have developed place-related terminology and usages that best suit the needs of that area (e.g, recreation and tourism, as compared to human geography, or community sociology). This can be seen in place-related concepts such as place attachment, sense of place, place identity, and place dependence, each with wide, but inconsistent, use, Obviously this creates problems for direct comparability of studies, concepts, and operationalizations of those concepts; eg,, one cannot assume that one study of “place attachment” ‘examines the same conceptual thing as another. The situation is nat surprising—given the wide variety of interests, foci, and challenges the research is driven by, if we all used the same definitionfor a concept it would have to be a very broad, generalized and abstract definition. Itis likely more beneficial to use the conceptualizations that best fit our own work, while being explicit about what we mean and how we measure those concepts, as well as identifying our approach—theoretical, methodological, and, where appropriate, disciplinary. Patterson and Williams (4 2005) argue that the criticisms just reviewed are overstated as a result of a in the research context, (2) not distinguishing between approaches used by different research traditions, and (3) assuming inaccurately that place research is encapsulated by a “single research tradition from which a single overarching theory of place could and should emerge” (J 2005, 363). They assert that distinctions must be made between inconsistencies within individual research projects and programs and their reported findings, compared to differences across research ics (1) focusing narrowly on definitions of specific concepts instead of considering what is meant traditions, which are inevitable. Scholars using cross ssciplinary literature must be attentive to usage differences, and researchers must “translate their work with sufficient clarity and transparency’ to allow synthesis within the scholarship (378). In observing the lack of a unified definition of sense of place, Farnum et al. (& 2005) note this issue is not specific to the place literature: “As with many other concepts in social science, it has traditionally fallen to the author to be clear how she applies the concept” (49). The Social Versus the Physical Another ongoing dialogue questions whether the social aspects of place should be emphasized more than the physical, since social meanings and interaction are what make it “glace” rather than “space” (e.g., Low and Altman &? 1992; Relph 4? 1976; Riley 1992; Tuan &# 1977), whether they should be treated as equally important (2.g,, Cheng et al. 2003; Eisenhauer et al. & 2000; Gieryn £ 2000), or whether to emphasize the physical aspects of places (e.g., Beckley & 2003; Stedman @ 2002). These last scholars are not arguing that the physical should be emphasized more than the social, but rather are concerned that the physical does not receive enough focus. Those taking a harder social constructionist position argue the physical matters less because our understanding of itis all socially constructed anyway (e.g., Freudenburg et al. & 1995; Greider and Garkovich & 1994; Stokowski & 2002). Concerns About Modernization Issues in Place Scholarship This debate centers on the role modernity or modernization plays in the importance of place and places. Ever since Relph’s attention to increasing “placelessness" (& 1976) and Giddens's observations that modernity “dis-places” (& 1990), place scholars have weighed in on whether place matters in a modern and globalizing world where distance and locality matter less. Most place scholars argue place does matter. As Gieryn (4 2000) succinctly put it, “In spite of (and perhaps because of) the jet, the ‘net, and the fast-food outlet, place persists as a constituent element of social life and historical change” (463). Milligan (&# 1998) asserts that because the meaningfulness of social interactions is what makes a place and leads to place attachment, even If places become very similar "placeless"), social interactions wil still result in attachment. Entrikin (@ 1989) observes that cultural geographers are seeing that traditional aspects of culture, including place attachment, territoriality, and cultural language and symbolism, persist despite modernization. Williams (& 2000,WORF TOTES that the ettects ot modernization lead to increased contestation of place meanings; this rise in the politics of place brings inevitable issues of inequality. The Approach Debate Another tension has existed within the place literature for over 15 years, since the first charges of conceptual fuzziness were raised against the phenomenological roots of this scholarship (Lalli 8 1992; Shamai @ 1991), Focused on what approach(es) should be used for scholarly work on place, this debate has become more interactive within the last decade, beginning with the criticisms raised by Jorgensen and Stedman (@ 2001; see also Pretty et al. & 2003; Stedman # 2002, 20036), and the responses to these critiques (see especially Patterson and Williams & 2005; Williams & 2008). On the one hand, scholars argue that to study something as complex as place, there is a need for the testing of hypotheses derived from earlier, more holistic works, conceptual clarity, and the consideration of dimensionality (e.g., Jorgensen and Stedman & 2001; Shamai 8 1991; Stedman & 2003b). On the other, scholars argue that place is too complex to consider with anything other than a holistic approach, that the human/place relationship is irreducible. These scholars call for a descriptive, contextualized approach to place (e.g,, Brandenburg and Carroll 8 1995; Fishwick and Vining & 1992; Stokowski # 2002). Some raise concerns that attitudinal studies in particular harkens back to ROS studies, where places are seen as interchangeable (eg, williams and Patterson & 2007). The differences between these perspectives are characterized as being between qualitative/nonpositivistic and quantitative/ positivistic approaches (e.g., Stedman # 2002), or between differing paradigms and world views (Patterson and Williams é@ 2005). The tensions in the underlying themes and assumptions within this debate seem to support the latter characterization. Two of these themes follow. Place-Specific and Unique vs. Generalizeable Principles Those advocating positivist approaches tend to assume that nonpositivist research does not produce generalizeable findings—that is, “places” are seen so specifically, so uniquely, that nothing can be said more generally than how things are for those particular people, at that place alone. Yet as Seamon (& 2000) points out, the phenomenologist is looking for commonalities, general qualities and characteris perspective, Tuan (&? 