UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF BUILT AND NATURAL FEATURES WITHIN PERSON-PLACE BONDING AT A LOCAL NATURE CENTER

Transcription

1 The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Health and Human Development UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF BUILT AND NATURAL FEATURES WITHIN PERSON-PLACE BONDING AT A LOCAL NATURE CENTER A Thesis in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management by Maxwell H. Olsen 2017 Maxwell H. Olsen Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2017

2 The thesis of Maxwell H. Olsen was reviewed and approved* by the following: Alan R. Graefe Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Thesis Adviser Andrew J. Mowen Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Pete Allison Associate Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Peter Newman Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Head of the Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

3 ABSTRACT Research in outdoor recreation has often grappled with the dynamic connection that people cultivate with the places where they choose to recreate (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992). Person-place bonding is a multifaceted model that attempts to join many of the psychological processes that reflect the strength and type of bonds that visitors to a recreational location may have with that place (Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004). Missing from the current person-place bonding model is the role that the physical features, which provide a tangible structure to a place, might play in cultivating or maintaining the person-place bond. This study is the first to operationalize and integrate the visitor s subjective evaluation of a recreational place s physical features as a dimension of the person-place bonding model. The survey was completed online and addressed a wide range of topics, including several place related topics, regarding a local nature center Shaver s Creek Environmental Center (SCEC). The sample was derived from a list of addresses provided by SCEC. From the data collected, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were completed to analyze the viability of a new construct embodying the subjective evaluation of the physical features at SCEC. A final five-item construct setting attachment surfaced as a sufficient measurement model (Chi 2 = , d.f. =5, RMSEA = 0.073, CFI = 0.982, SRMR =0.020). Setting attachment was then introduced to the typical person-place measurement model. After a series of modifications, the data proved to sufficiently fit a five-factor person-place bonding model (Chi 2 = , d.f. = 120, RMSEA = 0.077, CFI = 0.902, SRMR =0.064) that maintained the integrity of setting attachment as well as the other dimensions of person-place bonding (place identity, place dependence, social bonding, and affect). The results support the new dimension is a viable construct in the typical outdoor recreation person-place bonding model for this sample. iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... vi LIST OF TABLES... ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 The Phenomenon of Place... 1 Study Purpose... 5 Research Questions... 6 Definitions... 7 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Person-Place Bonding... 8 Contemporary Coalescence... 8 Place Attachment and Outdoor Recreation... 9 Place Identity Place Dependence Expanding Place Attachment Place Bonding Familiarity Belongingness Rootedness Social Bonding Affect Setting Attachment - A new consideration Chapter 3 METHODS Study Site Sample Description Instrumentation Piolet Study Sampling and Response Data Preparation Chapter 4 RESULTS Introduction Sample Characteristics Demographic Information Site-specific Information iv

5 Attachment to the setting Dimensionality of Setting Attachment Tangible Dimensions Psychological Dimensions The Structure of Setting Attachment s Dimensions Understanding Who is Attached to SCEC s Setting Setting Attachment and Person-Place Bonding Chapter 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION Study limitations Implications for SCEC Directions for Future Research Conclusion LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX A Survey Instrument APPENDIX B Survey Invitation and Reminders APPENDIX C Hypothesized Setting Attachment Factor Structures APPENDIX D Standardized Results for the Hypothesized Setting Attachment Factor Structures v

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1 Setting Attachment Responses 42 Figure 4-2 Setting Attachment Items: Means and Standard Deviations.. 44 Figure 4-3 Standardized results for the hypothesized natural environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct.. 51 Figure 4-4 Standardized results for the hypothesized built environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct.. 51 Figure 4-5 Standardized results for the hypothesized physical features latent variable of the setting attachment construct.. 51 Figure 4-6 Standardized results for the final model for the natural environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct 52 Figure 4-7 Standardized results for the final model for the built environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct 52 Figure 4-8 Standardized results for the final model for the physical features latent variable of the setting attachment construct.. 52 Figure 4-9 Standardized results for the hypothesized affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct. 56 Figure 4-10 Standardized results for the hypothesized cognitive latent variable of the setting attachment construct..56 Figure 4-11 Standardized results of the final model for the affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct..57 vi

7 Figure 4-12 Standardized results of the final model for the affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct..57 Figure 4-13 Standardized results for hypothesized five-item, unidimensional setting attachment measurement model..61 Figure 4-14 Standardized results for the hypothesized five-item, unidimensional setting attachment measurement model Figure 4-15 Standardized results for the hypothesized four-factor person-place bonding measurement model..72 Figure 4-16 Standardized results for the final four-factor person-place bonding measurement model Figure 4-17 Standardized results for the initial five-factor person-place bonding measurement model Figure 4-18 Standardized results for the second five-factor person-place bonding measurement model Figure 4-19 Standardized results for the final five-factor person-place bonding measurement model Figure 3-1 Orthogonal setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (A)..112 Figure 3-2 Bifactor setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (C)..112 Figure 3-3 Orthogonal setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (B)..112 vii

8 Figure 3-4 Bifactor setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (D)..112 Figure 3-5 Hierarchical setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (E) Figure 3-6 Unidimensional setting attachment model (G)..113 Figure 3-7 Hierarchical setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (F)..113 Figure 3-8 Orthogonal place attachment model, four dimensions as latent variables with correlated error Figure 4-20 Standardized results for the orthogonal setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (A) 115 Figure 4-21 Standardized results for the orthogonal setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (B) 116 Figure 4-22 Standardized results for the bifactor setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables without correlated error (C) Figure 4-23 Standardized results for the bifactor setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables without correlated error (D) 118 Figure 4-24 Standardized results for the hierarchical setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables (E) Figure 4-25 Standardized results for the hierarchical setting attachment model, cognitive dimensions as latent variables (F) Figure 4-26 Standardized results for hypothesized unidimensional setting attachment measurement model (G) viii

