THE HUMAN NATURAL WORLD RELATIONSHIP

Place Attachment

85

Table 13: Societal factors influencing change Societal Factors influencing Change

Technological Advances

Economy Diversification

Cultural Differences

Alterations to Environment

Media coverage of natural ecological processes

Increased understanding of natural processes and loss of protected areas

Adapted from Watson (1999)

Shifts in societal factors are responsible for the changing values and attitudes of communities

towards conservation and the protection of wilderness areas (Watson, 2000). As urbanised

societies “will continue into the future” (p. 57), the importance of preserving natural areas has

taken on new significance. It is essential for protected area management to understand this

shift in society’s values and attitudes, to allow them to engage the community effectively in

conservation management. The examination of place attachment and environmental ethics of

community groups will provide park management with additional knowledge to make

informed decisions about the suitability and level of community involvement in policy and

management strategies for conservation outcomes.

Place Attachment Study Limitations

Existing research in place attachment covers a broad range of subject areas such as social

psychology, sociology, environment, anthropology and human geography (Pruneau,

Chouinard, Arsenault & Breau, 1999). However, this thesis will focus on those areas most

relevant to protected area management within the context of this work. Omitted from this

review are the following: the psychology behind place attachment development, the health

sciences literature, and the work relating to regional identity. Although the work of

researchers such as Ajzen (1985; 1991), Fishbein and Ajzen (1974a; 1974b), Low and

Altman (1992), Fishbein and Middlestadt (1995), Kuller (2004) and others is extremely

important in understanding the psychology behind place attachment, it is not used in this

thesis due to the need for boundaries for the study. Similarly, health science studies that

explore attachment, concerning diagnosis or recovery from psychological or physical

illnesses or human development processes, do not form a major part of this work. Examples

of these are attachment in childhood development (Crittenden & Claussen, 2000; Kerns &

Place Attachment

86

Richardson, 2005; Rolfe, 2004), addiction (Farber, 2000; Flores, 2004) trauma (Freeman,

2005; Webb, 2004) and abuse (Howe, 2005; Kagan, 2004). Researchers examining place

attachment initially examined the health science studies, as it is believed by some that a

person’s place attachment is developed from their attachment to people (Fried, 2000b).

The third area, regional identity, which is the identification of a region, its territorial

boundaries, symbolism and institutions (Paasi, 2003), will not be addressed in detail. The

author believes that place identity of regions has more synergy with the characteristics of

destinations, and tourism regions, as referred to in some geography and tourism studies

(Dredge, 2003; Jeong & Santos, 2004; Paasi, 2003). The main purpose of this work is to

examine a person’s place attachment, not the characteristics or identity of a region. However,

the chapter will discuss the two key dimensions of place attachment used in recreation

research, place dependence (PD) and place identity (PI).

Place Attachment Approach for this Study

Various concepts held about place attachment make it necessary to clarify the approach

adopted for this thesis. A summary by Bow and Buys (2003) puts forward three different

views, which are illustrated in Table 14.

Table 14: Place Attachment Concepts

THEORIST

CONCEPT DESCRIPTION

Hay (1988)

Human Geography

Sense of Place

Place Attachment

Considers Sense of Place in a broader context than Place Attachment

Bricker and Kerstetter (2000)

Environmental Psychology

Place Attachment

Sense of Place/PD/PI

Considers Sense of Place, Place Dependence (PD) and Place Identity (PI) to be forms of Place Attachment

Williams, Patterson,

Roggenbuck and Watson (1992) Social Science & Recreation

Sense of Place/Place

Attachment PD/PI

Considers Sense of Place and Place Attachment to have similar meanings, with Place Dependence (PD) and Place Identity (PI) as dimensions of Place Attachment

Adapted from Bow and Buys (2003, p. 4)

Place Attachment

87

The difference between the three views is the position that sense of place holds in place

attachment concepts which varies across the disciplines. Bow and Buys (2003, p. 4) surmise,

“The most prominent concept within environmental psychology is place attachment, while

human geographers promote the concept of sense of place which incites their interest”. The

author has aligned this work with theorists Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck and Watson

(1992), as “place attachment conceptualised as being comprised of two components: place

dependence and place identity is frequently used in social science outdoor recreation

research” (Sharpe & Ewert, 1999, p. 218).

At the completion of this chapter, the key issues in the place attachment literature will have

been presented; the purpose of place attachment research in natural areas management; and

how this knowledge can be integrated into management practices.