1975) argues he is not interested in the idiographic, but rather an experiential perspective that allows one to see connections between places. The argument against these approaches typically discounts the empiricism of nonpositivistic scholarship, portrayed as “failing" to produce testable hypotheses or clearly defined concepts. However, phenomenologists (for example) do not see this as failure; they avoid those approaches as reducti lived experience. that are shared across places. While advocating a place-sp removed from people's lives and ‘The State of Place Scholarship as a Whole Place scholars disagree on the state of place scholarship. Readers will see references to evolutionary stages of social sciences described by Low and Altman (1992), ® with some scholars arguing the place literature is stuck in a first stage (e.g. Stedman &@ 2002, 2003), while others. argue the literature has developed beyond that (e.g., Manzo & 2003; Patterson and Williams & 2005). Scholars also disagree on whether place scholarship should move toward a—_— . . ~ Unified “theory of place” (see Patterson and Williams &@ 2005). Manzo (&@ 2003) states, “Diversified perspectives are essential” to more fully develop the “awareness of tension, difference and contradiction in relations to all places” (57). Gieryn (4 2000) argues that, because it is ubiquitous, place is an unbounded topic of inquiry that cannot be summed up into a “neat propositional Inventory of empirical findings” (482), Patterson and Williams (4 2005) advocate an approach that allows for a plurality of perspectives, paradigms, and research traditions, rather than a unified or integrated approach. ‘These approach-related tensions can become confusing. Some of the debate uses fairly duelistic terms, leading the place reader to think itis simply about methodological differences such as qualitative versus quantitative, or perhaps a “holistic” approach versus dimensionality. Approaching the literature with these dualisms in mind becomes increasingly perplexing. This debate has been articulated most strongly in the works of Stedman, as noted earlier, arguing for a quantitative, multidimensional approach (e.g,, Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Stedman &# 2002, 2003b), and of Williams and colleagues (e.g,, see especially Patterson and Williams & 2005; Williams & 2008; Williams and Patterson # 2007). Williams has often argued for a holistic approach focused on meanings (2.g., Willlams and Patterson & 1996; Wiliams and Stewert & 1998), yet has been involved in prolific quantitative place work. The place attachment measures developed by him and his colleagues have been tested and refined over nearly 20 years, as noted earlier (Williams and Roggenbuck @ 1989). These measures, which include dimensionality, have been widely adopted by ‘quantitative researchers (2.g., Davenport & 2006; Payton, Fulton, and Anderson &# 2005) including ‘Stedman (e.g.. Jorgensen and Stedman &# 2001, etc.). On the other hand, Stedman has also used qualitative methods (Stedman et al. & 2004). As | attempted to sort through all this with a du: perspective of the debate, | became very confused indeed, The argument that the issue is one of paradigmatic and world view differences offers an explanation of this complexity (Patterson and Williams A 2005). Stedman's qualitative work still fits within his research program of a community sociologist studying place (| return to this later). The approaches Williams has used to study place over the last two decades, both empirical and theoretical, irom quantitative scale development and refinement to constructionist arguments (eg., 2000) and concerns for the politics of place (e.g., & 2002), are all true to his roots in environmental psychology and practice as a natural resource social scientist. These disciplinary expressions of differing paradigms, and the worldviews that inform them, bring light to the underiying differences in approach, including dissimilar assumptions, interpretations, and even language use ® among the tensions between other strands of place; they are not confined to these two perspectives. 12 ways place is studied. This understanding also helps explain Place Attachment and Related Place Concepts A catalogue of place-related concepts has been developed over the last 30 years. Having been introduced to the various strands of place scholarship, the reader can now better understand the differing usages of these concepts. For example, “place attachment’ and “sense of place” are each used as overarching place concepts by different groups of scholars, while “place dependence” and“place identity” are used as constituent parts of the overarching concepts. Place Dependence Place dependence is used to evaluate one place as compared to other places, to determine the level of agreement with the idea that, particularly due to emotional bands, “no other place will do as well as this one," or a dependence on the particular place of interest for the things one wants to do. Used more in natural resource-related scholarship, Stokols and Shumaker (&@ 1981) are credited with the development of this concept, which has been used as an indicator of place attachment (e.g,, Kyle et al. & 2003; Williams et al. & 1992) as well as sense of place (e.g., Jorgensen and Stedman #2001). Place Identity ‘The focus of this concept is that “this place” is part of my identity; my affiliation with “this place” is part of how | want others to think of me. The most commonly used conceptualization of place identity was developed by Proshansky (4 1978) and has been used in work focusing on one’s ‘dwelling, community, and region (e.g., Cuba and Hummon & 1993; Lalli & 1992; Twigger-Ross and Uzzell & 1996), as well as on natural places and recreation and illiams re settings (eg., 4/2002). Place identity is used as an indicator of sense of place (eg., Jorgensen and Stedman 2001), as well as of place attachment (e.g., Kyle et al. & 2003; Williams et al. & 1992), where it is conceptualized to consider emotional bonds between people and places. 