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Codes for setting attachment items, segmented by tangible dimension..29 Table 3-2 Codes for setting attachment items, segmented by psychological dimension.30 Table 3-3 Operationalization of satisfaction and site-specific items...32 Table 3-4 Operationalization and codes for the four-dimensional person-place bonding measure, segmented by dimension Table 4-1 Demographic characteristics.37-8 Table 4-2 Site-specific information.. 40 Table 4-3 Response percentages for setting attachment items. 42 Table 4-4 Summary statistics for setting attachment items.. 44 Table 4-5 Bivariate correlations between setting attachment items. 45 Table 4-6 Item reliabilities within setting attachment and segmented by setting attachment s tangible dimensions: natural environment, built environment, and physical features.. 49 Table 4-7 One-sample t-test results comparing the means within setting attachment s tangible dimensions 49 Table 4-8 Results of the global fit indices for hypothesized and modified models for the tangible dimension of setting attachment 50 Table 4-9 Item reliabilities within setting attachment and segmented by setting attachment s psychological dimensions: affective and cognitive.. 55 Table 4-10 One-sample t-test results comparing the means between setting attachment s psychological dimensions. 55 ix

10 Table 4-11 Results of the global fit indices for the hypothesized and modified models for the psychological dimensions of setting attachment 55 Table 4-12 Results of the global fit indices for seven hypothesized setting attachment measurement models...60 Table 4-13 Results of the global fit indices for the five-item setting attachment models. 60 Table 4-14 Final clusters for a K-means cluster analysis of the five-item setting attachment model. 66 Table 4-15 Analysis of variance and respondent distribution between degree of setting attachment and demographic characteristics. 66 Table 4-16 Item reliabilities for satisfaction measure. 67 Table 4-17 Analysis of variance between degree of setting attachment and satisfaction with SCEC. 67 Table 4-18 Shaffe s Post Hoc test for analysis of variance between degree of setting attachment and satisfaction with SCEC.. 67 Table 4-19 Respondent distribution between degree of setting attachment and site-specific characteristics 68 Table 4-20 Results of the global fit indices for the four-factor and five-factor person-place models 71 x

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Alan Graefe, and my committee members, Dr. Andrew Mowen and Dr. Peter Allison, for all their help and guidance through the master s thesis process. Their insights were measured, encouraging, and invaluable. I would also like to extend my deep gratitude to the staff at Shaver s Creek Environmental Center who allotted a great deal of flexibility along with equal shares of support throughout the process. And to my parent s, Kurt and Ellen, thank you for cultivating in me a love for nature and learning that undoubtedly inspired this path. Lastly, but most of all, I want to thank my partner Danielle for all of her encouragement over the years as I pursued this goal. I will always be grateful for her willingness to discuss statistics and place as I worked my way through both the frustrations and excitement inevitable in completing a thesis. xi

12 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The Phenomenon of Place Somewhere in each person s mind either hidden away in some forgotten gray fold or constantly front-and-center lives the memory of an important place. Whether that place is a childhood home, a majestic mountain, an alma mater, or a road where an oak tree hugs the bend, these places can be endowed with the most human of traits. They have the capacity to warm the heart and mind, or conceivably do the exact opposite. Many of us, some unwittingly, find ourselves infatuated with such a place. These special places can be found in a tangible sense. A person can walk to his or her place, sit in it, let it wash over them. They can absorb the love, the frustration, the excitement, the independence, the hope that can be found in that place. However, the truth is that the special place does not actually feel anything towards you or anyone. The place does not have the capacity to feel or think. It cannot console or empower, let alone love. But lived experiences permit for the agreement that individuals establish these types of bonds to physical locations and feel those emotions when they find themselves in their special place. Bonding between person and place is an inherently abstract idea. The individual projects meanings and establishes emotional connections with a physical space that cannot hold its own values, beliefs, or feelings. Individuals construct place out of a setting as a reflection of their own experiences (Low & Altman, 1992). As such, person-place bonding should not be viewed as a static state, but instead as a long, contemplative, and dynamic process (Smaldone, Harris, & Sanyal, 2005). Over the past fifty years, social scientists in many fields attempted to establish 1

13 and in the field of outdoor recreation effectively operationalize definitive dimensions embedded within this multifaceted theory. Describing and investigating the person-place bonding began nearly half a century ago with Fried s (1963) chapter Grieving for a lost home in the book The Urban Condition. Fried s phenomenological consideration is attributed as the start of scientific literature regarding personplace bonding. The disciplines of geography, environmental psychology, and social psychology have historically lead the conceptualization of person-place bonding (Hammit, Kyle & Oh, 2009). Two foundational and often competing academic interpretations have dominated the development of person-place bonding. The first, derived from social psychology, interprets intrapersonal and interpersonal cognition and affect as the driving force establishing personplace bonds (Katz, 1960; Breakwell, 1986). Alternatively, the fields of geography and environmental psychology claim place or setting as the antecedent to the intrapersonal and interpersonal experience within the person-place bonding process (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983; Stedman, 2003). This chick-or-the-egg conundrum still exists in contemporary research because of the difficulty to sequentially separate setting from interpersonal interactions. Setting and interpersonal interactions tend to occur in tandem to one another during a personal experience. The field of outdoor recreation has been grappling with the relationships between people and setting since its establishment (Wagar, 1964). But it was not until the early 1990s that researchers in the field started to consider the process of place and its influence on the visitor s experience and satisfaction. Initially, place attachment began as a pragmatic two-dimensional construct and this line of research went through multiple iterations attempting to illuminate the complexity inherent within the multifaceted concept of place. In contemporary studies either a four- or five-dimensional approach is commonly used to understand the bond between the 2

14 individual and the place. However, missing within either approach is the individual s subjective evaluation of the physical setting. Understanding the person s subjective evaluation of the physical features or setting of a place could shed light onto an often-neglected dimension informing the person-place bonding process. For example what are the cognitive and emotional responses when hikers see a tangible element of the physical environment, i.e. the Teton mountain range, for the first time? How do their reactions impact the bond they may form with that landscape? And what are the implications of those appraisals for land managers who steward those tangible resources? In order to justify the setting as a dimension of person-place bonding, there is a need to recognize that physical space influences an individual s construction and evaluation of place. Very little research within the field of outdoor recreation deals directly with this relationship. But the recreation research that exists on the topic provides compelling evidence that physical setting, both built and natural, does influence an individual s attachment to place (Stedman, 2003; Sampson & Goodrich, 2009; Raymond, Brown, & Weber, 2010). Recently, scholars across disciplines called for more research integrating a place s physical features into future research (Scannell & Gifford, 2010; Lewicka, 2011). Some researchers began to provide suggestions on how to do this through direct affective evaluation of physical features (Hidalgo, 2013). However, as evident in the person-place bonding literature, the affective responses toward a place are only one dimension influencing an individual s construction of place (Stedman, 2003; Scannell & Gifford, 2010; Ramkissoon et al., 2013); the cognitive components, such as memory formation or perceptions of utility, need to be incorporated as well (Hammitt et al., 2009; Kyle, et al., 2014). 3

