دلبستگی محل و اولویت های تجربه اوقات فراغت:اکتشاف بیشتر روابط

Place attachment and recreation experience preferences (REP) have received increasing attention in natural resource management, with previous literature (Anderson and Fulton, 2008 and Kyle et al., 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.

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). Early explorations in leisure research primarily focused on describing and measuring place attachment (Proshansky et al., 1983, Williams and Roggenbuck, 1989 and Williams and 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 and Fulton, 2008 and Kyle et al., 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 (Kyle, Mowen, et al., 2004). The few empirical studies available suggest a significant positive relationship between REP and place attachment (e.g., Anderson and Fulton, 2008 and Kyle 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.

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 and Fulton, 2008, Halpenny, 2006 and Kyle 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 and Williams, 2004 and Vaske and Kobrin, 2001) and activity involvement (Bricker and Kerstetter, 2000 and Moore and 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 and Heberlein, 2005, Kyle et al., 2004 and 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 and Fulton, 2008, Halpenny, 2006 and Kyle 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 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 non-residential 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 place-based 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 outer-directed. 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 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 and Fulton, 2008, Kyle et al., 2004 and Warzecha and 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. Non-recursive 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 and Warzecha and 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 and Fulton, 2008 and Kyle 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 and Kobrin, 2001, Kyle et al., 2003 and 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. 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.