1° Place Attachment The theoretical and empirical work on place attachment, the overarching concept used by environmental psychologists, constitutes a large portion of the place literature. The construct considers the emotional or affective component of people's relationships with places, emotions typically presumed to be positive although place scholars generally agree that place attachment is a “complex, multifaceted concept" (Farnum et al. & 2005, 3), It has been defined as “an affective relationship between people and the landscape that goes beyond cognition, preference, or judgment” (Riley &@ 1992, 13). Most scholars trace the concept to Tuan (d) 1975, 1977). “attachment of a deep though subconscious sort may come simply with familiarity and ease, with the assurance of nurture and security, with the memory of sounds and smells, of communal activi and homely pleasures accumulated over time” (Tuan 1977, 158). Created and maintained through interactions with the environment, place attachment includes interconnections between biological, environmental, psychological, and sociocultural processes (Low and Altman 1992). While seen as resulting from long-term interaction and experience with a place that may be passed through generations (e.g, Galliano and Loeffler & 1999), some argue that at times, intensity of experience can serve as proxy for long exposure to the place (e.g., Tuan 197), and even if one has no personal experience with a place, attachment may come through hearing stories and memories from others (e.g., Backlund and Williams 4) 2004). Place attachment is used to examine the relationships between people and both natural and built environments, with tremendous range in the level of analysis. '! In addition to a variety ofqualitative studies (e.g., Milligan 4 1998; Mitchell et al. &? 1993; Schroeder &# 2000; Stedman et al. & 2004), many have studied the construct quantitatively. Much work has been done to develop, test, and refine standardized measures for place attachment, with place identity and place dependence used as indicators (.g., Backlund and williams @ 2004; Kyle et al. & 2004; Warzecha et al. & 2000; Williams et al. 1992; Williams and Roggenbuck & 1989; see also Williams and Vaske @ 2003). Some of these measures have been incorporated into standardized scales of sense of place (see, e.g., Jorgensen and Stedman & 2001; Stedman & 2002), and place dependence (e.g., Davenport # 2006). Sense of Place ‘As mentioned earlier, “place attachment’ and “sense of place” are both used as overarching place concepts, contributing to charges of inconsistency within the place literature. “Sense of place” implies more inclusiveness. According to Hummon (& 1992), "sense of place involves a personal orientation toward place, in which one's understandings of place and one’s feelings about place become fused in the context of environmental meanings” (262). Also, while the word “attachment” implies a positive relationship with the place in question, “sense of place” does not. Scholars argue that, while there is a need to consider the full range of affect in relationship to place, the literature on place attachment tends to focus only on positive emotions; negative affect seers antithetical to “attachment" (e.g, Giuliani and Feldman & 1993; Kyle et al. @ 2004; Manzo & 2003). The sense of place construct is intuitively more conducive for considering negative as well as positive aspects of a relationship with a place. kyle et al. (& 2004) observe differences in the research contexts of place attachment and sense of place in terms of locales and populations of interest. They note studies using place attachment as a multidimensional, overarching construct (with place dependence and place identity as constituent parts) have typically been conducted in recreational contexts, where respondents, primarily visitors/recreationists, have more sporadic interaction with the setting (e.g., Bricker and Kerstetter 2000; Kyle et al. & 2003). Studies using sense of place as the multidimensional, overarching construct (with place attachment, place dependence, and place identity each a dimension) have typically included residents, with a more extensive history with the place in question (a.g,, Jorgensen and Stedman @ 2001). Kyle et al. (@ 2004) argue the nature of attachment likely differs between these groups (see also Stedman et al. 2004), Community Attachment Iscussions of community attachment within the place literature typically cite the work of community sociologists. | aw move to this literature from community sociology, where this essay may serve as a primer for place scholars who may read community work. Community attachment is a concept not often explicitly defined, and the variati to complaints of murkiness similar to those the place literature has received (e.g., Theodor! @ 2000). The construct considers connections between residents and their communities (usually referring Nin its use has ledonly to social aspects). Its typically used as a measure of sentiment regarding the community one lives in and an indicator of one's rootedness to one’s community. Most community attachment literature traces its origins to a classic urban sociology study by Kasarda and Janowitz (& 1974), in which they tested two competing models of attachment. The linear development model posits that linear increases in population size and density in ‘communities are primary influences on social behavior and attitudes within those communities. As ‘communities grow larger, relations! local communities (kasarda and Janowitz 1974, 328). The systemic development model theorizes that systemic factors are the influences of consequence; community attachment is rooted in people's connections to and interactions with each other. This approach considers attitudes and sentiments toward the community, and views community organization as a structure with “ecological, institutional and normative dimen: fashioned by, and a constituent part of, mass society (329). 1s weaken, and there is a decreas the social significance of ns" and the community as a complex system, Using survey data, Kasarda and Janowitz (& 1974) examined haw community attachment 12 was affected by variables such as population size and density, age, length of residence, social class, friendship and kinship ties, and associational bonds. The systernic model had far better explanatory power than the linear development model, with length of residence the best predictor af attachment. in other words, the dynamics of social connectedness between people, particularly as developed over the course of long residence, were better predictors of community attachment than were the size and density of the community's population. This study led to substantial research an ‘community attachment, with one strand continuing in urban sociology, tvoically examining attachment to urban neighborhoods, while another considered rural communities. Much of the rural research replicates the Kasarda and Janowitz (@ 1974) study in a number of different settings and, for the most part, supports the systemic model. More recent studies have worked to refine and further test this model (e.g. Liu et al. 1998; Theodor’ and Luloff é@ 2000), ‘The community attachment construct has been operationalized a number of ways within urban and rural sociology, with many studies continuing to use the Kasarda and Janowitz (d# 1974) indicators, ‘often in combination