15 Choosing an appropriate study site is an especially important consideration when researching the process of person-place bonding. Researchers across disciplines agree that people establish bonds with places they deem meaningful (Low & Altman, 1992). Studying meaningful places allows researchers to investigate the different nuances embedded in person-place bonding. Most research intentionally targets locations that individuals consider important, like one s home or country or an iconic National Park. This study targets Shaver s Creek Environmental Center, a small nature center that represents a place that likely embodies a multitude of different meanings for different people because of the wide range of experiences that can be found onsite. Shaver s Creek Environmental Center is an outreach service of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), dedicated to the mission of instruction, service, and research. Over the last 40 years, Shaver s Creek Environmental Center (SCEC) successfully emerged as a community resource and asset dedicated to achieving and maintaining harmony between human activities and the natural systems that support all living species (e.g. Shaver s Creek Mission, n.d., para. 1). SCEC is approximately a twenty-minute drive from State College and Penn State s University Park Campus. SCEC is located within the 6,775 acres of Penn State s Stone Valley Forest. Penn State s Forest Management Office actively manages the forest for multiple uses, including recreation, research, wildlife, water resources and timber. SCEC provides an array of services for the Penn State and local communities including outdoor recreation, interpretation, education outreach, and team-building programs. The extensive trail system includes an ADA boardwalk as well as linking-trails to Pennsylvania s Mid-State Trail. Other outdoor recreation opportunities include geocaching, hunting (follows certain restrictions), fishing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, wildlife viewing, the list goes on. SCEC hosts various interpretation programs such as Migratory Bird Walks and Bird of Prey 4

16 Shows, Medicinal Plant and Herpetology Walks. A multitude of other educational outreach services are provided through hosting and attending statewide festivals and fairs, Outdoor School, and summer camps, just to name a few. SCEC also offers a number of courses at Penn State, and has a wide variety of volunteer opportunities. The range of experiences available to the public at SCEC demonstrates the amount of effort SCEC puts forth to be recognized as a community nature center. The diversity of opportunities at SCEC likely indicates an equally broad range of meanings and varying degrees of attachment the members of the public feel towards SCEC. From the occasional visitor to the most dedicated volunteer, each person has a unique experience that influences his or her bond to SCEC as a place. Perhaps a parent remembers his or her child s reaction to hearing the ethereal sound of a loon s call on Lake Perez. Or maybe the dedicated volunteer feels a sense of mutual respect as she/he cleans and sets out food in the golden eagle s enclosure. Or a college student remembers painfully failing a class offered through SCEC. These memories, good or bad, are imbued with meanings. Some experiences resonate more than others, but regardless these experiences shape our understanding of that place and ourselves, and the bond between the two. The cognitions the experiences/memories/understandings and their affective evaluations (emotional responses) impact the bond people feel to a place and their future experiences within that place (Kyle, Jun, & Absher, 2014; Low & Altman, 1992). Study Purpose The intention of this study is to better understand the multidimensional bond between humans and place. Using a new construct, referred to as setting attachment, this study will begin to identify the influence of the setting (both natural and built) on the respondents connection with SCEC. The operationalization of setting attachment includes two psychological dimensions 5

17 (cognitive and affective) evaluating the physical features of SCEC. The reliability and validity of this operationalization of setting attachment will begin to be explored in this study. Furthermore, by using confirmatory factor analysis setting attachment s viability as a new dimension of person-place bonding will be investigated within the measurement model typically utilized within contemporary recreation literature (Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Kyle et al., 2014). Research Questions 1) How attached are respondents to the setting at SCEC? 2) Is the operationalization of the tangible dimensions (i.e. natural environment, built environment, and physical features) of setting attachment an effective measurement tool? 3) Is there a significant difference between the respondent s level of attachment to the natural, built, and physical features of the setting at SCEC? 4) Is the operationalization of the psychological dimensions (i.e. cognitive and affective appraisals) of setting attachment an effective measure? 5) Is there a significant difference in the respondents cognitive and affective appraisals of the setting at SCEC? 6) Does the data collected support a multidimensional or unidimensional measurement model of setting attachment? 7) Do respondents with varying levels of setting attachment differ in their responses to other variables (demographic, site-specific behaviors, and satisfaction), therein providing convergent and divergent validity for setting attachment as a construct? 8) Does the data collected support setting attachment as a new dimension within the personplace bonding model typical in the recreation literature? 6

18 Definitions Space: a physical location that exists in objective state, representing no deeper human meaning. Place: a meaningful location ascribed as such by an individual or group of people. Person-place bonding (human-place bonding): a measurement model, typically comprised of four dimensions (place identity, place dependence, affect, and social bonding) used to understanding the bond that forms between people and place. Setting attachment: the subjective evaluation of the physical features that provide the spatial reference for a place. Tangible dimensions: categories used to represent differing levels of visible human impact on the setting. Natural environment, implies features of the setting that are visually impacted less by human development. Whereas, built environment implies greater visible human impact. A third category, physical features, attempts to encompass both previously mention categories as a singular unit. Psychological dimensions: the categories, of cognition and affect, that inform the individual s attitudinal response to the tangible dimensions of setting attachment. Cognition is represented by knowledge, memory, and utility. And affect is an individual s reflective interpretation of their emotional state regarding an object or interaction. 7

