Place attachment and recreation experience preference: A further exploration of the relationship

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jort

Place attachment and recreation experience preference: A further exploration of the relationship Megha Budruk a,n, Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis b a b

Arizona State University, School of Community Resources & Development, 411N Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, United States University of Missouri, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, 105 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO 65211, United States

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 October 2012 Received in revised form 3 April 2013 Accepted 3 April 2013

Place attachment and recreation experience preferences (REP) have received increasing attention in natural resource management, with previous literature (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004) indicating that REP predicts place attachment development. This study expands current insight into the relationship between the two concepts. Specifically, we tested two predictive models: the first explored the influence of REP dimensions on place attachment dimensions as tested in previous research; the second explored the influence of place attachment dimensions on REP dimensions alluded to, but not tested, previously. Contrary to expectations, our results did not support the model in which REP predicts place attachment development. Interestingly, our results support the second model and indicate that select place attachment dimensions predict REP dimensions. This positive influence of place attachment on REP dimensions empirically supports the notion that attachment to a setting may influence motivations to visit that setting. Specifically, findings suggest that meaningful social relationships nurtured within the resource encourage visitors to learn, be more knowledgeable, or teach about the resource, and experience quiet, solitude and personal growth. Additionally, respondents’ dependence on the resource motivates them to be among others like themselves. Overall, our findings suggest the complexity of REP–place attachment relationships.

Keywords: Motives Place dependence Place identity Social bonding

M a n a g e m en t i m p l i c a t i o n s Place attachment has emerged as one important concept in recent outdoor recreation research. Managers should be aware that both the influence of experience on place attachment and the relationship of place attachment on the motivation to visit matter and influence each other. Exploring the relationship between place and recreation experience preference may enable resource managers to gain new insights and help further understand the development of visitor motivations. These insights can contribute to more appropriate site development, including social interactions and exchange of knowledge. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Effective natural resource management relies on understanding the complex relationships between human experiences and the settings within which they occur. One approach has been to explore the bonds people develop with places (Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Conceptualized as place bonding, place attachment, and sense of place, these bonds measure the intangible value of places and have received increased research and management attention during the last decade (Williams & Stewart, 1998).

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 602 496 0171; fax: +1 602 496 0953. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Budruk), [email protected] (S.A. Wilhelm Stanis). 2213-0780/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2013.04.001

Early explorations in leisure research primarily focused on describing and measuring place attachment (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminof, 1983; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Williams & Vaske, 2003). More recently, attention has turned toward understanding the development of place attachment and its relationship with other variables. One line of investigation explores the influence of recreation experience preferences (REP) on development of place attachment (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004). Within the recreation context, researchers use REP scales to measure motivations that drive behavior as well as to gauge the psychological, social, and physiological outcomes associated with this behavior (Driver, Tinsley, & Manfredo, 1991). An underlying notion in REP–place attachment investigations is that outcomes associated with natural resource recreation motivate individuals to interact with the resource and thus facilitate place attachment

52

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

(Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004). The few empirical studies available suggest a significant positive relationship between REP and place attachment (e.g., Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004). These studies assume that REP leads to the development of place attachment, even though previous research recognizes that motivation may also act as an outcome variable (e.g., White, 2008) and place attachment as an antecedent variable (e.g., Warzecha & Lime, 2001). Thus, we posit that place attachment should also be examined as an antecedent variable that influences the outcome variable of recreation motivation. In other words, in addition to the finding that REP influences development of place attachment, connections to a place are likely to motivate a person to visit that place. For example, individuals with strong symbolic/emotional attachment, such as a symbolic connection to a place of historic or religious significance, may be more motivated to visit it for experiences such as learning or connecting with their heritage. This latter argument of place attachment as an antecedent variable influencing the outcome variable of recreation motivation has been suggested by Fredman and Heberlein (2005) and Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004), but so far has not been tested. Therefore, given the increasing attention to place attachment and REP in natural resource management, this study aims to expand previous insights into the relationship between the two concepts. We examine two predictive models. The first model, following previous research, explores the influence of REP on place attachment dimensions. The second model explores the influence of place attachment dimensions on REP. From a management perspective, this study increases our understandings of the role of place attachment in encouraging visitors to experience natural places. Additionally, it provides insight into how place attachment may predict recreation behavior.

2. Background 2.1. Place attachment Early humanities and social science scholars used the subjective experiences and meanings associated with a “place” to differentiate it from “space.” An underlying notion was that people often developed a special relationship with a place and that this relationship provided meaning to them (Tuan, 1980). Terms such as sense of place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001) and place attachment (Low & Altman, 1992) have been used to describe these human–place bonds. Human geographers, such as Tuan (1975, 1977, 1980) and Altman and Low (1992), have given considerable attention to place attachment. More recently, academics and practitioners in natural resource management and outdoor recreation have also integrated place attachment into their work (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Williams & Stewart, 1998). Within the outdoor recreation context, early studies conceptualized place attachment as two dimensional—place identity and place dependence (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Place identity describes the emotional/symbolic ties with a place and refers to those dimensions of the self that describe an individual's identity in relation with his/her physical world (Proshansky, 1978). In other words, place identity describes the bond between an individual's identity and a place. Place identity has also been described as a relationship with a place symbolic of an individual's identity. For example, Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson (1992) describe the US national parks as symbolic of American identity. The second dimension, place dependence, describes the degree to which a place satisfies the needs or goals of an individual (Schreyer, Jacob, & White, 1981). In a recreation context, a place