with other measures (e.g., Goudy & 1990; Ryan ct al. # 2005; Theodori @ 2001). Other researchers developed different indicators (2.g., Brehm, Eisenhauer, and Krannich 2006; Stinner et al. &@ 1990). No matter the operationalization of the construct, length of residence has remained a strong predictor of community attachment with few exceptions. ‘? ‘Community sociologists have also studied community satisfaction, typically an evaluative construct that considers how satisfied residents are with their community. Similar to the concept of place dependence, in that both are evaluative and focus on the functionality of the place or the ‘community, the primary difference is that place dependence is explicitly comparative (with the place in question being compared to other places), whereas community satisfaction is not. The ‘community literature has been criticized for theoretical and empirical inconsistency in terms of conceptualization, operstionalization, and relative importance of the concepts of community attachment and community satisfaction (Theadori & 2000). ‘Community attachment is measured in differing ways and is used to study a diversity of community- oriented topics in both urban and rural settings; however, there is much about this research that is‘Community attachment is measured in differing ways and is used to study a diversity of community- oriented topics in both urban and rural settings; however, there is much about this research thet Is fairly homogeneous. There is no variation in scale: the object of study is always the community (although there are competing ideas on how best to delineate a “community’), Due to the wide adoption of the systemic model by community attachment scholars, the theoretical underpinnings of this work are rooted in 2 functional perspective, as seen in the focus on community as a complex system with normative and socialization functions it performs for mass society (see Kasarda and Janowitz & 1974, 329). '* Methodologically, this research is prone to use quantitative studies. ‘Community attachment has remained, for the most part, a sociological construct, although it has been used occasionally by other disciplines. However, some social and environmental psychologists use the place attachment construct in fairly parallel ways. Where Place Meets Community and Community Meets Place ‘As we have seen, the place literature the literature on community attachment developed mainly within community sociology. There is an area where the two literatures appear to come together, however, where scholars tend to refer to both without distinguishing between them, sometimes using the constructs interchangeably. This ‘occurs within both the place literature (e.g., Pretty et al. 2003) and the community literature (e.g., Brehm et al. 2006). It has added to the confusion, as well as the criticisms of both literatures, particularly from place scholars (e.g, Hidalgo and Hernandez & 2001; Pretty et al. & 2003). ich in its diversity of perspectives and approaches, wl ‘Asan example, a number of works within the place attachment scholarship, as well as other place literature, have litte, if anything, to do with geographic place and are focused on attachment to ‘one's community. These works come mainly from environmental psychology, where the social (including the community) is part of one’s “environment’ since the focus in psychology is at the individual level. This use of place attachment is fairly comparable to community attachment as used by community sociologists. Here, because it can be difficult to demarcate between the constructs, itis important to consider the focus and scale of the work. A difference between the two perspectives is that, for place scholars, a ‘community is Just another place to consider the relationships between humans and their localities, another setting to examine attachment to place or sense of place—it is mainly an issue of scale. For ‘community sociologists, on the other hand, the community is the setting for particular types of social relationships that vary from those in other kinds of locales. For them, attachment is one of many community dynamics to consider; athers include, for example, the social structure of the ‘community including the normative order, power, inequality, networks, and communication. In other words, for place scholars, community attachment can be seen as attachment to a type of place, while for community sociologists, community attachment is one of many social dynamics within a community. In the place literature, the community-oriented works referred to earlier in this article include both conceptual, theoretical pieces (e.g., Fried @ 2000) and empirical works (e.g., Brown, Perkins, andBrown 2003; Hidalgo and Hernandez A 2001; Pretty et al. 2003). Some of these empirical works use measures of attachment similar to those used in community sociology (e.g., Brown et al. 2003). Community attachment studies often use attitude survey techniques (ie., Likertlike response categories) similar to those used by place researchers, although the community sociology studies are typically not explicity informed by attitude theory (e.g, Brehm et al. & 2006). Some works bring the constructs together by design; for example, Hurmmon (1992) intentionally weaves together “community sentiment’ and “people's feelings about places" (253), proposing a model for how differing dimensions of community attachment produce different kinds of sense of place. Other scholars have followed, integrating community attachment-type measures into sense of place (eg, Hidalgo and Hernandez & 2001; Pretty et al. @ 2003). ‘Community sociology studies (as well as some place stu physical, geographic setting the community is located in. Increasingly, natural resource sociologists with a community orientation express frustration with this neglect, arguing that the physical may play a substantial role in attachment to a community, particularly in high amenity settings (2., Brehm et al. 2006; Clark and Stein & 2003). These sociologists have responded by using place attachment conceptualizations to bring the natural, geographic place into the discussion of community attachment. To highlight the importance the natural setting may play, some have attempted to conceptually separate individuals’ attachments to the “ecological from the “sociocultural” attributes of places (Beckley & 2003, 107; cf. using a sense of place construct, Stedman &@ 2002}, in an attempt to learn more about this complex combination of feelings. it should ‘De no¥éd that while Beckley and Stedman have both written under the broad umbrella of natural resource social sciences, this concern came partially out of their perspectives as sociologists interested in community, evidenced