Place Attachment, Social Capital

Place Attachment
Traditionally, natural resource professionals held a utilitarian philosophy regarding natural resources management (Wellman, 1987) and recreation professionals followed this pattern. Predominantly, recreation professionals have viewed outdoor recreation settings as a collection of attributes or characteristics (Williams, Patterson, & Roggenbuck, 1992) with the value of the setting depending on whether or not it met the needs of recreationists. Williams et al. (1992) describe this approach as a commodity metaphor where the resource is a collection of attributes managed for the consumption of users. The benefit of this approach is that settings are reduced to manageable attributes or features that can be assessed and modified based on what optimally serves recreationists.
Williams et al. (1992), however, argue that, contrary to the commodity metaphor, settings are often unique and cannot be designed, recreated, or substituted easily. Recreation settings are much more than the sum of their attributes and there is a complex psychology concerning people and places. The people-place relationship has been explored through a variety of concepts. One concept in particular, which is largely accepted and used in recreation research, is the concept of place attachment.
The general concept of place attachment, or sense of place, has a long history. For example, throughout human history it was very common for people to identify themselves by their name and from where they came (Relph, 1997). More recently, this connection between people and locations has been examined in the fields of human geography, environmental psychology, and landscape architecture. Research in these disciplines has led to many different definitions for place, sense of place, and place attachment.

Tuan (1977), a human geographer, defined place as a center of meaning created from experience, “What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value” (p. 6). Russell and Ward (1982), environmental psychologists, described sense of place as “the psychological or perceived unity of the geographical environment” (p. 654). F. Steele (1981), a landscape architect, explained that sense of place is “created by the setting combined with what a person brings to it. In other words, to some degree we create our own places, they do not exist independent of us” (p. 9).
While the previous definitions describe the complex relationship between people and places, this study focuses on the place attachment definition provided by Williams and Stewart (1998), “the collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality” (p. 19). Many models of place attachment have been suggested (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983), however, two main concepts have been prevalent in the literature: functional place attachment and emotional place attachment (Brown, 1987).

Functional place attachment. Functional place attachment, or place dependence, refers to functionality or the ability of the resources to meet the needs or goals of individuals (Schreyer, Jacob, & White, 1981; Stokols & Shumaker, 1981; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Functional place attachment is affected by two factors: 1) the quality of the place is determined by how well it satisfies user needs and 2) the quality of the place depends on how it compares to other available places (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983). People judge the quality of a place based on their previous experiences and what they know of alternative places (Warzecha & Lime, 2001). The proximity of the place to residential location can also strongly influence functional place attachment. If a resource is close it can encourage frequent visitation even if it does not completely meet the needs of the user (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). For example, an avid mountain biker might frequently use local trails to practice skills even though the trails are not ideal in his/her opinion.
Functional place attachment is also closely tied to the types of activities users pursue. Some activities require specific attributes or features while others are more general in their requirements. For example, whitewater rafting requires a specific river setting, but hiking can be done on a variety of landscapes. The attainment of user needs or goals is facilitated or impeded by the quantity of resources in the area, resource quality, and how well they fulfill the requirements of users (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981).

Emotional place attachment. Emotional place attachment, or place identity, refers to the emotional aspects of a person-place relationship and how place contributes to an individual’s self-identity (Schreyer, et al., 1981; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Proshansky (1978) states that emotional place attachment refers to “those dimensions of the self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment” (p. 155). Place not only provides opportunity to meet needs and achieve goals, but it is also a part of a person’s identity, thereby creating strong emotional bonds between a person and particular places (Williams, et al., 1992). The important role of the environment in maintaining self-identity has also been strongly supported in the psychological literature (C. Steele, 1988). Research suggests that emotional place attachment is one motivation for participation in outdoor recreation (Scherl, 1989). Emotional place attachment can be based on emotional ties to a specific place, such as a favorite pond or park, or on more symbolic meanings, such as the way a national park or forest symbolizes America’s heritage (Warzecha & Lime, 2001). Emotional place attachment is often formed over time and over several encounters with a place. This emotional component of place attachment can lead to a sense of belonging or purpose that helps give meaning to life (Tuan, 1980).

Emotional place attachment is useful in recreation resource management because it describes and assesses the connections between individuals and the resource. Previous literature has shown that people with strong emotional ties to resources are more likely to be involved with and concerned about how the resources are managed and used (Williams, et al., 1992). More recently, Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found emotional place attachment was significantly related to environmentally responsible behavior. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found that as emotional place attachment increased, pro-environmental behaviors increased. They argued that cultivating the relationship between people and the resource could encourage environmentally responsible behavior.

Emotional place attachment can also play a vital role in how individuals act in natural resource management and politics (Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003). People use places to protect and enhance their self-identity (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Individuals conceptualize a resource in different ways depending on how they define themselves. Greider and Garkovich (1994) provide the following example. In a hypothetical situation, an open field is shown to a developer, a farmer, and a hunter and each is asked to describe what they see. The answers are as follows, respectively: a site for new houses, rows of wheat, and browsing grounds for a buck. The way individuals see and value a resource, in this case a field, is a reflection of self-identity.