may become special because compared to other places it is the preferred place to participate in a certain activity. For instance, a hiker may become dependent on a certain trail if that particular trail satisfies the hiker's goals and there are no other substitute trails nearby. Thus place dependence is functional rather than affective in nature (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Beyond place identity and place dependence, places are often considered special because of the social ties and interactions that they support. The interactionist-based theory of place attachment posits that memories of a setting as well as past, current, and potential future interactions with the setting lead to meaning development and ultimately attachment to that setting (Milligan, 1998). For example, community residents have reported that the primary reason for considering a place special was “family/friend related reasons consisting of interactions among family and friends, family activities, family traditions or heritage and because of memories associated with people at these locales” (Eisenhauer, Krannich, & Blahna, 2000, p. 432). Given that places support the development of meaningful social relationships, it is likely that these places become meaningful too (Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005). This potential of a place to nurture or sustain meaningful social relationships has been referred to as social bonding. Social bonding has therefore been considered as another dimension of place attachment beyond place identity and place dependence (Kyle et al., 2005). Besides understanding the underlying dimensions of place attachment, the increased importance of considering intangible values of places in natural resource management has resulted in a body of literature focusing on the relationship between place attachment and other variables. These studies have examined place attachment as an antecedent, as well as outcome variable. For instance, studies have shown that higher levels of placed attachment positively predict sensitivity to impacts (Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2004; Warzecha & Lime, 2001), environmentally responsible behavior (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), support for recreation use fees and spending in a national forest (Kyle, Absher, & Graefe, 2003), civic action (Payton, Fulton, & Anderson, 2005), and authentic experiences (Budruk, White, Wodrich, & Van Riper, 2008). In contrast, other research has demonstrated that increased experience use history (Backlund & Williams, 2004; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001) and activity involvement (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Kyle, Bricker, Graefe, & Wickham, 2004; Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2003; Moore & Graefe, 1994) positively influence place attachment. However, while these studies are beginning to provide some understanding of the associations between place attachment and other variables, much regarding place attachment's ability to predict recreation behaviors remains unknown (Hammitt, Kyle, & Oh, 2009). 2.2. Recreation experience preferences (REP) Motivations refer to the forces that arouse and direct behavior (Iso-Ahola, 1999). Within the outdoor recreation context, motivations have been examined through an experiential approach that focuses on the desired goal states attained through participation in outdoor recreation (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996). This approach is based on expectancy theory (Lawler, 1973) which suggests that “people engage in activities in specific settings to realize a group of psychological outcomes that are known, expected, and valued” (Manning, 2011, p. 168). Consequently, attempts to understand why individuals engage in recreational pursuits view leisure behavior as more than just an activity, and instead as an experience within a particular setting with psychological, social, and physiological outcomes. Developed by Driver and colleagues (e.g., Driver, 1983; Driver & Brown, 1986; Driver & Knopf, 1977; Driver & Tocher, 1970; Manfredo et al., 1996), REP scales identify recreation motivations and explore

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

participation outcomes. These studies led to the development of a pool of 328 items representing 19 REP domains (Driver, 1983; Driver et al., 1991) documented as reliable and valid (see Manfredo et al., 1996). Example REP domains include achievement, learning, and introspection. Two additional REP domains – escape family and temperature – have been noted in Manning (2011). As noted by Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2004), although there are other conceptualizations of motivations, a strength of the REP scale is its ability to capture many of the values associated with the place interactions of natural settings. Recreation management and planning frameworks, such as experience- and benefits-based management and the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), suggest that managers should consider the combination of settings, activities and experiences to provide a range of recreation opportunities that lead to recreation participation outcomes or benefits (Anderson, Nickerson, Stein, & Lee, 2000; Driver & Brown, 1986; Driver, Brown, Stankey, & Gregoire, 1987). In other words, recreation management recognizes the role of settings in shaping experiences and experience preferences (Driver et al., 1991). As such, the significance of setting in a recreation experience suggests a possible relationship between REP and place attachment (Anderson & Fulton, 2008). 2.3. Place attachment and recreation experience preferences Place attachment and REP have been associated in only a few studies. Warzecha and Lime (2001) and Kyle et al. (2004) both examined differences in REP by level of place attachment and found variations in the importance of motivations by level of attachment to the place. For example, Warzecha and Lime found that experiencing solitude was rated as more important by respondents with high levels of place identity as compared to those with lower levels. Likewise, Kyle, Graefe, et al. (2004) found that highly attached respondents rated motivations such as autonomy and risk taking as more important than those less attached, while respondents with low levels of attachment rated motivations such as family togetherness as more important than those with high levels of attachment. Of particular relevance are studies that have explored the effect of REP on spiritual function of leisure and place. Heintzman and Mannell (2003) explored the influence of motivations on spiritual functions of leisure. Sense of place spiritual function was conceptualized as the “tendency to use leisure as an opportunity to encounter places or settings that enhance spiritual well-being” (Heintzman & Mannell, 2003, p. 213). Findings indicated a significant positive relationship between REP and the sense of place spiritual function of leisure. The authors noted that “highly motivated respondents were more likely to use their leisure to sensitize themselves to the spiritual and visit places or settings that facilitate spiritual experiences” (p. 224). Thus, highly motivated individuals were potentially more likely to visit settings that facilitated an emotional/symbolic attachment (although this attachment was not measured by Heintzman and Mannell). The influence of REP on place attachment has also been explored by Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004), Halpenny (2006), and Anderson and Fulton (2008). Considering that natural settings provide humans with psychological, social, and physiological outcomes, Kyle, Mowen, et al. hypothesized that these outcomes would motivate people to interact with the setting, thus leading to the development of place attachment. Using data from visitors to an urban park, they reported that as select motivations to interact with the setting increased so too did respondents’ attachment to the setting. Specifically, health positively influenced place dependence; autonomy, nature, and health influenced affective attachment; learn influenced place identity; and activity influenced social bonding. Thus, their findings offered partial support for