by the community focus of much of thelr work (see Beckley ‘& 2003; Beckley et al. @ 2007; Stedman & 1999; Stedman et al. & 2004). of communities) tend to leave out the The entry of these community sociologists into place attachment work comes from neatly the opposite direction of some of the natural resource social scientists who are concerned that technical analyses (e.g., the ROS) have put too much emphasis on the “setting or container” (Williams and Patterson & 2007) without consideration for the social meanings of the content. Conversely, these natural resource-oriented community sociologists are concerned that within the community literature, the focus is sociocultural to the exclusion of the role of the container itself. Their goal is not to switch the focus, but to ensure both are included (see, e.g,, Beckley & 2003; Beckley et al. 2007; Brehm et al. @ 2006; Clark and Stein & 2003; Stedman & 2003a). Again, ‘community sociology is interested in community dynamics, of which community attachment is one aspect, Among natural resource community sociologists, the move to consider the social and the natural or physical setting as separate dimensions of attachment (e.g., Beckley et al. & 2007; Brehm et al. & 2006; Clark and Stein & 2003) is part of this larger focus on community dynamics. In this crossover area between the literatures, one can see how attempts at distinctions may appear more arbitrary. This underscores the need for scholars to be explicit about what they are examining and why. Again, understanding why the place literature gets used inconsistently] is key. Itis also imperative that any comparisons of findings truly are comparable. Although studies that are not similar enough for direct comparison may be useful for tracking this variety of ways (ie.,patterns and trends, these situations should be discussed cleariy and explicitly. Williams et a. (© 1995) provide a useful model for outlining, i ideas and concepts they use come from. imple terms, sp ifically which literatures the Conclusions Within the place literature, including work on place attachment, it is true that the use of concepts and approaches, as well as the debates within the literature, can appear confusing, particularly for those of us experienced with simpler, relatively single-discipline lenses. However, the challenges of larity and consistency in concept use are not unique to place literature; for example, they have also been noted within community scholarship. With a literature as large, inclusive, and diverse as the place scholarship, these challenges are likely inevitable. The substantial diversity in the strands of place literature that have developed from different perspectives, and in response to a variety of issues perc significant contributor to the appearance of messiness and confusion. As we have seen, the place literature has not evolved in response to a single issue, nor from a single perspective; no single thing gave rise to place research. This situation can prove challenging for the place reader or the scholar who seeks to inform work with a place perspective—scholars like me. To accurately understand and reference place scholarship, this literature demands we do considerable homework. Hopefully this primer has provided assistance toward that end. alsoa fed as problematic, makes for a rich literature, However, this diversity In general, if the place reader focuses on the larger issue of what any given work is about instead of the terms, methodologies or paradigms it may use, or if the reader looks for patterns of usage, things start making more sense. Further, if one attempts to see what lenses the authors use, and how their work—no matter how different—can inform one's own, if one can adopt an “attitude of ‘openness to, and appreciation for” other perspectives (Patterson and Williams & 2005, 377] (e.g., see Stedman and Beckley & 2007), then one can begin to see the value, not only in the specific work per se, but also in this extraordinarily rich range of foci, approaches, methodologies, descriptions, and findings. The reward will be better understanding of the always intriguing relationships between people and places, and between people about places. | am grateful to Rick Krannich, Linda Kruger, Matt Carroll, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and encouragement on earlier drafts. | am also indebted to Dan Williams, Rich Stedman, and Tom Beckley for their assistance in helping me sort out the place literature. Notes | thank Matt Carroll and an anonymous reviewer in particular for this encouragement, Considering the enormity of the place literature, this essay can only provide a relatively brief review. Amore complete review can be found in Farum, Hall, and Kruger (@ 2005).‘Academic departments include, for example, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management; Environment and Society; Natural Resources Science and Management; Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology: etc. This work has included developing a scale for the place attachment construct, testing the scale, its refinement, further testing and refinement across multiple data sets, and eventually a meta-analysis across 10 data sets. Since an interactionist perspective maintains that meaning is socially created through social interactions, and one of the central concerns within place literature is with place meanings, | include interactionist works with this body of social constructionist scholarship. | use “paradigm” here following Patterson and Williams (J 2005), who present a framework for ciffering approaches to research. At the level of scientific application, where theoretical concepts are developed and tested empirically, they refer to research programs, typically organized within a discipline. They link research programs to paradigms, the source of “normative philosophical commitments" for the approach. “Paradigms often transcend disciplinary boundaries" (363). Worldviews inform paradigms. My use of “paradigm” is in this sense of a particular approach informing multiple research programs, at a level that transcends es. An example within place literature would be the paradigm of phenomenology, which has been used by geographers, psychologists, and sociologists. In this evolutionary process, an initial stage of energetic enthusiasm and apparent consensus about atopic with emergent salience erodes as the topical work achieves increasing breadth and depth. A second stage brings increased rigor and precision, however, the increasing breadth brings more scattered representations and widely varying descriptions and explanations of the phenomenon in question. The authors see their book as an attempt to usher in the second stage. A third stage consists