19 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Person-Place Bonding Contemporary Coalescence The phrase person-place boding, as used throughout this thesis, encompasses a wide range of conceptualizations that seek to understand the connections that develop between individuals or groups of people to a physical space. Other phrases adopted in the literature such as place attachment, sense of place and place bonding represent their own set of criteria and paradigms laden within them. The different approaches tend to be rooted in different disciplines. Nonetheless, the models can relate to each other in different ways; some broader, some more narrowly focused. In the past, many researchers embedded the original conceptualization of place attachment within new models (Hammit et al., 2006 & 2004; Stedman, 2003); while others expanded the initial operationalization of place attachment (Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005). Nonetheless, all attempt to understand the human process of changing a spatially delineated area into a place endowed with meanings. Recently, researchers encouraged a more concerted effort to integrate person-place bonding research across disciplines (Hidalgo, 2013; Lewicka, 2011; Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Scannell and Gifford (2010) proposed a tripartite framework that researchers could utilize to more effectively situate and communicate where their research falls in relation to three dimensions: person, place, and process. Much of the recent recreation related literature dealing with person-place bonding focuses on the individual s process of cultivating place attachment (Jorgensen & Steadman, 2006; Kyle et al., 2005; Kyle et al, 2014; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Raymond et al., 2010). 8

20 Starting in the mid-2000s, researchers in the recreation field began to investigate what Scannell and Gifford describe as the dimension of place, which focuses on the object of attachment, including place characteristics [of social and physical] (2010, p. 2). Notably, Kyle and colleagues (2005) greatly expanded the field s understanding of the impact of the social component of person-place bonding; their measurement model has been replicated within a number of studies (Kyle et al., 2014; Ramkissoon et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2010). However, with the exception of a few (Jorgensen & Steadman, 2006; Sampson & Goodrich, 2009; Raymond et al., 2010; Stedman, 2003), researchers payed little attention to investigating Scannell and Gifford s other aspect of the place dimension: physical characteristics. The physical characteristics can include both the natural and the built features of a place. As a follow up to Scannell and Gifford s 2010 article, Hidalgo (2013) provided a series of items to measure person-place bonding for both the place and process dimensions of the tripartite framework. Some of Hidalgo s items were novel, but most were adapted from various fields where research on the topic is common (geography, sociology, psychology, leisure, anthropology, etc.). Compelling within her suggested items was the integration of evaluating the physical features of a place as a contribution to person-place bonding. Continuing to investigate the multifaceted nature of person-place bonding is essential to understanding people s attitudes toward and behaviors in various recreation settings. To accomplish this holistic understanding, it is important to recognize and trace the conceptual progression of person-place bonding within the field of outdoor recreation. Place Attachment and Outdoor Recreation In 1989, Williams and Roggenbuck presented preliminary survey results at the National Recreation and Parks Association Symposium, introducing person-place bonding to the field of 9

21 outdoor recreation. The survey utilized a two-dimensional construct of place attachment: place identity, derived from Proshansky s (1978) work, and place dependence, derived from Stokols and Shumaker s (1981) work (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck & Watson, 1992). In 2003, Williams and Vaske confirmed the two-dimensional operationalization of place attachment as a valid and generalizable psychometric approach for measuring place attachment. Since then, place identity and place dependence, discussed in more detail below, have remained important to understanding individuals attitudes and behaviors within outdoor recreation settings. Furthermore, they continue to be essential within recreation research investigating person-place bonding. Place Identity. In 1978, Proshansky who often published in both social psychology and environmental psychology fields proposed a new concept referred to as place identity. Place-identity suggests that setting and interpersonal interactions inextricably weave together through the process of self-verification, reinforcing an individual s identity, therein moving beyond the aforementioned conundrum. Proshansky s place-identity is an extension of Stryker s (1968) identity theory, which itself evolved from the symbolic interactionism paradigm (Mead, 1934). Identity theory postulates that the construction of personal identities results from an individual s interactions with other people or groups of people. Hogg and colleagues (1995) explain identity theory as a perspective that views the self as a multifaceted social construct that emerges from people s roles in society; variation in self-concepts is due to different roles that people occupy (p 256). Furthermore, an individual will experience a negative affective response to a perceived discrepancy between the implications of their behavior and their identity (Burke, 1991; Hogg et al., 1995). Proshansky s place-identity extends the classic symbolic interactionism perspective of 10

22 social interaction, and its role within identity theory, to also include interaction with place or setting. Proshansky did this because of individual and group tendencies to integrate a place into their construction and verification of self. Furthermore, Stedman (2002) explains that inherent in place-identity are the meanings individuals ascribe to a place. Consistent with symbolic interactionism, the ascribed meanings are a projection of individuals beliefs onto a place that reinforce their perception of themselves as they perceive other people view them. As mentioned before, a discontinuity between identity (symbolic place-meaning) and action would then result in an individual s dissatisfaction with the action (Burke, 1991). It is important to note that multiple meanings can be ascribed to a place, not just because a place can host multiple people, but because an individual has multiple identities. Certain identities or roles can be activated depending on the situation (Hogg et al., 1995). Therefore, an individual s behavior will likely be dependent on the type of place-meaning that is salient. Place identity is one of the most interesting and dynamic concepts with the personplace bonding models. Place Dependence. In 1981, Stokols and Shumaker proposed the concept of place dependence as a type of person-place bonding. Williams and colleagues (1992) defined place dependence as the potential of a particular place to satisfy the needs and goals of an individual (p 31). Place dependence provides a more utilitarian conceptualization of person-place bonding that allows the individual to compare a location to all other appropriate alternatives based on site attributes. If individuals have extremely high place dependence then they prefer or require that location to achieve the goals they pursue. Place dependence is often referred to as the functional dimension of person-place bonding, and can be considered a measure of the substitutability of a location. 11

23 Thinking of place dependence as a goal or motivation oriented dimension of person-place bonding begins to frame place dependence as a conative dimension of person-place bonding. Kyle, Jun, and Absher (2014) published an article restricting place identity as a cognitive predictor of the affective dimensions of emotional attachment and social bonding (to be discussed in more detail in the following sections) and conative dimension represented by place dependence. However, the operationalization of place dependence does not accurately reflect the definition of the conative dimension of the mind. The classic operationalization of place dependence more accurately resembles perceived quality, preference, or substitutability rather than intrinsic motivation, behavioral intent, self-efficacy, or self-regulation that more appropriately correspond with the conative dimension of the mind (Huitt & Cain, 2005). Reconsidering place dependence as an individual s determination or perceived self-ability could improve the measure s predictive strength in relation to behavior or satisfaction. As it stands, it could be argued that some of the typical items of place dependence represent alternative measures of place satisfaction. Nonetheless, the empirical findings support the utility of the twodimensional conceptualization of place attachment. And it maintained dominance in recreation research investigating the person-place bond until the early 2000s (Hammit et al., 2009). Expanding Place Attachment Beginning in the early 2000s, researchers in the recreation field began to tease out and incorporate additional dimensions within person-place bonding. As mentioned before, place identity and place dependence continued to be included in the operationalization of person-place bonding. This was an exploratory era investigating associations and reliabilities of concepts embedded in and connected to place attachment and sense of place. Rootedness (Tuan, 1980) an early concept from person-place bonding literature became operationalized in the recreation 12