53

their hypothesis that motivations predicted development of place attachment. Similarly, in a study on visitors to a Canadian national park, respondents ranked the importance of four motives for visiting the park. The relationship between these motives and place attachment was then explored using correlations (Halpenny, 2006). Findings indicated that the motive factors “to enjoy the natural environment” and “to spend time with my family and/or friends” significantly and positively, albeit weakly, predicted place attachment. More recently, Anderson and Fulton (2008) reported that motives of learning and creative experiences positively influenced place identity, while learning and introspection positively influenced place dependence. Findings from Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004), Halpenny (2006) and Anderson and Fulton (2008) suggest that motives to fulfill a variety of psychological, social, and physiological outcomes have the potential to facilitate the development of place attachment dimensions. Finally, Smith and Moore (2012) acknowledge the motivation–place attachment relationship, and suggest that the causal structure linking motivations and place constructs be explored further. While the role of motivations in the development of place attachment has received some attention, the influence of place attachment on motivations has been hinted at but is yet to be explored. It is reasonable that people's connection with a place influences their motivations. For example, an individual may express strong place identity with an area given an extensive family history in the area that may not necessarily be tied to recreational use of the resource. This attachment may then influence that individual's motivations for recreational use of the land. Likewise, the US national parks are considered symbolic of American heritage (Williams et al., 1992) and are likely to motivate visits by heritage tourists. In a study examining constraints to recreational visits to Swedish mountains, Fredman and Heberlein (2005) state that “place attachment is an important reason why people visit the Swedish mountains over and above constraints” (p. 188). In other words, visitor's connection with the mountains motivates them to overcome constraints, such as distance and income, and visit the mountains. Indeed, Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004) recognize the possible influence of place attachment on REP dimensions although they did not empirically explore such a relationship. Specifically, they indicate that the learn–place identity relationship in their study may suggest that “learning about the natural and cultural history of the area leads to an identification with the setting” (p. 451), yet an alternative explanation may be that “identifying with a setting may further inspire curiosity about its prior history” (p. 451). Thus, given the theoretical plausibility of a two-way relationship, testing of the influence of attachment to a recreational setting on motivations to visit that setting is warranted as an alternative model. Predictive modeling in recreation research, especially the potential of place attachment models to predict recreation behavior, has been acknowledged as rare but important (Hammitt et al., 2009). In summary, place attachment and recreation experience preferences have proven useful and important in natural resource management by increasing our understanding regarding the intangible values of natural places and motivations for visiting these settings. While recent empirical evidence of the positive influence of recreation experience preferences on development of place attachment exists, the additional potential of place attachment to influence recreational experience preferences has been hinted at but remains to be explored. 2.4. Hypothesized models Following Anderson and Fulton (2008), Halpenny (2006), and Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004), we hypothesized that each REP dimension will predict each place attachment dimension.

54

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

Specifically, we hypothesized that each REP dimension will positively and significantly influence place identity, place dependence and social bonding. Moreover, considering that connections with a place may motivate an individual to visit that place (Fredman &

Heberlein, 2005; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004), we also tested the reciprocal hypothesis that each place attachment dimension will positively and significantly influence each REP dimension. The two hypothesized models are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model indicating the influence of each REP dimension on each place attachment dimension. Note: covariance was permitted among the exogenous and endogenous variables, but not between them.

Fig. 2. Hypothesized model indicating the influence of each place attachment dimension on each REP dimension. Note: covariance was permitted among the exogenous and endogenous variables, but not between them.

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

3. Methods 3.1. Study area and sample Data for this study were obtained from an onsite survey distributed to day-use visitors at a state forest department managed urban green space located in Pune, India. The study site consists of approximately 1730 acres of hilltop land representing one of the few natural settings within which city residents may socialize, recreate, and meditate. This particular setting was selected for several reasons. First, very little is known about Indian urban forests and researchers have called to consider local resident's opinions and sentiments in urban land use planning (Singh, Pandey, & Chaudhry, 2010). Second, the setting is central to Pune's identity (similar to Central Park in New York) and evokes deep sentiments among city residents. Opportunities for wildlife viewing, meditating, hiking, picnicking, interacting with family and friends, as well as peace and quiet attract most users to the resource. Several temples located on the hill also draw people to the site. Use is concentrated during early and later hours of the day and is estimated to be about 2000 people a day. A six-page, self-administered questionnaire in English and the local language of Marathi was used to explore the variables of interest. Prior to being administered, the Marathi version was translated back into English by a researcher to ensure question meanings were not lost in translation. Questions focused on demographics, place attachment, and types of experiences visitors were seeking from their visit. A sample of 500 adult visitors was systematically invited to participate in the onsite study during March 11 through March 18, 2006. Specifically, every 6th visitor/group encountered was approached and invited to participate in the study (Vaske, 2008). Individual respondents were selected at random from the group by requesting the person whose birthday was closest to the sampling day to participate. Participants could choose between the two language versions. Previous research has suggested that a set of items used to measure a construct in English might not accurately assess the underlying construct in a different language (Knight, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, in preparation). Indeed, the English and Marathi conceptualizations of place attachment did not exhibit measurement equivalence (Budruk, 2010); therefore, only data from the English questionnaires were considered for the analysis. Of the 500 (250 English speaking and 250 non-English speaking) respondents who were approached, 419 participated in the study (84% overall response rate). Of these, 219 respondents took the survey in English and constitute the sample for this analysis (response rate among the English speaking sub-sample was 87.6%). 3.2. Measuring place attachment and REP Following Kyle et al. (2005), place attachment was conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of: place identity, place dependence and social bonding. Place identity and place dependence were measured using four items each drawn from Williams and Roggenbuck's (1989) work. Social bonding was measured using four items adopted from Kyle et al. (2005). Respondents rated the items on a five point Likert scale where 1 ¼“strongly disagree” and 5 ¼“strongly agree.” REP scales were operationalized using 21 items selected from Driver et al. (1991). Kyle et al. (2004) noted that driver's REP scales capture several values associated with natural place interaction and suggest that REP item selection should be based on the study context. Therefore, items were chosen based on their salience for an outdoor recreation experience as well as one of the researcher's knowledge of the resource. Four items were excluded from this analysis, as

55

they were stand-alone items from an REP domain (domains are typically represented by two or more items). The remaining 17 items represented six REP domains: similar people (two items), learn (four items), enjoy nature (two items), introspection (four items), escape (two items), and teach (three items). Respondents rated each item on a five point Likert scale where 1 ¼“very unimportant” and 5 ¼“very important.”