of “development of systematic theoretical positions and clearly delineated programs of research and application of knowledge to the solution of practical problems” (Low and Altman 21992, 3) Patterson and Wiliams illustrate the language differences well with a discussion of contrasting uses of the word “particularistic" within these debates (@ 2005, 370-371). Place identity has also been used to describe a more reciprocal identity process. Here, individuals and groups contribute to and shape the identity of places while the places in turn help shape the identities of these same people (e.g., Petrzelka 2004). The place attachment construct has been used to examine micro places, such as buildings (e.g. Milligan & 1998) or rooms within buildings (e.g., Mazumdar and Mazumdar 4 1993), large places like national parks ar other public lands (e.g,, Mitchell et al. 1993; Warzecha et al. 2000), and places in between, like neighborhoods (e.g., Brown et al. 2002). Kasarda and Janowitz (& 1974) measured community attachment with three questions: to what degree residents felt “at home" in their community; how interested they were in knowing what goes on in thelr community; and how sorry or pleased they would be to leave if for some reason they hadto move away from their community (331). Other positive predictors include income/employment class (e.g., Goudy &@ 1990; Kasarda and Janowitz &@ 1974) and religious participation (e.g, Liu et al. # 1998; Stinner et al. & 1990); age has been inconsistent, with some studies finding a linear relationship (e.g., Goudy & 1990; Theodor! and Luloff 2000), while in others the relationship is curvilinear (e.g,, Kasarda and Janowitz & 1974). Gender has been tested repeatedly, but the findings have been mixed. This is not to say that the broader community sociology literature is this u of the community attachment scholarship is. ied; however a majority References 1. lallo ,.R.,D. E. Thompson , and A. Baum . 1981 . The symbiotic relationship between social psychology and environmental psychology: Implications from crowding, personal space, and intimacy regulation research . In Cognition, social behavior, and the environment , ed. |.H. Harvey , 423 - 439 . Hillsdale , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . [Google Scholar] 2. Backlund . £. A. end D. R. Williams . 2004. A quantitative synthesis of place attachment research: Investigating past experience and place attachment . In Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research symposium , ed. |. Murdy , 320 - 325 . GTR-NE-317. Neviton Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research station . [Google Scholar] 3. Beckley , T. M. 2003. The relative importance of sociocultural and ecological factors in attachment to place In Understanding community-forest relations . ed. L.E. Kruger . 105 - 126. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-566, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of agriculture . ;Google Scholar] 4, Beckley , T. M., R. C. Stedman , S.M. Wallace, and M. Ambard . 2007 . Using Resident Employed Photography to Articulate Attachment to Place. Society Nat. Resources 20: 913-929. [Taylor & Francis Online}, [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar} 5. Berger ,P. L. and T. Luckmann . 1966 . The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge New York : Anchor Books . [Google Scholar] 6. Bonnes , M. and M. Bonaiuto . 2002 . Environmental psychology: From spatial physical environment to sustainable development. In Handbook of environmental psychology eds. R. B. Bechtel and A. Churchman . 26 - 54. New York : john Wiley . [Google Scholar] 7. Brandenburg . A.M. and M. 5. Carrall .1995.. Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society Nat. Resources 8 : 381 - 388 [Taylor & Francis Online}, [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 8. Brehm, J.M.,B.W. Eisenhauer, and R. S. Krannich . 2005 . Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern: The case for multiple dimensions of attachment. 4m. Behav. Scientist 50( 2): 142 - 16S FF rncerafl flieh af Srianra @ transla Schlart9. Bricker. K.S. and D. L, Kerstetter . 2000 . Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sci 22 : 233 - 257 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 10. Brown , 8. B., D. D. Perkins , and G. Brown . 2003 . Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis... Environ. Psychol, 23 : 259 - 271 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar] 11. Cheng, A.S., LE. Kruger, and S. €, Daniels . 2003, Place’ as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society Nat. Resources 16:87-104. Taylor & Francis Online), [Web of Science @1, [Google Scholar] 12. Clark. J. K. and T. V. Stein . 2003 . Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment . For. Sci, 49 (6 ): 867 - 876 . [Google Scholar] 13. Cuba , L. and D. M. Hummon . 1993 . A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community, and region . Sociol. 0. 34 (1): 111-131 [Crossref], Web of Science ®]. {Google Scholar] 14, Davenport. M. A. 2006 .A conceptual overview of an integrative place dependence scale . Presented at the International Symposi Canada. [Google Scholar] 1m on Society and Resource Management, june 5-7, Vancouver, British Columbia, 15. Eisenhauer , 8. W., R. S. krannich , and D. J. Blahna . 2000 . Attachments to special places on public land: An analysis of activities. reason for attachments. and community connections . Society Nat. Resources 13: 421 - 441 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar) 16. Entrikin, JN. 1989 . Place, region, and modernity .n The power of place: Bringing together geographical and sociological imaginations , eds. J. A. Agnew and J. S. Duncan , 30 - 43 . Winchester , MA: Unwin Hyman . [Google scholar] 17. Farnum ,J., T. Hall, and L. €. Kruger. 2005 . sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings . General Technical Report PNW-GTR-660. Juneau, AK: U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station .[Crossrefl, [Google Scholar] 18. Fishwick, L. and J. Vining . 1992 . Toward a phenomenology of recreation place . . Environ. Psychol. 12: $7 - 63 [Crossrefl, [Web of Science @1, {Google Scholar] 19. Freudenburg , W.R., S. Frickel, and R. Gramling . 1995 . Beyond the nature/society divide: Learning to think like @ mountain . Social. Forum 10 ( 3): 361 - 392 {Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] 20. Fried , M. 2000 . Continuities and discontinuities of place ... Environ. Psychol. 20 :193- 205. [Crossref]. (Web of Science @]. [Google Scholar] 21. Galliano. S.J. and G. M. Loeffler . 