24 field (Hammit et al., 2004 & 2006). At that time, researchers also operationalized and empirically supported both place familiarity (Stedman, 2003; Hammit et al., 2004 & 2006) and place belongingness (Hammit et al., 2004 & 2006). Place Bonding. In 2004, Hammitt and colleagues introduced, to the field of outdoor recreation, a new five-dimensional approach for understanding person-place bonding. Their approach included place attachment s dimensions of place dependence and place identity as well as introduced three new dimensions: belongingness, familiarity and rootedness. They referred to their new model as place bonding. Proshansky and colleagues discussed belongingness and rootedness, and (arguably) familiarity in their 1983 article that theoretically defined place-identity. Within that article Proshanksy and colleagues attribute belongingness and rootedness to the humanistic geographers, Taun (1980), Relph (1976), and Buttimer (1980). Proshanky then outlined how belongingness, familiarity and rootedness inform place identity. Familiarity. Hammitt and colleagues (2006) derived their familiarity dimension from a chapter within the book Nature and the Human Spirit. In Roberts (1996) chapter, titled Place and the Spirit in Public Land Management, he connects human experience and memory development to the affective connection people establish to place. Hammitt and colleagues (2006) emphasize the importance of an individual s memory and affective development towards a place, but also include a place-knowledge component within place familiarity. Place-knowledge is a more tangible idea, represented by the individual knowing the spatial details of the place (Hammitt et al., 2006). 13

25 Belongingness. Place belongingness is a construct developed to represent the positive social bonds that are established between the individual and other users, which then are projected onto, integrated into, and embodied by a place (Hammitt et al., 2006). Hammitt and colleagues (2006), citing Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff s 1983 article, also describe belongingness as having a potential for a spiritual connection toward social and communal environments shared by individuals (p. 21). However, from a thorough read of the 1983 article, spiritual connection is not discussed and is certainly not a central element within the article. Furthermore, Hammitt and colleagues frequently used the phrase hold membership with an environment (2006, p. 61) to describe belongingness as not only ambiguous in a colloquial sense, but muddled from an academic perspective. From a sociological or social psychology perspective, membership references an individual s incorporation within a social group. Being a member of a group and using other groups as references contributes to the construction of an individual s identity. Following this logic belongingness should not be a dimension separate from place-identity, but rather should be embedded within the place-identity dimension of person-place bonding. Korpela (1989) draws the same conclusion, which is ironic because he authored the flagship article regarding belongingness in the person-place bonding literature. Rootedness. Place rootedness is characterized as the strongest relationship an individual can share with a place or setting (Hammitt et al., 2006). In its most restrictive interpretation, rootedness can be described as a connection to a place that can only be forged after multiple generations have lived and experienced that place. However, Hammitt and colleagues also reference Hummon s (1992) less demanding conceptualization of everyday rootedness as an effective 14

26 alternative. Nonetheless, everyday rootedness remains stringent and entails experiences where people simply become settled, possessive, and habituated in certain places to the degree that they have little to no desire for another place (Hammitt et al., 2006, p 24). Based upon identity theory, rootedness represents the most stringent parameter of place identity. Interestingly, adding another level of complexity, Hummon s definition also insinuates that rootedness could transcend the individual sphere to represent a community s place identity evolving from generations of affiliation and tradition inevitably established through lifetimes of lived-experiences in a place. Social Bonding. As an alternative to the place bonding model suggested by Hammit and colleagues (2004 & 2006), Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2005) considered a three-dimensional construct of place attachment. The authors used the traditional place identity and place dependence as well as introduced social bonding to the quantitative research. Although their findings on Appalachian Trail users supported the validity and reliability of this three-dimensional construct, they remained concerned about the strength of certain indicators (Kyle et al., 2005). Kyle and colleagues (2005) stated that social bonding demonstrated low factor loadings and t-values, low internal consistency (p. 170), but they encourage future researchers to include this dimension as well as other dimensions that might more accurately reflect context. A number of studies incorporated social bonding as a dimension of person-place bonding. Around the same time Kyle, Mowen, and Tarrant (2004) published a study that investigated the relationship between place motivation and place attachment with Cleveland Metroparks. The authors operationalized place attachment as a four-dimensional construct, including place identity, place dependence, social bonding, and affect (discussed in the next section). 15

27 Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a four dimensional measurement of place attachment produced suitable fit indices (χ 2 = , d.f. = 384, RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.93, CN = ) and sufficient internal consistencies (all, α >.60). They found the motivations of activity (β =.31), social (β =.31), and nature (β =.11), to account for 35-48% of the variance within the social bonding dimension, for visitors with less than 10 years, between years, and greater than 20 years of experience with Cleveland Metroparks. More recently, Raymond, Brown and Weber (2010) demonstrated through exploratory factor analysis that social bonding could be split between family and friend bonding (all factor loadings >.60; all α.65) for two of their three natural resource management regions located within Southern Australia. Further strengthening social bonding as a dimension of person-place bonding, Ramkissoon, Smith, and Weiler (2013) found through confirmatory factor analysis social bonding (α =.78) to be a first order sub-dimension of the overall measurement model of place attachment (χ 2 = 178, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.96, PGFI = 0.61, PNFI 0.71). And finally, also using confirmatory factor analysis, Kyle, Jun, and Absher (2013) demonstrated, for two different National Forests in the United States, that social bonding holds as a dimension (α = 0.88 & 0.88) of person-place bonding (χ 2 = & , d.f. = 36 & 36, RMSEA = & 0.069, NNFI = &.984, CFI = & 0.990). All together these studies demonstrate social bonding as a consistent and reliable sub-dimension of person-place bonding. Affect. Since the earliest conceptualizations of place, an affective or emotional element has been an integral part of understanding the person-place bond. Until the mid-2000s outdoor recreation research predominantly operationalized affect as part of the place identity dimension (Williams 16