3.3. Hypothesized models and analyses Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 and AMOS 16.0. Prior to the analysis, data were cleaned and screened for missing values and non-normality. Missing values were replaced using the mean of nearby points (span of 2) in SPSS. This method replaces missing values with the mean of two valid values above and below the missing value. To assume normality, West, Finch, and Curran (1995) have suggested absolute values of 2.0 and 7.0 as the cutoff for skewness and kurtosis respectively. Univariate skewness ranged from −1.89 to 0.12, and univariate kurtosis ranged from −0.76 to 6.02 for all place attachment and REP items. Therefore, data were treated as normal. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to establish valid measurement models (factor structures) for place attachment and REP prior to examining the structural relationships between the two measurement models (Kline, 2005). The latent (unobserved) dimensions for place attachment were place identity, place dependence, and social bonding; the latent dimensions for REP were similar people, learn, enjoy nature, introspection, escape, and teach. The internal reliabilities of the two item scales were assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis. A low correlation (0.20–0.40) was interpreted as a small relationship, a moderate correlation (0.40–0.70) represented a substantial relationship, and a high correlation (0.70–0.90) represented a marked relationship (Best & Kahn, 1998). The internal consistency of all other scales was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficients at a criterion score of 0.70 or higher (Nunnally, 1978). A Cronbach's alpha coefficient between 0.60 and 0.70 has also been suggested as acceptable (George & Mallery, 2003). One social bonding item (“I don't tell many people about these trails”) was dropped to improve scale reliability. Modification indices were examined to determine if error terms would be allowed to covary (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). Finally, model fit was assessed based on the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). The RMSEA value should be less than 0.06 for a close fit and less that 0.08 for acceptable fit, while for the other two fit indices, values greater than 0.95 indicate a close fit and greater that 0.90 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006). Finally, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the influence of (a) each REP dimension on each place attachment, and (b) each place attachment dimension on each REP dimension. SEM analysis combines a measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis) with a structural model (regression) to assess the fit between sample data and the hypothesized model (Byrne, 2001). Therefore, following the establishment of the two measurement models (place attachment and REP) we tested the structural model, i.e. the relationship between the two constructs. Once again, goodness of fit indices, specifically, model χ2, RMSEA, IFI, and CFI were used to determine model fit. Considering that sample size might be a limitation to our hypothesis testing, we conducted a power analysis (Satorra & Saris, 1985; Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996), which indicated sufficient power (1.0) to run both models.

56

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

4. Results

4.3. REP dimensions

4.1. Respondent characteristics

The CFA of the REP construct supported its six-dimensional conceptualization: similar people, learn, enjoy nature, introspection, escape, and teach (Table 2). The initial baseline measurement model provided a minimal fit of the data (χ2/df¼ 2.23, RMSEA¼ 0.075, IFI ¼0.910, CFI¼0.908). An examination of modification indices suggested that based on theoretical acceptability, several error terms could be correlated (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000; Weston & Gore, 2006). Specifically, the error of “teach others about history here” was allowed to covary with the errors of “to reflect on personal religious values” and “to help me understand better what my life is all about”. In addition, the error of “to develop knowledge of things here” was allowed to covary with the errors of “to experience the sense of discovery involved” and “to share what I have learned with others”. Finally, the error covariance between “to experience the sense of discovery involved” and “to help me understand better what my life is all about” was also set free. The respecified measurement model suggests a good model fit (χ2/df¼ 1.61, RMSEA ¼0.053, IFI¼ 0.96, CFI¼0.96). The standardized factor loadings for all indicator items for each of the REP dimensions were moderate to high (0.51–0.86) and significant. Furthermore, Pearson's correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients of the six REP dimensions ranged from 0.46 to 0.54 and 0.71 to 0.81, respectively, indicating reliable scales. Mean REP dimension score values indicate that respondents were primarily drawn to the resource to enjoy experiences with nature (4.29) and to escape to a place where they could enjoy solitude and quiet (4.01).

The median age of respondents was 27 years. Males made up about two-thirds of the sample (66.2%). In general, a majority of the respondents were well educated with about 70.0% having earned a Bachelor's degree or higher. Additionally, a majority of respondents (91.3%) were local residents from the city of Pune. Most visits were social in nature with about three-fourths (75.4%) of the respondents visiting with friends, family or a combination of both. The average (median) group size was two adults. A majority of respondents (89.8%) reported walking or exercising as their primary activity at the resource.

4.2. Place attachment dimensions The CFA of the place attachment construct supported its threedimensional conceptualization of place identity, place dependence, and social bonding (Table 1). The fit indices suggest the data are a good fit to the measurement model (χ2/df ¼1.69, RMSEA ¼0.056, IFI¼0.97, CFI¼ 0.97). All the standardized factor loadings for each of the place attachment dimensions were significant, and the majority of loadings were moderate to high, with only two falling below 0.50. These include “I feel no commitment to these hills” (0.33) and “I will bring my children to these trails” (0.37). Although these were lower than desired, in CFA, factor loadings as low as 0.25 may be considered weak but interpretable (Ximenez, 2006) and were therefore retained. Additionally, the place identity and place dependence factors displayed adequate internal consistency (α ¼0.76 and α¼0.77 respectively), while the social bonding factor fell below the stated criteria (α¼ 0.66). However, as a low alpha has been reported in previous research for social bonding (e.g., Kyle et al., 2005: α¼ 0.62), and George and Mallery (2003) have suggested an alpha between 0.60 and 0.70 be considered as acceptable, the scale was still considered to exhibit sufficient reliability. The place attachment dimension mean scores indicated that respondents were attached to the resource primarily because of the emotional/symbolic meaning of the place (4.21). This was followed by the associated social ties (3.95) and the functional dependence on the resource (3.73).