The strong connections between people and place often bring people concerned about the maintenance and future of the resource together. Examining place attachment can reveal common concerns among groups (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995). Sociological research shows that places can be important in creating shared meaning and group identity (Lee, 1972). Williams and Stewart (1998) suggest, “sense of place [place attachment] can be the shared language that eases discussions of salient issues and problems” (p. 18). They also recommend that place attachment be used to build a level of consensus and as common ground for resource management and resolution of problems (Williams & Stewart, 1998). This common bond between groups can facilitate establishing goals, working out disputes, and general interactions between individuals and groups. Place attachment might also serve as a way of bringing together individuals and groups traditionally at opposite ends of ideological spectrums, such as hunters and non-hunters. If groups and individuals are attached to certain places then, as Kemmis (1990) notes, “they must learn to inhabit that place together, which they can only do through the development of certain practices of…the old-fashion civic virtues of trust, honesty, justice, toleration, cooperation, hope, and remembrance” (p. 119).

Social Capital: Associations and Trust
Putnam (1995) defines social capital as, “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (p. 67). The idea of social capital evolved from other concepts of capital. The first concept of capital relevant here was physical capital, which explained how physical items, such as tools or machines, could aid in economic production (Paxton, 1999). Becker (1964) introduced the idea of human capital, the concept that individuals, through education or job training, could possess the ability to facilitate production. The more recent notion of social capital acknowledges that certain social relations, such as networks or norms of reciprocity, can also facilitate production (Brehm & Rahn, 1997).
Social capital has been defined in a variety of fields; however, the concept was popularized by two sociologists, Bourdieu (1983) and Coleman (1988, 1990). Bourdieu’s (1983) definition states that social capital consists of resources, actual and potential, that result from a network of relationships, or, in other words, membership in a group. Coleman (1988) focused more on how a social network can serve as a resource for individuals. He emphasized that social capital exists in the relations between and among individuals, hence, social capital is not held in individuals themselves but they can use it to their benefit. Paxton (1999) builds off these ideas and suggests social capital has two major components: 1) objective associations between individuals—an objective network structure linking individuals, and 2) a subjective type of tie—positive, trusting, and reciprocal ties among people.
Associations. Networks or associations among individuals and groups are a major component of social capital (Putnam, 1995). Associations benefit communities by facilitating and increasing information flow (Paxton, 1999), encouraging reciprocity (Putnam, 1995), and making individuals aware of coinciding interests. Associations fall into two major categories: 1) informal, such as friendships, and 2) formal group memberships, such as membership in a voluntary organization or professional society (Paxton, 1999).
Previous research has measured the association component of social capital in a variety of ways. Paxton (1999) measured the number of evenings an individual spent with a neighbor, number of evenings an individual spent with friends living outside the neighborhood, and total number of memberships an individual had in voluntary organizations. Brehm and Rahn (1997) measured the number of memberships in civic and political organizations. Putnam (1995) examined membership in voluntary and professional organizations, such as church related groups, school service groups, sports groups, professional societies, and fraternal organizations.

Trust. In Paxton’s (1999) definition, the other major component of social capital is reciprocal, trusting ties between individuals. Not only must networks between individuals and/or groups exist, but the relationships comprising the networks must be positive. Because trust is highly associated with reciprocity, trust is a good indicator of positive, reciprocal ties in general (Paxton, 1999).

Barber (1983) defines trust as learned expectations people have of each other, of organizations and institutions, and of natural and moral social orders, that serve as foundational understandings for their lives. Paxton (1999) makes a distinction between trust in specific, known individuals and trust in generalized individuals or institutions. Individuals can make very specific assessments of a known individual’s trustworthiness, based on knowledge of that person’s history, actions, motivations, and so on, but they also hold opinions of more generalized others, such as the “average” person. Trust in generalized others is important when assessing social capital on a large scale whereas trust in specific individuals is useful on a smaller scale. Individuals also have opinions regarding the trustworthiness of institutions and agencies (Paxton, 1999). This trust is usually based on estimates of abilities and obligations of individuals within the institution. Both types of trust, individual and institutional, are important in measuring the social capital of a community.
When social capital is present, it facilitates action and the production of goods. Social capital can be used to serve the needs of an individual or a group as a whole. Social capital can also be a potential resource if it has not yet been developed. The positive networks of social capital facilitate coordination and communication and help in the resolution of problems. In sum, life is easier in a community with high social capital because social rules and norms facilitate interaction and exchange between individuals (Putnam, 1995). Goods can be produced at several levels: 1) individual or private—one person benefits, 2) group—a group of individuals benefits, and 3) community—several groups benefit (Paxton, 1999).

Social capital might not always be beneficial. Paxton (1999) describes how high social capital within a group does not necessarily contribute to social capital at the community level. For example, a group may have high within group social capital, such as a militia group or religious cult, but may reduce community levels of social capital by cutting off ties to outside groups and individuals. Warner (1999) also argues that social capital can lead to hostility and exclusion toward certain groups.
If high social capital already exists, it can facilitate individual participation (Paxton, 1999). Social capital creates infrastructure that supports the processes of formal and informal decision making and public involvement (Putnam, 1993b). A network of trusting, positive relations among individuals and between individuals and agencies will encourage members of the public to donate their time, effort, and money. High social capital should create a positive environment where individuals will feel comfortable interacting, thereby encouraging participation. Putnam (1995) notes that social capital builds networks that foster norms of reciprocity and encourage social trust. These networks facilitate coordination, communication, and dispute resolution, while cultivating a collective identity. In effect, social capital lays the groundwork that makes cooperative actions possible.