28 & Vaske, 2003; Kyle, Absher, & Graefe, 2003; Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1992). As mentioned earlier, Proshansky s original conceptualization of place identity manifested from identity theory, which suggests a reciprocal relationship between cognition and emotional response. Therefore, it is not surprising that the operationalization of place identity and affect began as a singular dimension. However, contemporary research demonstrates that affect stands alone as a dimension of person-place bonding (Kyle et al., 2014; Ramkisson et al., 2013; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006; Kyle et al., 2004). Jorgensen and Stedman (2006) demonstrated that affect and its dimensional counterparts can relate differently to other variables. Their study investigated lake house landowners perceptions and behaviors regarding their own property as well as other land surrounding the lake. The data revealed different relationships between mediating variables and the three subdimensions of person-place bonding, as dependent variables. They concluded that place identity was more of a function of the owners perception of lake importance than either affective response or place dependence. Furthermore, personal property development was influenced by affect and place dependence, but not place identity. It should also be noted that the four affect items in the questionnaire resulted in the highest reliability score (α = 0.87) compared to the other two person-place bonding measures (identity, α = 0.76; dependence, α > 0.78). Ultimately, Jorgensen and Stedman suggest that a multidimensional approach to operationalizing personplace bonding is necessary to effectively inform behavior change strategies. As discussed within the social bonding section, Kyle, Mowen, and Tarrant (2004) used confirmatory factor analysis to identify four sub-dimensions of person-place bonding. This article was the first to identify affect as a separate sub-dimension from place identity. Since then, many studies have used this same measurement structure (Jorgensen & Steadman, 2006; Kyle et 17

29 al., 2014; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Ramkissoon, Smith, and Weiler (2013) found through confirmatory factor analysis that the four-dimensional approach to measuring person-place bonding provides an appropriate model fit. More recently, Kyle, Jun, and Absher (2014) restructured the typical measurement model by pulling place identity out as a structural antecedent to the other three dimensions (place dependence, affect, and social bonding). Initially, using confirmatory factor analysis, they investigated the four-dimensional measurement model for person-place bonding and found the results indicated a satisfactory model fit. They then compared the initial model fit index s results to the restructured model fit index s results. The analysis indicated that place identity as an antecedent provides a better model fit as compared to place identity as one of four uniplanar dimensions. Affect is at the heart of person-place bonding. Understanding its role, as a dimension of person-place bonding and specifically its influence on human behavior, helps illuminate the complex relationship people have with places they consider important. Setting Attachment - A new consideration The research in the field of outdoor recreation regarding person-place bonding intrinsically includes the individual s evaluation of the physical features of a place. However, conventional operationalization of person-place bonding lacks a direct cognitive or affective evaluation of the physical features, whether man-made or natural, inherent within the spatial parameters of a place. Place familiarity could be considered the exception, but it does not identify itself as such. As mentioned earlier, place familiarity reflects what might be more appropriately referred to as place knowledge. Place knowledge can be understood as individuals perception of their own knowledge regarding the spatial details of the place (Hammitt et al., 2006). Place knowledge represents a more tangible idea than place familiarity, while similarly 18

30 rooted in the cognitions that help cultivate the human bond to a place. The cognitive process of knowing the spatial details of a space still neglects an individual s affective attachment to those spatial details. Over the years, a few studies tried to integrate the physical features of a location into the investigation of place (Milligan, 1998; Stedman, 2003; Sampson and Goodrich, 2009; Raymond et al., 2010). Milligan (1998) published a qualitative case study that suggested how changes to a built environment impact individuals bond to a place. In 1995 Milligan began to study a coffee house that was about to go through a site relocation. Over a two-year period, she completed a series of brief questionnaires, in-depth interviews as well as participant observation. Milligan s ethnographic approach used a symbolic interactional past and potential framework to position employees conceptualization and attachment to place. The interviews and observations revealed that the changes impacted three physical components of the new location layout of the site, atmosphere, and position and in turn affected the meanings and attachment to the new location for employees. Milligan s study demonstrates that the built environment can influence an individual s perceptions and degree of attachment to a place. In 2003, Stedman published an article that investigated the relationship between biophysical and built characteristics on place attachment and satisfaction using a meaning mediated model. Stedman s quantitative study integrated biophysical, geospatial, social survey responses from 1,000 property owners in a lake-rich region of Northern Wisconsin. His analysis indicated that the physical characteristics of the respondents nearby lake influenced their place attachment and satisfaction differently depending on the meaning they associated with place. Using structural equation modeling, Stedman s data did not sufficiently fit a model where shoreline development directly influences place attachment and satisfaction. However, including 19

31 the meanings associated with the place ( place of escape versus social place ) as mediating variables strengthened the model fit to appropriate levels (χ 2 = 4.50 d.f. = 2, RMSEA = 0.040). His results showed that place of escape fully mediated shoreline development s influence on place attachment and satisfaction. As shoreline development increased it negatively impacted the amount respondents perceived their lake as a place of escape (β=-.24), which positively impacted their degree of place attachment and satisfaction (β=.32, β=.45). However, considering the respondent s association with the lake as a social place, a different relationship emerged. As shoreline development increased it positively impacted the amount respondents perceived their lake as a social place (β=.18), which positively influenced the place attachment (β=.32) but did not influence their place satisfaction. Finally, shoreline development had a small, negative and direct effect on place satisfaction (β= -.10). Stedman s article represents the earliest attempt to integrate the impact of a setting s physical features into a study of place attachment in the field of leisure. Sampson and Goodrich (2009) conducted a set of unstructured interviews within Westland, New Zealand, that demonstrated the impact of community and environmental setting on perceptions and affective bond between individuals and place. Sampson and Goodrich found, through grounded theory and iterative content analysis, that the natural environment (extreme rain and isolation due to geologic features) influenced individuals positive evaluation and attachment to their areas of residence. Raymond, Brown, and Weber s 2010 (discussed earlier regarding social bonding) publication provides similar results concerning the natural environment s role in person-place bonding. Using principal component analysis, Raymond and colleagues (2010) investigated both the cognitive as well as affective components of physical features, as a dimension of place 20