4.4. Hypothesized model testing Model 1: REP predicting place attachment. We tested the first structural model of each REP dimension predicting the place attachment dimensions as similarly examined in previous research (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004). Although based on fit indices, the model provided adequate fit to the data (χ2(309) ¼504.42, RMSEA ¼0.054, IFI ¼0.920, CFI ¼0.918), and no structural paths were significant. When one evaluates the validity of a model, it is necessary to examine the substantive interpretation of model parameters in addition to measures of fit (Joreskog, 1993; Kelloway, 1995).

Table 1 Item descriptive, confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency of place attachment dimensions. Mean

S.D.

4.21 4.45 4.16 4.22 3.99 3.95 3.94 3.74 4.17 3.73 3.99 3.94 3.57 3.41

0.71 0.78 0.97 0.89 1.07 0.73 0.95 0.98 0.91 0.74 0.90 0.92 0.99 1.05

λc

α

a,b

Place attachment Place identity These hills mean a lot to me (PI1) I feel no commitment to these hillsd (PI2) I am very attached to these hills (PI3) I identify strongly with these hills (PI4) Social bonding I have a lot of fond memories about these hills (SB1) I have a special connection to these hills and the people who recreate here (SB2) I will bring my children to these trails (SB3) Place dependence I enjoy recreating on these hills more than any other hill (PD1) I get more satisfaction out of visiting these hills than from any other hill (PD2) Recreating here is more important than hiking in any other place (PD3) I would not substitute any other trail for the type of recreation I do here (PD4) a

Measured on a likert scale where 1¼ strongly disagree and 5¼ strongly agree; n ¼219. Fit indices: χ2 ¼ 69.19, df¼ 41; RMSEA ¼ 0.056; IFI ¼0.965; CFI¼ 0.965. c Standardized regression weights; all significant at p o 0.001. d Item was reverse coded. b

0.76 0.79 0.33 0.89 0.75 0.66 0.76 0.78 0.37 0.77 0.81 0.78 0.57 0.57

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

57

Table 2 Item descriptive, confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency of REP dimensions. Mean

S.D.

4.29 4.41 4.18 4.01 4.23 3.80 3.74 3.78 3.69 3.43 3.70 3.54 3.52 2.96 3.42 3.52 3.47 3.38 3.30 3.08 3.39 3.10 2.75

0.67 0.72 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.99 0.85 0.99 0.97 0.81 0.92 1.06 1.00 1.06 0.73 0.93 0.87 0.93 1.03 0.77 0.92 0.93 1.04

λc

α

r

a,b

Recreation experience preferences (REP) Enjoy nature To be close to nature (N1) To enjoy the smells and sounds of nature (N2) Escape To be where it is quiet (E1) To experience solitude (E2) Similar people To be with friends (S1) To be with members of my group (S2) Introspection To help me understand better what my life is all about (I1) To think about who I am (I2) To develop personal, spiritual values (I3) To reflect on personal religious values (I4) Learn To experience the sense of discovery involved (L1) To develop knowledge of things here (L2) To learn more about things here (L3) To understand things here better (L4) Teach To share what I have learned with others (T1) To help others learn about history here (T2) To teach others about history here (T3) a b c

0.46 0.60 0.77 0.54 0.68 0.80 0.51 0.64 0.81 0.81 0.72 0.75 0.70 0.71 0.78 0.56 0.51 0.86 0.78 0.71 0.59 0.68 0.74

Measured on a likert scale where 1¼ very unimportant and 5¼very important; n¼ 219. Fit indices: χ2 ¼ 159.59, df ¼99; RMSEA ¼ 0.053; IFI ¼0.958; CFI¼ 0.956. Standardized regression weights; all significant at p o 0.001.

Fig. 3. Best-fit model indicating influence of place attachment dimensions on REP dimensions. Note: covariance was permitted among the exogenous and endogenous variables, but not between them; Fit indices: χ2/df ¼1.63, RMSEA ¼ 0.054, IFI¼ 0.920, CFI ¼0.918; np o0.05, nnp o 0.01; broken lines indicate non-significant parameters (p4 0.05).

Model 2: Place attachment predicting REP. Next, we tested the second structural model of each place attachment dimension predicting the REP dimensions. Results indicated the model was a good fit to the data (χ2(310) ¼513.95, RMSEA ¼0.055, IFI ¼0.916, CFI¼0.914). Twelve of the structural paths were non-significant

(p 40.05) including all six paths between place identity and the REP dimensions, as well as five place dependence paths and one social bonding path. Potential reasons for the lack of significance will be addressed in the next section. In this model, two place attachment dimensions significantly predicted six of the REP

58

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

dimensions (Fig. 3). Specifically, social bonding was positively associated with learn (β¼0.38, po0.05), teach (β¼0.59, po0.01), escape (β¼0.55, po0.01), introspection (β¼0.43, po0.01), and enjoy nature (β¼0.47, po0.05). In addition, place dependence was positively associated with similar people (β¼0.24, po0.05). The variance accounted for by place attachment was 0.25 for teach, 0.24 for introspection, 0.22 for learn, 0.33 for escape, 0.39 for enjoy nature and 0.07 for similar people.