1999. Place assessment: How people define ecosystems . General Technical Report PNW-GTR.462 . Portland , OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station . [Google Scholar]22. Giddens , A. 1990 . The consequences of modernity . Stanford , CA: Stanford University Press . [Google Scholarl 23. Gieryn , T. F. 2000 . A space for place in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26 : 463 - 496 . [Crossrefl, [Web of Science ®1, [Google Scholar] 24, Giuliani , M. V. and R. Feldman . 1993, Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context... Environ. Psychol. 13 : 267 ~ 274 .{Crossrefl, (Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 25. Goudy. W. |. 1990. Community attachment in a rural region . Rural Sociol. 55 (2): 178 - 198. [Crossref]. [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar] 26. Greider .T. and L. Garkovich . 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment Pural Sociol. 59 (1): 1~24 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar] 27. Hall ,C.M. 2004 Place In Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation , eds. |. Jenkins and J. Pigram , 364 — 367 . London : Routledge . [Google Scholar] 28 Hidalgo, M.C. and 8. Hernandez . 2001 . Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions . J. Environ. Psychol. 21 : 273 ~ 281 {Crossref}, (Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 29. Hummon , D. M. 1992 . Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place . In Place attachment eds, | Altman and S. M. Low, 253 - 278 . New York : Plenum Press .{Crossrefl. [Google Scholar] 30. Jorgensen , B.S. and RC. Stedman . 2001 . Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore ovmners' attitudes toward their properties . J. Environ. Psychol. 21 : 233 - 248 .{Crossref]. [Web of Science ®]. [Google Scholar] 31. Kasarda J.D, and M. Janowitz . 1974 . Community attachment in mass society . Am. Sociol. Rev. 39: 328 - 339 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar) 32. Kyle. G.T..A.R. Graefe, RE. Manning . and J. Bacon . 2003 . An examination of the relationship between. lelsure activity involvement and place attachment among hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Leisure Res. 35 (3): 249 - 273 [Web of Sclence ®], [Google Scholar] 33. kyle, G.T.,A.R. Graefe, R.E, Manning , and J. Bacon . 2004 . Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting... Environ. Psychol. 2 {Crossref}, (Web of Science @), {Google Scholar} 13-225 +34. Lalll, M. 1992 . Urban-relsted Identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings . Environ. Psychol. 12: 285 - 303 [Crossref], [Web of Science @), [Goozle Scholar} 35. Liu, Q.A., V. Ryan, H. Aurbach , and T. Besser . 1998. The influence of local church participation on rural ‘community attachment. Rural Sociol. 63(3):432-450.Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] 36. Lobao , L. 1996 . A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: Rural sociology and the36. Lob¥o , L. 1996 . A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: Rural sociology and the dimension of space . Rural Sociol. 61 ( 1 ): 77 ~ 102 .{Crossref]. (Web of Science @]. [Google Scholar] 37. Low, S.M.and |. Altman . 1992 . Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry . In Place attachment , eds. | Altman and S. M. Low. 1 - 12. New York : Plenum Press .{Crossrefl. [Google Scholar] 38, Manzo .L. C. 2003 . Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places . J Environ. Psychol. 23 : 47 ~ 61 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] 39, Mazumdar, S. and S. Mazumdar. 1993. Sacred space and place attachment J. Environ. Psychol 13: 231 = 242 {Crossref}, [Web of Science [Google Scholar] 40. Miligan .M.J. 1988 .Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment . symbolic Inceract. 21 (1 }:1 ~33 [Crossref] [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 41. Mitchell, M.¥., J. Force, M.S. Carroll, and W. J. McLaughlin . 1993 . Forest places of the heart: Incorporating special spaces Into public management... For. 91 (4 ): 32 - 37 . [Google Scholar] 42. Patterson , M. £. and D. R. Williams . 2005 . Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress ., Environ. Psychol. 25 : 361 - 380 .[Crossref], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 43, Payton, M.A., D.C. Fulton , and D. H. Anderson . 2005 . Influence of place attachment and trust on civic action: A study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge . Society Nat. Resources 18 (6 ):511 ~ 528. TTavlor & Francis Onlinel, [Web of Science @1, [Goozle Scholar! 44, Petrzelka , P. 2004 . The new landform's here! The new landform’s here! We're somebody now! The role of discursive practices on place identity . Rural Sociol. 68 ( 3 386 - 404 [Crossref]. [Web of Science @]. [Google Scholar] 45, Pretty. G.H.. H.M. Chipuer, and P. Sramstan . 2003. Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence In ralation to place identity .j. Environ. Psychol. 23 : 273 - 287 [Crossref], [web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 46, Proshansky,, H. M. 1978 . The city and self-identity. Environ, Behav. 10 (2): 147 - 169. [Crossrefl, [Web of Science @1, {Google Scholar] 47. Relph , E. C. 1976 . Place and placelessness . London : Pion Limited . [Google Scholar} Riley ,R. B. 1992 . Attachment to the ordinary landscape . in Place attachment , eds. |. Altman and s.M. Low , 13 ~ 35 . New York : Plenum Press {Crossret], [Google Scholar] 49. Rivlin , L. G. 2000 . Reflections on the assumptions and foundations of work in environmental psychology . In Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavier research , eds. S. Wapner , J. Demick 7. Yamamoto , and H. Minami. 51 - 59. New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers . [Google Scholar] 50. Ryan. V.D..K.A. Agnitsch . L. Zhao . and R, Mullick . 2005. Making sense of voluntary participation: A theoretical synthesis . Rural Sociol. 70 ( 3]: 287-313 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar]51. Schfoeder. H.W. 1996. Ecology ofthe heart: Understanding how people experience natural environments - In Natural resource management: The human dimension , ed. A.W. Ewert, 13 ~ 25. Boulder , CO : Westview Press . [Google Scholar) 52. Schroeder, H. W. 2000 . What makes a place special? Interpretation of written survey responses in natural resource planning . In Applications of computer-cided text analysis in natural resources , ed. D. N. Bengston , 7 -11.GTRNC 211. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station . [Google Scholar) 53. Seamon , D. 1987 . Phenomenology and environment-behavior research . In Advances in environment, behavior, and design , Vol. 1, eds. E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore , 3 - 27. New York [Google Scholar] enum Press . ‘54, Seamon , D. 2000 . A way of seeing people and place: Phenomenology in environment-behavior research . In Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research . eds. . Wapner J. Demick. T. Yamamoto . and H. Minami, 157-178. New Vork:: Kluwer Academic/Plenum {Crossref}. (Google Scholar] 55, Shamai, 5. 