4.2 PLACE ATTACHMENT CONCEPT

The concept of place attachment is describe by Pruneau and colleagues (1999, p. 27) as “the

conscious relationship that people have with their community, their culture or a natural or

man-made environment”. Attachment is the result of “emotional, cognitive, social, cultural

and behavioural factors” (Pruneau et al., 1999, p. 28) and is evident through a positive

attitude towards a place, extensive knowledge of an area, or frequent visitation (Brown &

Perkins, 1992). Tuan (1974; 1977) defines place attachment as a space that has meaning to

an individual developed through knowing the place, while Riley refers to place attachment as

an “affectionate relationship between people and the landscape” (Sharpe & Ewert, 1999, p.

218). Broudehoux (2001) expands on the concept to explain that human values are structured

from places, and forms the means of our cultural identity, from which we orientate ourselves

to the world. Combined with lifetime experiences and inner development, place attachment

can reflect the basis of a person’s life (Fried, 2000b). Harvard biologist, Edward Wilson’s

Biophilia Hypothesis explains attachment as a deep connection with nature that is ingrained

within us (Johnson, 1994). According to Orr (1994, p.39) advances in civilisation have

Place Attachment

88

caused a separation of people from the natural world, causing attachment loss and a complete

aversion to nature, which Wilson calls Biophobia.

When place attachment is strong within an individual, group or community, then activism

and community involvement is probable (Pruneau et al., 1999). Similarly, Belk (1992)

believes that a prerequisite to positive action is a fondness or attachment to a place. In

contrast, studies by Lewicki, and also by Perkins and Long (in Lewicka, 2005) showed that

place attachment had a “negative correlation to civic activity” (p. 382) and to pro

environmental behaviour (Bonaiuto et al., 2002). The study by Bonaiuto and colleagues

“supported the motivation to preserve the status quo in places of residence” (Lewicka 2005,

p. 382), while Perkins and Long’s study found that in one community civic action was related

to social attachment more than to place attachment. According to Lewicka (2005), a strong

predictor of community activity is a person’s social (neighbour ties) and cultural status

(cultural capital). However, the author considers that neighbourhood ties and cultural capital

are variables of place attachment. Neighbourhood ties relate to the place dependant variable

and to a community identity, while cultural capital relate to place identity, either emotional or

symbolic.

The early work of human geographers, Tuan (1974; 1977) and Relph (1976) put forward a

comprehensive explanation of the importance of place attachment in the use of private,

personal and public spaces. Their work has substantially advanced research in geography and

other related areas (Stokowski, 2002). Place attachment was introduced to recreation by

Schreyer, Jacob and White in 1981 (Wickham & Kerstetter, 2000) and later to tourism and

natural resource management. For example, recreation researchers, Kyle and colleagues

(2004a) studied the attachment of hikers, boaters and anglers to settings and activities.

Hwang, Lee & Chen (2005) examined tourists’ attachment and involvement, while visitor

attachment and the visitors’ view of key park issues, such as grazing and hunting, was

examined in natural resource management by Smaldone, Harris, Sanyal and Lind (2005).

Predictors of place attachment may include age, length of residence, perceptions of a place,

symbolic meanings, environmental attitudes (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006), physical

Place Attachment

89

attributes and involvement with the destination (Hou, Lin & Morais, 2005), level of

experience, motivation and evaluation of management actions (Kyle, Graefe & Manning,

2004a).

4.3 PLACE ATTACHMENT AND SENSE OF PLACE

The terms, place attachment and sense of place, are the most common expressions used in the

literature. The term place attachment is mainly used in Environmental Psychology, and

sense of place in Human Geography (Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002b; Sharpe & Ewert, 1999),

although the word “place, usually implies geographic space imbued with meaning through

personal use” (Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002b, p. 383).

Human geographers, Ballinger and Manning (1997) and Hay (1988; 1998) view place

attachment as a sub set of sense of place, although social scientists and recreational

researchers, like Williams and colleagues (1992), deemed that place attachment and sense of

place are interchangeable. These concepts are illustrated in Table 15.