5. Discussion and conclusion Place attachment refers to the bonds humans form with places, and results from the meanings associated with places (Altman & Low, 1992). Motivations refer to the forces that arouse and direct behavior (Iso-Ahola, 1999). REP scales are used to measure motivations that drive behavior as well as to gauge the psychological, social, and physiological outcomes associated with this behavior (Driver et al., 1991). Given the increasing attention to and utility of place attachment and REP in natural resource management, the purpose of this study was to expand previous insight into the relationship between these two concepts. Specifically, we tested two predictive models: the first, following previous research, explored the influence of each REP dimension on place attachment dimensions; the second explored the influence of each place attachment dimension on REP dimensions. As we only used data from the English-speaking group of our sample, we acknowledge that our findings are restricted to this group only. Empirical findings from testing our first hypothesized model did not support motivations predicting place attachment dimensions, as none of the structural parameters was significant. This was contrary to previous literature suggesting that motives to fulfill a variety of psychological, social, and physiological outcomes may facilitate development of place attachment (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Halpenny, 2006; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004). Our finding does not mean that motivations predicting place attachment is not a valid model in certain populations or with particular measured dimensions. Rather, we attribute a discrepancy between our finding and previous literature to three possible reasons. First, we speculate that development of place attachment might be influenced by motive dimensions or items not measured in our study. For example, Anderson and Fulton (2008) as well as Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004) reported that motivations such as autonomy, escape from family, creativity, activity (e.g., endurance/risks), and health influenced development of place attachment. However, since these motive dimensions were not measured in our study, their influence could not be observed. Additionally, the REP dimensions, which were common among the above-mentioned studies and our study such as teach, introspection, learn, enjoy nature and similar people, were measured using slightly different items in each study. For instance, Anderson and Fulton measured teach using items focusing on skill, value, and ethics development. On the other hand, we measured teach using items focusing on sharing what was learned as well as the history of the resource. Thus, although certain REP dimensions were common across previous studies and our study, it is possible that these dimensions were measuring different facets of those dimensions, thereby explaining the dissimilar results. Also, respondents indicated enjoying nature and escape to be important motivations; however the importance of similar people, introspection, learn and teach were not as marked. Future research exploring relationships between REP and place attachment at this setting should therefore include other REP dimensions such as autonomy, escape from family, creativity, activity, and health in addition to enjoying nature and escape.

A second possible reason for the lack of an expected positive influence of motivations on place attachment dimensions in our model is that other factors beyond motivations may be especially important in the development of place attachment for this particular sample. Although development of place attachment among respondents in the Anderson and Fulton (2008), Halpenny (2006) as well as Kyle, Mowen, et al. (2004) studies was facilitated by motivations, for our sample, development of place attachment might have resulted from other unexplored variables such as experience use history (Backlund & Williams, 2004; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001) and activity involvement (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Moore & Graefe, 1994). These were not evaluated in the current study and are suggested as variables for consideration in future studies. A third reason for the lack of a positive influence of motivations on place attachment may be attributed to a low sample size. The lack of a large sample size may affect path significance; leading Kline (2005) to caution against removing non-significant paths until “model replication indicates that the corresponding direct effect is of negligible magnitude” (p. 148). Although motivations did not influence development of place attachment in our study, and considering findings in previous literature, it is possible that this influence could have been discernible among a larger sample. Although a power analysis indicated sufficient overall power for our model testing, we suggest that additional studies exploring the influence of motivations on place attachment be conducted with larger samples. Empirical testing of our second hypothesized model, specifically, the influence of place attachment on motivation dimensions indicated significant paths in the hypothesized direction and suggests that select place attachment dimensions arouse and direct behavior, which may ultimately lead to psychological, social, and physiological outcome realization. This positive influence of place attachment on REP dimensions empirically supports previous literature alluding to the notion that attachment to a setting may arouse people into action or influence motivations to visit that setting (Fredman & Heberlein, 2005; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004; Schroeder, 1996). Thus, the relationship between motivations and place attachment extends beyond the influence of motivations on place attachment previously noted in the literature (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Halpenny, 2006; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004) to include the influence of place attachment on motivations. Within this second model, the significant paths between place attachment and REP dimensions offer insights into the relative influence of each place attachment dimension on motivations. Among the three place attachment dimensions, Social Bonding influenced five of the six REP dimensions tested. Place Dependence influenced, albeit weakly, only one REP dimension, while Place Identity did not affect any REP dimension. Thus, our examined recreation motivations appear to be tied to the Social Bonding occurring at the resource to a greater extent than to the functional dependence on or emotional connection with the resource. Apparently in our sample, motivations, as operationalized in our study, are related more to the social relationships and interactions that occur at the resource than the resource itself. These findings may be explained in light of the cultural context within which this study was conducted. In India, leisure has historically been community-oriented in nature (Singh, 2000). Today, although social processes such as urbanization and industrialization have begun to influence belief systems, family time and cultural ties continue to be valued and are reflected in cultural leisure patterns (Verma & Sharma, 2003). Although respondents exhibit an emotional connection with or functional dependence on the resource, it is the social aspect of recreating at the resource that largely draws them to the resource and thus might help

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

explain motivations largely being tied to the social relationships and interactions rather than the resource itself. Similarly, the residential status of the respondents (91% local residents) may also explain why motivations were more associated with the social relationships and interactions that occur at the resource (social bonding) than the resource itself (place dependence). In a study understanding place attachment among residents of high amenity areas, Stedman, Beckley, Wallace, and Ambard (2004) reported that for residents, visual representations of special places depicted a more social orientation to place attachment, and that it was difficult to separate the physical environment from the social relationships that occur there. In other words, the social relationships and natural environments among residents were so closely intertwined that it was exceedingly difficult to separate them into the distinct components. As such, it is possible that among our sample (who were largely local residents), the social relationships encompassed the physical setting too, therefore accounting for motivations being tied more to the social relationships rather than to the resource itself. Future studies might focus on testing these relationships among a nonresidential visitor sample. The nature of the influence of social relationships on select REP dimensions may be explored by examining the directions of significant paths between these variables. Overall, the positive effect of Social Bonding on REP dimensions indicates that placebased social interactions or memories associated with people at the resource influence recreation motivations such as Learn, Enjoy Nature and Teach. Thus, meaningful social relationships nurtured within the resource encourage visitors to learn, be more knowledgeable, or teach about the resource. As noted by Galliano and Loeffler (1999), humans desire to communicate about places that are important to them. It is therefore likely that the connections among those recreating at the resource encourage them to share information about the setting with each other. In addition to the above REP dimensions, social bonding also positively influenced introspection and escape. This relationship between social bonding and these two REP dimensions might at first seem counter-intuitive. The two dimensions reflect motives for experiencing quiet, solitude, and personal growth, which some may assume are met when we are alone. Although solitude is often equated with the absence of others, it is a multifaceted psychological state that can be achieved even in the presence of others (More, Long, & Averill, 2004). Often, natural environments are significant facilitators of solitude, which may be inner- and outerdirected. Inner-directed solitude describes the motives of people who experience nature by themselves. Outer-directed solitude implies a psychological state of self-discovery, self-realization, and self-meaning that is achieved by being alone in nature with highly significant others. Our findings suggest that social bonding facilitates this outer-directed type of solitude described by More et al. (2004). The positive influence of place dependence on similar people suggests that respondents’ dependence on the resource motivates them to be among friends and others like themselves. This place dependence may be tapping into the quality of the social resource compared to alternative places. Previous research suggests ties between place dependence and social factors. For instance, Warzecha and Lime (2001) found that the importance of being with similar people differed by respondents’ level of functional attachment at one of their two study sites. In addition, Kyle et al. (2004) found centrality, or social interactions centered on the activity as part of an individual's overall lifestyle, predicted place dependence for hikers and suggested that the trail may be valued for providing opportunities for social interaction. Similarly, Kyle et al. (2004) found that place dependent respondents were more accepting of social conditions such as crowding. Therefore, these