32 attachment. Their study was conducted via mail back surveys delivered to residents in three different natural resource management areas in Southern Australia. The dimension, referred to as nature bonding, is derived from the nature affiliation and connectedness literature (Kals, Schumacher & Motnada., 1999; Schultz, 2001) as well a study completed by one of the authors (Raymond, 2009). Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis indicated, for all three natural resource management areas sampled, nature bonding emerged as a valid and reliable dimension of place attachment. Furthermore, by then comparing the AIC (a goodness-of-fit measure) and the Expected Cross-Validation Index derived from confirmatory factor analysis, Raymond and colleagues found that, for two of the three management areas, their expanded approach (identity, dependence, nature bonding, family and friend bonding) provided a better fit for the data than the traditional two-dimensional approach (identity and dependence). These results indicate nature bonding should be considered as a component of person-place bonding within a natural-resource-based context. However, they ignore the impact that the built, or manmade, environment might have on attachment to place. 21

33 Chapter 3 METHODS Study Site Established in 1976, Shaver s Creek Environmental Center is The Pennsylvania State University s nature center. SCEC is located in the middle of Penn State s 6,775-acre Stone Valley Forest. The Stone Valley forest is approximately twenty miles from Penn State s University Park Campus and, besides the SCEC complex, includes the Stone Valley Recreation Area and Civil Engineering Lodge. All three facilities are situated around Lake Perez (43 acres) and linked through an extensive trail system. As Penn State s nature center, SCEC has acted as a liaison between the nature and people. Its mission statement is as follows: Shaver s Creek Environmental Center is committed to extending the University s Outreach mission of instruction, service and research. Through quality programs, we teach, model, and provide the knowledge, values, skills, experiences, and dedication that enable individuals and communities to achieve and maintain harmony between human activities and the natural systems that support all living species. (e.g. Shaver s Creek Mission, n.d., para. 1) In line with its mission statement, SCEC provides the Penn State community and public with an array of nature based recreation, teambuilding, interpretation, and education experiences with the explicit goal of achieving harmony between humans and natural systems. SCEC provides a diverse range of outdoor recreation opportunities, such as, geocaching, hunting (follow certain restrictions), fishing, cross-country skiing, 22

34 snowshoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, walking/hiking. Its trail system connects to the greater Stone Valley Forest trail system. It also links to Pennsylvania s Mid-State Trail, a long trail that bisects Pennsylvania through the center of the state from its southern to northern borders. The trails at SCEC include an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible boardwalk trail. Shaver s Creek Environmental Center also offers a variety of regularly scheduled, nature based interpretive/education programs and festivals for the casual or habitual visitor. Staff lead seasonal migration bird walks encourage participation for both novice and expert birders. The opportunity provides not only a pleasant recreation experience, but also contributes to fifty years of phenological observations and records. SCEC also hosts regular Bird of Prey shows on weekends from April until November. The shows are an interpretive and educational experience involving various species of live raptors such as Great Horned Owls, Red-tailed Hawks, and Bald Eagles. The main building at SCEC contains continuously changing interpretive and educational displays about Pennsylvania wildlife, ecology, history or culture. The main building also houses local reptiles and amphibians on display. SCEC also attends festivals, state-wide, throughout the year, often traveling with the birds of prey and reptiles providing education programs about Pennsylvania s wildlife and ecosystems. One of SCEC s most intensive outreach opportunities is conducted through the Outdoor School Program (ODS). ODS provides a nature-based, field learning experience for fifth grade students. The elementary schools involved are typically from low-income school districts found within the region. ODS is predominantly staffed by Penn State undergraduate students. SCEC also hosts fieldtrips to the center as well as provides in-classroom school visits. During the 23

35 summer, a series of summer camp opportunities are available for kindergarten to middle school age groups. SCEC also offers several courses for Penn State undergraduate students. The courses provide hands-on learning experiences in education and interpretation. Festivals, such as The Children s Halloween Trail and The Maple Harvest Festival, at SCEC are the culmination of the course work from these undergraduate courses. Many of these same students staff the ODS program during the fall and spring semesters. A variety of volunteer and internship opportunities are offered at SCEC. Volunteers experiences range from simple afternoon-long service projects to weekly, life-long volunteers. Common volunteer opportunities include animal care, trail maintenance, interpretation programs, environmental education, miscellaneous special event/festival logistics, and leaders-in-training. Recently, SCEC began Earth Day Work Day as a new community-focused volunteer initiative to reach and impact a broader audience. Sample Description The sampling design is purposive and convenient. Given the research focus is on personplace bonding, the target population is individuals who have visited SCEC in the past or are in some way directly connected to SCEC. To reach this population, a sample was derived from three different listservs housed on the SCEC s electronic systems. The listservs are comprised of different types of people with varying levels of affiliation with SCEC, who voluntarily gave their address to SCEC. The historic group listserv consists of approximately 1,500 addresses collected prior to a system switch that occurred in the early 2000s. Due to its age, the active status of the 24

36 s is unknown. The second listserv is referred to as letter from the bird box or bird box, and is comprised of approximately 3,000 addresses ranging from past students to casual users who voluntarily put their on a sign-in sheet while visiting the center. The third listserv is the most contacted group. It is comprised of the member list and parents of summer camp attendees. This group includes approximately 2,000 individuals and receives a handful of messages from SCEC each year. All three listservs were utilized, aggregating to a total of 7,455 addresses. Of the total 7,455 s 700 s were randomly removed from the list and an additional 80 s were removed because of duplication or the targeted an institution rather than an individual. 500 of the 700 s were dedicated to a pilot test of the survey instrument, and the remaining 200 s were allocated to a separate undergraduate research project. So a total of 6,675 addresses were included within the data collection effort. Instrumentation The survey instrument was delivered through Qualtrics (n.a., 2015), an online survey service contracted through The Pennsylvania State University. The instrument reflects a mixed methods approach, incorporating open-ended responses, a geospatial component, and quantitative questions. Items commonly considered in conjunction with person-place bonding research as well as questions deemed practical for SCEC were included in the instrument: experience use history, site specific behaviors and behavioral intentions (visitation, membership, and volunteering), perceptions of SCEC, information awareness and seeking-behavior, and sociodemographic characteristics. The survey was designed to accommodate descriptive statistics, multiple linear regression, and structural equation modeling. The structural equation modeling can accommodate both measurement models as well as path models. Therefore, each latent variable includes minimally three observed variables. Within each battery, the items were 25