Table 15: Perceptions of Sense of Place

THEORIST

CONCEPT

Hay (1988) Ballinger and Manning (1997)

Human Geography

Sense of Place Place Attachment

Considers Sense of Place in a broader context than Place Attachment

Williams, Patterson,

Roggenbuck and Watson (1992) Social Science & Recreation

Sense of Place/Place Attachment

PD/PI

Considers Sense of Place and Place Attachment to have similar meanings, and Place Dependence (PD) and Place Identity (PI) as dimensions of Place Attachment

Adapted from Bow and Buys (2003, p. 4) and Ballinger and Manning (1997)

Place attachment studies evolved from studies of sense of place, which began with the work

of Tuan (1974; 1977), Relph (1976) and Steele (1981), and generally “emphasise the

interconnectiveness of feelings, attitudes and behaviour” (Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002b, p.

384). In his early work, Tuan (1974) considered that motivation to address environmental

Place Attachment

90

issues relied on the self-understanding of human perceptions, attitudes and values, and that

place attachment was linked to self-identity. Similarly, Relph (1976) noted that place

attachment can be profoundly affected when a landscape is changed, because people project

their lives into a place. Furthermore, according to Steele (1981), places have shaped human

history and visible surroundings will affect the perspective of a person’s view of the world.

Place Attachment Terms

Researchers have used a number of terms within the place attachment literature to describe

aspects of place attachment, referred to in Table 16.

Table 16: Place Attachment Terms

Date Place Attachment Terms

Researchers

1952 Need for Roots (Weil, 1952) 1974 Topophilia (Tuan, 1974) Community Attachment (Hummon, 1992; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) 1976 * Insiderness, * Rootedness,

* Outsiderness, * Placelessness (Relph, 1976)

1978 Emotional Linkages To Places (Hunter, 1978) 1980 Environmental Sensitivity (Tanner, 1980) 1981 Sense Of Place (Hay, 1988; Steele, 1981) * *Place Dependence (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989) 1982 Valued Environments (Hall, 1982; Lee, 1982) 1983 People-Place Relationships (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983) * *Place Identity (Guiliani & Feldman, 1993; Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983;

Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996) * Place Annihilation (Hewitt, 1983) 1986 Community Identity (Hummon, 1986) 1989 Place Attachment (Altman & Low, 1992; Hildago & Hernandez, 2001; Williams &

Roggenbuck, 1989) 1990 Settlement Identity (Feldman, 1990) 1992 Emotional Investments (Hummon, 1986) 1995 Ecological Identity (Thomashow, 1995) 1999 * Place Interference (Sharpe & Ewert, 1999) 2001 * Domicide, * Memoricide (Porteous & Smith, 2001) 2004 * Displacement (Blizard & Schuster, 2004) * For clarity, a brief explanation of these terms follows ** These terms will be used in the study and therefore are described in more detail in the chapter Adapted from Pruneau et al. (1999), Relph (1976), Sharpe and Ewert (1999), Blizard and Schuster (2004) and Windsor and McVey (2005)

Place Attachment

91

Some of these terms may be familiar to the reader or will be self-explanatory, such as

community attachment, emotional linkages to places, environmental sensitivity, valued

environments and emotional investments. However, an explanation of terms such as

topophilia, domicide, memoricide and other will be briefly explained, while the terms place

dependence and place identity, will be discussed in detail, as they are a major focus in this

work.

Tuan (1974) introduced the term, topophilia, to describe an affectionate bond between

people and places, which he believed contributed to the formation of values. Terms used by

Relph (1976) such as insiderness, refers to experiencing, belonging and identifying with a

place, and rootedness, which refers to being settled in a place.

Sharpe and Ewert (1999) use the term place interference which is a term used to describe

activities that deliberately reverse place attachment, and cause placelessness, which is a lack

of recognition of special places, the erosion of symbols, or the severing of roots with a place

(Relph, 1976). Place annihilation originally referred to the destruction of places during war

(Hewitt, 1983); however, it now includes place destruction caused by administrations

(Windsor & McVey, 2005). The term domicide, a subset of place annihilation, refers to the

deliberate destruction of places by agencies driven by individuals seeking personal gain or to

achieve personal ambition (Porteous & Smith, 2001). The term memoricide refers to the

“destruction of memories that people have of a place, through the deliberate destruction of

public and/or private records, photographs and documents” such as in Kosovo, Yugoslavia

(p. 148).

4.4 PLACE ATTACHMENT AND PARK MANAGEMENT

Place attachment research within parks and protected areas is important due to the resources

contained within these areas, which hold important value for a range of users. These include

historic, cultural, natural, social and economic resources. Understanding the attachment to

Place Attachment

92

places allows park managers to make informed decisions (Ballinger & Manning, 1997),

involving aspects of human use and value.