59

studies also indicate a tie between respondents’ place dependence and social factors as found in this study. Although on average respondents exhibited some level of emotional attachment to the setting, place identity surprisingly did not influence any REP dimensions among our sample. Similar to our non-significant REP–place attachment model, this lack of a relationship between place identity and REP dimensions could be explained by our REP dimensions not being wide ranging enough to be have been influenced by place identity. Likewise, place dependence only predicted one of the REP dimensions (similar people). This begs the question of “what are the recreational motives of people who identify with and are dependent on the resource?” Other studies suggest a number of additional motivations associated with place identity and place dependence, such as autonomy, achievement, health, and creativity (Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004; Warzecha & Lime, 2001). Future research could include these REP domains to further investigate the influence of place identity and place dependence on motivations. Alternatively, these findings raise the question of whether place identity and place dependence themselves become the motives for participation. In other words, does a recreation setting evolve from a place that one visits to attain certain experiences to a place that is simply valued for itself? Further exploration of this notion is warranted. In our analysis, the model of motivations predicting place attachment failed in significant parameters. However, this does not discount the influence of motivations on place attachment. Rather, future research with other samples or with a broader range of REP and place attachment dimensions may produce two valid models (i.e., both motivations predicting place attachment and attachment predicting motivations) with additional significant relationships among the constructs. In such a situation, a model comparison (χ2 difference test) could then be used to indicate the better-fitting model. In addition, two valid models would suggest the possibility of examining a model with feedback loops, as place attachment could influence motivations, which then influences place attachment, and so on. Given the valid models that have emerged in this study as well as previous literature, this is certainly a possibility for the place-REP relationship. Nonrecursive structural models (those with feedback loops) often present challenges regarding model identification (Kline, 2005); however, they could be explored in future research. While the importance of considering place attachment in managing places and visitor experiences has received attention in previous literature (e.g., Budruk et al., 2008; Kyle et al., 2004; Warzecha & Lime, 2001), our finding that place attachment influences motivations to visit a place offers new insights into how place attachment may predict recreation behavior and encourage visitors to experience natural places. For example, based on our study, past or potential social interactions and memories associated with the resource may be used to draw visitors to the setting. As such, it is essential that managers are cognizant of the connections people have with the land they are managing and recognize the relationship of place attachment with recreation experiences preferences, whether recreation experience preferences influence development of place attachment as some previous research has shown (e.g., Anderson & Fulton, 2008; Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004), or place attachment predicts recreation experience preferences as this investigation found. Specifically, place attachment not only positively predicts outcomes such as environmentally responsible behavior, support for fees, and civic action as demonstrated by previous research (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Kyle et al., 2003; Payton et al., 2005) but also has an important role in shaping visitor experiences. Therefore, managers should continue to focus on creating opportunities for people to develop these relationships with the places they manage.