1991 . Sense of place: An empirical measurement . Geoforum 22 (3): 347 - 358 [crossref], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar] 56, Stedman ,R. C. 1999. Sense of place as an indicator of community sustainability , For. Chron, 75 (5 ): 765 - 770 . [Google Scholar] 57. Stedman , R. C. 2002. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environ, Behav. 34(5):561-581 {Crossref}, [Web of Science @), [Google Scholar] 58. Stedman . R. C. 2003a.. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place . Society Nat. Resources 16 : 671 - 685 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 59, Stedman , RC. 2003) . Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research . For. Scl. 49 (6 ): 822 ~ 829 . [Google Scholar] 60. Stedman , R. C., and T. IM. Beckley . 2007 . I we knew what It was we ware doing, It would not be called research, would it? Society Nat. Resources 20 : 939 - 943 [Taylor & Francis Onlinel, [Web of Science @), [Google Scholar 61. Stedman , R. C., T. Beckley , 5. Wallace , and M. Ambard . 2004, A picture and 1000 words: Using resident- ‘employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places .J. Leisure Research 36 (4 ): 580 606 [Web of Science ®]. [Google Scholar] 62. Stinner , W. F...M. Van Loon , S. Chung , and ¥. Byun . 1990 . Community size, individual social position, and community attachment. Rural Sociol. 55 (4): 434-521 [Crossref]. [Web of Science ®]. [Google Scholar] 63. Stokols .D. and S.A. Shumaker. 1881 . People in places: A transactional view of settings . In Cognition. social behavior, and the environment, ed. J. H. Harvey. 41 - 488 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates [Google Scholar]64, Stokowski , P. A. 2002 . Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place .. Leisure Res. 34 ( 4): 368 ~ 382 [Crossref], [Web of Science @1, [Google Scholar] 65. Theodori, G. L. 2000 . Levels of analysis and conceptual clarification in community attachment and satisfaction research: Connections to community development J. Commun. Dev. Society 31 (1 ): 33-58 [Google Scholar] 66. Theodori, G. L. 2001 . Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well- being . Rural Sociol. 65 (4): 618 - 628 [Crossref], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 67. Theodori, G. L. and A. E, Luloff. 2000 . Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas . Society Nat. Resources 13 :399- 420 [Taylor & Francis Online}, (Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] 68. Tuan, ¥. 1975. Place: An experiential perspective. Geogr. Rev. 65(2) 151-165 [Crossref], [Wab of Science @], [Google Scholar] 69. Tuan, Y. 1877. Space and place: The perspective of experience . Minneapol [Google scholar] Iniversity of Minnesota Press 70. Tuan, Y. 1991 . Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach . Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 81 (4 684 - 696 {Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar) 71. Twiger-Ross ,C.L. and D.L. Uzzell. 1996 . Place and identity processes .J. Environ. Psychol. 16: 208 ~ 220 [Crossref], [web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] 72. Vorkinn, M. and H. Riese . 2001 .E} attachment . Environ, Behav. 33 (2 ;nmental concern in a local context: The significance of place 49 ~ 263 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®), [Google Scholar] 73. Warzecha ,C. A., D.W. Lime, and J. L. Thompson . 2000 . Visitors’ relationships to the resource: Comparing place attachment in wildland and developed settings .In wilderness Science ina Time of Change Conference— Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management , 23 - 27 May 1999, Missoula, MT, 181-184. Proceedings AMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Ogden , UT : USDA Forest Service . [Google Scholar] 74, Williams , D. R. 2000 . Personal and social meanings of wilderness: Constructing and contesting places in a global village . In Personal. societal. ond ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation , Vol. 11; 24-29 October 1998 , Bangalore, India, 77 — 182 . Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Ogden , UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station . [Google scholar] 75. williams , D. R. 2002 . Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place . J Leisure Res. 34 (4): 351 - 367 [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar) 76. Williams , D. 8, 2008 . Pluralities of place: A user's guide to place concepts, theorles and philosophies in natural resource management. In Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management , eds. LE. Kruger. T.E. Hall , and M. C. Stiefel, 7~30 . PNW-GTR-744 . Portland , OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station . [Google Scholar]7. williams. D. R.. B.S, Anderson . C.D. McDonald. and M. €. Patterson . 1995 . Measuring place attachment: More preliminary results . Presented at the Qutdoor Recreation Planning and Management Research Session , NRPA Leisure Research Symposium, October 4 ~ 8 , San Antonio, TX. [Google Scholar] 78. williams , D. R. and M. €, Patterson . 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society Not. Resources 9:507-521 [Taylor & Francis Online}, [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar} 79. Williams , D. R. and M. E, Patterson . 2007 . Snapshots of what, exactly? A comment on methodological experiments and conceptual foundations in place research . Society Nat. Resources 20 : 931 - 937. Taylor & Francis Online), [Web of Science @1, [Google Scholar] 20. Williams , D. R., M.E. Patterson J. W. Roggenbuck , and A. E. Watson . 1992 . Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place . Leisure Sci. 14: 29-46 Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science @], [Google Scholar] 81. williams , D. R. and J. W. Roggenbuck . 1989 . Measuring piace attachment: Some preliminary results Presented at the Session on Outdoor Planning and Management, NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, 20-22 October, San Antonio, TX. [Google Scholar] 82, Willams, D.R. and S. I Stewart. 1988 . Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management .J. For. 96 (5 ): 18 - 23 . {Google Scholar] 83. Williams , D. R. and J J. Vaske . 2003 . The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach . For: Sci, 49 (6 ): 830 ~ 840 . [Google Scholar] 84, Wilson . B. M. 1980 . Social space and symbolic interaction . in The human experience of space and place. eds. A. Butlimer and 0. Seaman , 135 ~ 147. New York: St Martin's Press . [Google Scholar]