Within national parks, place attachment is significant as the designation of regions acts to

protect as well as identify significant historic, cultural and natural resources, which can form

part of a community’s regional identity and character (Atkisson, 1989). The implementation

of place attachment into park management strategies was explained by Presley (2003) and

Smaldone, Harris, Sanyal and Lind (2005) to have many benefits for managers and

communities, some of which are listed in Table 17.

Table 17: Using Place Attachment in Management

PLACE ATTACHMENT AND PARK MANAGEMENT

Outcomes Strategies Benefits To identify user groups Volunteers, donors, board members, fee supporters

Planning and management involvement Empowering community

To identify the diversity of place attachment

Assist with conflict resolution Accommodate diversity Inform staff Educate community

Inform Park Management

Planning Landscapes Planners consider Ecological, Emotional, Symbolic and Cultural meanings in allocating management zones and resource use Inventory of place meanings

Community Benefit

Build knowledge and respect for places

Foster environmentally responsible behaviour Enhance respect for community diversity

Adapted from Presley (2003) and Smaldone, Harris, Sanyal and Lind (2005)

Four key aspects particularly relevant to protected area management are conservation,

stewardship, landscapes and land management that are dealt with in the following sections.

Conservation

The association between place attachment and activism is recognised in the literature

(Manzo, Perkins & Douglas, 2006). Those who show concern for natural resource

conservation recognise the attachment of people to the environment, as discussed in the

Place Attachment

93

previous chapter. Encouraging action that will benefit and protect natural settings has its

beginnings in deep ecology and bioregionalism concepts (Pruneau et al., 1999).

Understanding these underlying views is important as they may significantly influence a

person’s place attachment. Deep ecology considers the interconnectedness of humans with

the natural world (Zimmerman, 1998), while bioregionalism describes finding a sense of

place in nature (Thayer, 2003, p. xiv). Research areas that reflect a bioregionalism or deep

ecology influence include, environmental education (Sobel, 1996; Tanner, 1980), social

psychology (Low & Altman, 1992; Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983) and cultural

geography (Hay, 1988) (Pruneau et al., 1999). Additionally, social ecology recognises that

people should be involved in environmental solutions (Bookchin, 2004). Further,

ecofeminists propose that place attachment has been disrupted through hierarchy, which has

caused a disconnection with nature, that they believe has lead to the environmental crisis

(Atkisson, 1989).

Stewardship

While place attachment can encourage conservation stewardship, it can also explain conflict.

Therefore, understanding community views has become a significant aspect of park

management (Ballinger & Manning, 1997; Kaltenborn & Williams, 2002). Furthermore,

Kalternborn and Williams (2002) confirmed that an individual’s attachment influences their

views towards environment and the value they place on natural resource management.

Likewise, when place attachment is supported and encouraged by management, stewardship

and sensitivity to management initiatives is also enhanced (Greene, 1996).

Landscapes

Most of the place attachment literature refers to attachment to places as a complex process of

beliefs, attitudes and emotions, which can inform an individual’s view of the world.

However, studies by Stedman (2003), and Parsons and Daniel (2002) expanded on this to

examine the importance of the physical features of a landscape and their contribution to place

attachment. Both studies concluded that physical features did matter in constructing meaning

Place Attachment

94

to places, and Stedman noted that if the physical features changed then the meanings that

people attach to a place might also change. Parsons and Daniels also noted that an

appreciation of the landscape could lead to the adoption of sustainable practices by users.

Other landscape studies such as that by Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002b), confirmed the link

between residents’ land preferences and place attachment in Roros, a town in a World

Heritage area in Southern Norway. While Waterton (2005) explored the diverse cultural

meaning of landscapes in a study in England, which led to questioning “why landscape is

underplayed in legislation and policy development although it provides a vital ordnance of

cultural meaning in relation to identity, belonging and sense of place” (p. 309).

Land Management

Ways to incorporate place attachment into public land management were explored by

Mitchell, Force, Carroll and McLaughlan (1993) and Smaldone et al (2005). Meanwhile

Williams and Stewart (1998) Williams & Patterson (1999) and Galliano and Loeffler (1995)

and others examined the application of place attachment to ecosystem management

(Eisenhauer, Krannich & Blahna, 2000; Schroeder, 2004). Place attachment “can be the

source of heightened levels of concern about management practices” and therefore deserve

consideration in ecosystem management (Eisenhauer, Krannich & Blahna, 2000, p. 421).