60

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

Regarding future research, Hammitt et al. (2009) acknowledged the rarity and importance of exploring the potential of place attachment models to predict recreation behavior. Indeed, our study provides initial support for Fredman and Heberlein's (2005) as well as Kyle, Mowen, et al.'s. (2004) suggestion that place attachment acts as an antecedent variable influencing the outcome variable of recreation motivation. Thus, additional studies that utilize place attachment models to predict recreation behavior, including motivations, are needed. Furthermore, our study was based in a natural resource context; however, such a study is also transferable to places of historical, cultural or religious significance. Considering that individuals with strong symbolic/ emotional attachment to a place of natural, cultural, historic or religious significance may be more motivated to visit it for experiences such as learning or connecting with their heritage, exploring the place attachment–REP relationship in these types of settings would be helpful. For instance, the Statue of Liberty, USA, or the Camino de Santiago a pilgrimage route in Spain, is of particular significance to certain groups of people and is likely to arouse emotional connections among them. These connections or attachments most likely drive experiences at these settings. Besides a variety of settings, such studies should be carried out over larger lengths of time. For logistical reasons, sampling in our study was carried out over 7 days during the peak visitation period. It will be interesting to note if similar results emerge with a sample drawn over a larger time period. Beyond the suggested directions for future research, other researchers might consider conducting a direct replication of the Kyle et al. (2004) study i.e., using the exact place attachment and REP domains used in Kyle et al. Another approach might be to explore the formation of motivations through qualitative research with this population. Also, future research could further explore the measurement and meaning of the social bonding dimension. In particular, our social bonding dimension may reflect more of a motivational measure than a relational measure, and could influence the stronger ties with motivations. For instance, the social bonding statement “I will bring my children to these trails” spells out a reason to visit the resource rather than something about the social relationships supported by the resource. Finally, current REP–place attachment studies have occurred almost exclusively in natural resource recreation contexts. Other researchers might focus exploring these relationships in other contexts. References Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment, human behavior, and environment: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press. Anderson, D. H., & Fulton, D. C. (2008). Experience preferences as mediators of the wildlife related recreation participation: Place attachment relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13, 73–88. Anderson, D. H., Nickerson, R., Stein, T. V., & Lee, M. E. (2000). Planning to provide community and visitor benefits from public lands. In: W. C. Gartner, & D. W. Lime (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism (pp. 197–211). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Backlund, E.A. & Williams, D.R. (2004). A quantitative synthesis of place attachment research: Investigating past experience and place attachment. In Proceedings of the 2003 northeastern recreation research symposium. GTR NE-317, Bolton Landing, NY. Best, J., & Kahn, J. (1998). Research in education. Needham heights. MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 11, 233–257. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Budruk, M. (2010). Cross-cultural equivalency of the place attachment scale: A multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 25–42. Budruk, M., White, D. D., Wodrich, J. A., & Van Riper, C. J. (2008). Connecting visitors to people and place: Visitors’ perceptions of authenticity at Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(3), 185–202. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Driver, B. L. (1983). Master list of items for recreation experience preference scales and domain. Unpublished document, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Driver, B. L., & Brown, P. J. (1986). Probable personal benefits of outdoor recreation. President's commission on American outdoors—A literature review (pp. 63–70) Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office63–70. Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., Stankey, G. H., & Gregoire, T. G. (1987). The ROS planning system: Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences, 9, 201–212. Driver, B. L., & Knopf, R. C. (1977). Personality, outdoor recreation, and expected consequences. Environment and Behavior, 9, 169–193. Driver, B. L., Tinsley, H., & Manfredo, M. J. (1991). Results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In: B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 263–286). State College, PA: Venture. Driver, B. L., & Tocher, S. R. (1970). Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreation, with implications for planning. In: B. L. Driver (Ed.), Elements of outdoor recreation planning. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., & Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources, 13(5), 421–441. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior research methods, instruments & computers, 28, 1–11. Fredman, P., & Heberlein, T. A. (2005). Visits to the Swedish mountains: Constraints and motivations. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(3), 177–192. Galliano, S. J., & Loeffler, G. M. (1999). Place assessment: How people define ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, GTR PNW-GTR-462, Walla Walla, WA. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Halpenny, E. A. (2006). Environmental behavior, place attachment, and park visitation: A case study of visitors to Point Pelee National Park. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (05), 1912A. (UMI No. AAT NR14474). Hammitt, W. E., Kyle, G. T., & Oh, C. (2009). Comparison of place bonding models in recreation resource management. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 55–70. Heintzman, P., & Mannell, R. C. (2003). Spiritual functions of leisure and spiritual well being: Coping with time pressure. Leisure Sciences, 25, 207–230. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Iso-Ahola, S. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In: E. L. Jackson, & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty first century (pp. 35–51). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In: K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes towards their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233–248. Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 215–224. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W. & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged populations: Methodological challenges and best practices. Washington D C: American Psychological Association. Kyle, G. T., Absher, J., & Graefe, A. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 25, 33–50. Kyle, G. T., Bricker, K., Graefe, A., & Wickham, T. (2004). An examination of recreationists’ relationship with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 123–142. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. E. (2004). Attached recreationists “Who are they?”. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(2), 65–84. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. E. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 153–177. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., Manning, R. E., & 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. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., Manning, R. E., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 213–225. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454. Lawler, E. (1973). Motivations in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In: I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(3), 188–213. Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (3rd ed). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341.

M. Budruk, S.A. Wilhelm Stanis / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 1–2 (2013) 51–61

Milligan, M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), 1–33. Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachment to recreation settings: The case of trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17–31. More, T. A., Long, C., & Averill, J. P. (2004). Solitude, nature, and cities. In Proceedings of the 2003 northeastern recreation research symposium. GTR-NE-317. Newton Square, PA. Nunnally (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Payton, M. E., Fulton, D. C., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Influence of place attachment and trust on civic action: A study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 511–528. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10 (2), 147–169. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminof, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83. Satorra, A, & Saris, W. E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337. Schreyer, R., Jacob, G., & White, R. (1981). Environmental meaning as a determinant of spatial behavior in recreation. Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conference, 4, 294–300. Schroeder, H. W. (1996). Ecology of the heart: Understanding how people experience natural environments. In: A. W. Ewert (Ed.), Natural resource management: The human dimension. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Singh, Y. (2000). Culture change in India: Identity and globalization. New Delhi: Rawat Publications. Singh, V. S., Pandey, D. N., & Chaudhry, P. (2010). Urban forests and open green spaces: Lessons for Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Occasional Paper No. 1/2010, Rajasthan, India. Smith, J. W., & Moore, R. L. (2012). Social-psychological factors influencing recreation demand: Evidence from two recreational rivers. Environment and Behavior. Advance online publication. 10.1177/0013916512446335. /http://eab. sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/20/0013916512446335.full.pdf+htmlS. Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 580–606.

61

Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: An experiential perspective. Geographical Review, 65(2), 151–165. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3–8. Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21. Verma, S., & Sharma, D. (2003). Cultural continuity amid social change: Adolescents’ use of free time in India. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 99, 37–51. Warzecha, C. A., & Lime, D. W. (2001). Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park: Visitors’ assessment of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19, 59–78. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In: R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. White, D. D. (2008). A structural model of leisure constraints negotiation in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 30, 342–359. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. R., & Watson, A. E. (1992). The variability of user-based social impact standards for wilderness management. Forest Science, 14, 29–46. Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. R. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. Paper presented at the Session on Outdoor Planning and Management NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research. San Antonio, TX, 20–22 October. Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 18–23. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840. Ximenez, C. (2006). A Monte Carlo Study of recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 587–614.