The value of places to communities and how these are integrated into management decisions,

in deciding boundaries and how places are interpreted, are further matters for consideration

(Stokowski, 2002).

4.5 PLACE DEPENDENCE AND PLACE IDENTITY

Place attachment within the recreation literature primarily consists of two components: a goal

directed/functional attachment referred to as place dependence (PD), and an

emotional/symbolic attachment referred to as place identity (PI) (Presley, 2003; Sharpe &

Ewert, 1999; Williams, Anderson, McDonald & Patterson, 1995). The role of place

Place Attachment

95

dependence and place identity within the model put forward by Williams et al. (1992) is

shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Place Dependence and Place Identity

Adapted from Williams et al. (1992)

Studies listed under the categories of place dependence and place identity often extend

beyond their listed category to incorporate elements of the other. For instance, those that

have an emotional or symbolic attachment may also have a dependent attachment for

occupational or recreational purposes.

4.5.1 Place Dependence

Introduction to Place Dependence

The goal directed/functional attachment, place dependence, explains the dependence on a

place for a specific activity such as recreation or employment. In Australia, farmers may be

reliant on a national park, for cattle grazing and a dune buggy club may be reliant on a coastal

park for their recreational activities. Most place dependence studies include two or three

community groups within each study. These may be active recreational users, who use the

park for sport related activities; passive users, who use the area for picnics or family

gatherings; or users that rely on the resource for their livelihood such as graziers and farmers.

All of these users are described as being place dependant; however, passive users may also

SENSE OF PLACE / PLACE ATTACHMENT

Place Dependence Place Identity

Goal Directed Functional Attachment

Emotional Symbolic

Attachment

Place Attachment

96

choose an area due to an emotional or symbolic link, and therefore these users will be dealt

with under the place identity section of this chapter. Place attachment studies can examine

the level of dependence on the resource, as some communities may be heavily dependant

while others are not. Furthermore, this knowledge can provide insight into attitude or

behaviour towards the resource, management decisions, conservation activities and other

matters.

Place Dependence and Recreation, Sport, Lifestyle

Place dependence that can develop through reliance on the natural resource for recreational or

sporting activities or from living in the region is dealt with in this section.

Place Dependence and Opportunity to used the Resource

Andrews cited in Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002a) believes that the degree of attachment can

be influenced by natural landscapes, a person’s workplace, or social or recreational

opportunities. When members of a community have the right to enter a region, an attachment

is formed even prior to entering the space (Chawla, 1992; Marcus, 1992; Riley, 1992; in

Sharpe & Ewert, 1999). This is evident in an Australian study of new residents to the

Atherton Tablelands and Woodstock (Measham, 2004), who formed attachments to the

region prior to moving there. A person may not be aware of their attachment until an area is

under threat, at which time a person’s link to a place is recognised (Pruneau at al., 1999).

Place Dependence and Activity Involvement

The influence of dependence on activity involvement was the subject of numerous studies

(Cavin et al., 2004; Kyle et al., 2003; Mowen & Graefe, 1999; Mowen, Graefe & Virden,

1997; Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983). The outcome of which showed that activity

involvement enhanced the relationship with the setting, which led to positive experiences for

those involved. Additionally, Morgan & Soucy (2006), in their study of trout anglers at

Montauk State Park in Missouri, USA, found that those with specialised skills were more

likely to be involved in environmental education activities than those less skilled.

Place Attachment

97

Place Dependence and Solitude, Motivation and Satisfaction

Daigle and colleagues examined the emotional, symbolic and functional attachment of river

and lake users on the St Croix Waterways (Daigle, Hannon & Stacey, 2001). They found that

solitude was linked to high levels of place attachment. However, motivation to visit a place

did not necessarily lead to the development of place attachment (Kyle, Mowen & Tarrant,

2004).

Satisfaction has also been the subject of various studies about satisfaction and willingness to

engage in place decisions (Stedman, 2002), satisfaction and interpretation (Hwang, Lee &

Chen, 2005), and satisfaction and crowding (Wickham & Kerstetter, 2000). The first two

studies conclude, “Positively influencing place attachment and activity involvement is an

effective strategy for increasing visitor satisfaction” (Wickham & Graefe 2001, p. 362). The

first two studies showed that place attachment had a beneficial effect on satisfaction, and

interpretation (Wickham & Graefe, 2001), while increased attachment to community led to

more positive feelings about crowding at community events (Wickham & Kerstetter, 1999;

2000).

Place Dependence and Support for the Resource

Research within park and protected areas has examined active recreational users’ attachment

to natural areas, such as white-water rafting (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000), rail-trail users

(Moore & Graefe, 1994) and hikers, boaters and anglers (Kyle, Graefe & Manning, 2004b).

Presley (2003) believes that this knowledge can be used to identify groups that can support

and assist in planning and management. He concludes that these users are likely to donate

time and money to assist with the management of this resource for their continued use.

The degree of acceptance for management actions as well as the reasons for taking river trips

was examined in a comparative study by Warzecha, Lime and Thompson (1999) in the

Canyonlands National Park and Mount Rushmore National Memorial in the USA. Both the

agreement levels for management actions and the reasons for the trips differed amongst the

Place Attachment

98

groups, and correlated with different levels of agreement to the statements given about place

attachment. A study by Daigle, Hannon and Stacey (2001) showed that differing levels of

agreement to place attachment statements had no influence when it came to impacts on the

resource, which all groups in the study saw as important.

Place Dependence and Interpretation

Visitors seek to understand and be inspired by a park, which according to Williams and

Vaske (2002) are the reasons for most visits. By understanding the meaning that visitors

bring with them to a site, Chen and colleagues (2001; 1999) believe that the desired outcomes

of fostering stewardship and intellectual or emotional connections to the resource can be

achieved partly through the role of interpretation of the resource.

The role of place attachment in interpretation, planning, and zoning decisions is summarised

by Lee (2001). He stated that management must re-evaluate their decision-making practices

to include place meaning for various groups. The value of place attachment to management

and interpretation is recommended in various studies (Chen, Pierskalla, Goldman & Larsen,

2001) and is important to resource managers during the decision making process (Williams &

Vaske, 2002). In addition, the results of the study by Chen et al. (2001) suggested that

visitors exposed to the interpretive experience might also cultivate a stronger place

attachment. However, a number of researchers have noted that the role of place attachment

in interpreting cultural heritage requires particular consideration in cultural planning

(Markwell, Stevenson & Rowe, 2004; McCool & Moisey, 2001).

Place Dependence and Occupational Users

Occupational users are those reliant on the resource for their livelihood. These users may be

landowners, business owners such as tourism operators, graziers, farmers, local and

indigenous communities, and national park employees or volunteers. This section considers

the effect of place dependence on levels of attachment, conflict amongst user groups and the

influence of place dependence on place identity and environmental behaviour.

Place Attachment

99

Place Dependence and Levels of Attachment

Natural resource managers must understand why people consider places as special in order to

consider their concerns during the planning process (Schroeder, 2004). Furthermore, Ryan

(2005) found that the attachment of volunteers and management varied to those of other

users, as did the perspective on how an area should be managed. A study of national forest

user groups by Confer, Graefe, Absher & Thapa (1999) revealed higher levels of place

attachment amongst those dependant on the resource. The study showed that landowners and

horse users had a higher level of attachment than day visitors and other groups. The outcome

of this study suggested that management consider these groups during any planning

processes.

A strong functional attachment was also found in a study by Zwick and Solan (2001) where

attachment was stronger amongst those involved in harvesting activities in Denmark than

those not involved. These authors concluded that people form attachment to places through

resource use. Likewise, Bricker and Kerstetter (2000) in their study of active recreational

resource users also found that those with a specialisation in an activity had a stronger place

attachment than those less experienced. A study in Tigray, Ethiopia by Beyene, Gibbon and

Haile (2006) showed that land use could also be shaped by historical processes and cultural

values. The sense of place and identity associated with farming in Ethiopia has developed

over time “as generations pass through the [same] family dwelling” (p. 61). Beyene and

colleagues have called on policy makers to pay attention to the attachment farmers have to

their lands in matters regarding policies on land distribution and agricultural extensions.

Place Dependence and Conflict

Those dependant on a resource for their activities or lifestyle are more prone to conflict with

other user groups because they see the activity or place as central to their wellbeing (Jacob &

Schreyer 1980). Managing diversity in attitudes to resource management was addressed in a

study by Kaltenborn and Williams (2002) on Femundsmarka National Park in Southern

Norway. The study examined tourists and local community attachment to places in relation