37 placed in a random order for each respondent. Although the survey was completed online, a full paper-version of the instrument can be seen in Appendix A. Regarding the analysis and content presented in this thesis, thirteen items were developed to measure setting attachment. These newly developed items were designed to capture both the tangible and psychological dimensions of attachment to a setting. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement for each item on a seven-point scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 (pages 26-7) each present the same thirteen items reorganized to reflect the tangible and psychological dimensions of setting attachment. Each table provides the original phrasing for the items in the survey, as well as its code used for data analysis. Two broad categories captured the tangible dimensions of the setting at SCEC: the natural environment and the built environment (Milligan, 1998; Stedman, 2003; Sampson & Goodrich, 2009; Raymond et al., 2010). A third category was included as well: physical features. The physical features category used diction that encompassed both the natural and built environments. Table 3-1 presents the segmentation of the items based on the tangible categories of the natural environment, built environment, or physical features. Within each of the three tangible categories, the items also reflected two psychological dimensions of attachment: cognition and affect (Hidalgo, 2013; Hammitt et al., 2009). Table 3-2 segments the items by their psychological dimensions of setting attachment, cognitive and affective. Given the multiple and overlapping nature of the setting attachment dimensions, there are several possible measurement models that can be evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. There are many ways to structure a measurement model. The four structures investigated in the results section are common approaches for measuring latent variables. The most basic is a unidimensional model, which organizes the observed variables as reflections of single latent 26

38 variable or factor (Kline, 2016). The three other models are utilized when the researcher believes that multiple factors exist within a set of observed variables. A common approach in this situation is a hierarchical model. Hierarchical models structure the observed variables as reflections of multiple uniplanar latent variables, which are themselves reflections of a higher order latent variable (Kline, 2016). An alternative approach, orthogonal models, capture a similar idea as hierarchical models, but apply fewer restrictions on the model. Rather than forcing a higher order latent variable, the covariance between the uniplanar latent variables acts as a binding relationship representing a theoretical construct. As the name suggests an orthogonal measurement model allows the uniplanar latent variables to relate to each other differently, creating more flexibility within the model (Nielsen-Pincus, Hall, Force & Wulfhorst, 2010). Another model allowing more flexibility than a hierarchical model is a bifactor model. From a mathematical perspective, hierarchical models are more closely related to bifactor models than orthogonal models. In a hierarchical model, the higher order latent variable is represented by all of the observed variables as well as the lower order latent variables; whereas in bifactor models, the lower order latent variables are not included in the representation of the higher order variable (Chen, West, & Sousa, 2016). These lower order latent variables account for variation in the observed variables above and beyond that captured in the higher order variable (Chen et al.). Appendix C (Figures 3-1 through 3-7) provides a visual reference for structure of the seven hypothesized measurement models relating the dimensions of setting attachment, as it is operationalized in this survey instrument. Piolet Study An initial pilot study with a sample size of 50 (10% response rate) was initially conducted to identify any items that may cause issues for the data collection process. The

39 address were random selected and removed from the master list compiled of the three different SCEC listervs. The 500 s were not contacted again for the full study, no were the piolet study responses included in the final analysis. Regarding alterations made based on the piolet study, four items that comprised the setting attachment battery were changed. Two negatively worded items were reworded from the analysis because their errors did not covary with the other items. For the same reason, an item written with absolute language was changed to reflect a less extreme affective appraisal of the built environment. And finally, Hammitt and colleagues (2004) item I could draw a rough map of X replaced a physical feature s cognitive item, to see if this readily used item in the field of outdoor recreation fit with the new construct of setting attachment. Additional changes were made to the structure of the survey as well as the elimination of some questions in order to shorten the survey. 28

40 Table 3-1 Codes for setting attachment items, segmented by tangible dimension Please Indicate how you feel about the physical features at SCEC by responding to the following statements Dimension Code Item Natural environment NEA1 The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion NEA2 I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC* NEA3 The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful NEA4 The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose NEA5 I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC Built environment BEA1 I feel an emotional attachment to the buildings at SCEC BEA2 The man-made features of SCEC are very attractive looking BEA3 The built environment at SCEC serves an important purpose BEA4 I have a lot of memories tied to the buildings at SCEC Physical features PFA1 I have strong feelings attached to the physical features of SCEC PFA2 I cannot imagine a more beautiful area than SCEC PFA3 The buildings and natural environment of SCEC serve an important purpose PFA4 I could draw a rough map of SCEC Responses were recorded on a 1-7 scale (Strongly disagree Strongly agree) *Item NEA2 was reverse coded in analysis 29

41 Table 3-2 Codes for setting attachment items, segmented by psychological dimension Please Indicate how you feel about the physical features at SCEC by responding to the following statements Dimension Code Item Affective NEA1 The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion NEA2 I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC* NEA3 The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful BEA1 I feel an emotional attachment to the buildings at SCEC BEA2 The man-made features of SCEC are very attractive looking PFA1 I have strong feelings attached to the physical features of SCEC PFA2 I cannot imagine a more beautiful area than SCEC Cognitive NEA4 The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose NEA5 I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC BEA3 The built environment at SCEC serves an important purpose BEA4 I have a lot of memories tied to the buildings at SCEC PFA3 The buildings and natural environment of SCEC serve an important purpose PFA4 I could draw a rough map of SCEC Responses were recorded on a 1-7 scale (Strongly disagree Strongly agree) *Item NEA2 was reverse coded in analysis 30

42 Satisfaction with SCEC was measured with an eight-item battery. The eight items are meant to reflect the expectations associated with SCEC that would influence a respondent s overall satisfaction with his or her experience at SCEC. Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the items. Table 3-3 provides the original phrasing for each item. Responses were recorded on a one-to-seven scale ranging from Not at all satisfied to Extremely satisfied. Three site specific questions related to behavior are used in this analysis. The questions are a simple dichotomous (yes/no) structure. The three questions ask if (1) the respondent is a current member of SCEC, and ask about past experiences (2) volunteering at or (3) donating financially to SCEC. These three questions each have a set of follow-up questions in the survey instrument, but they were not considered in this analysis. Person-place bonding was measured using a twelve-item battery refined by Kyle, Jun, and Absher (2014). The battery reflects the four-dimensional construct of person-place bonding: place identity, place dependence, social bonding, and affect. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement for each item on a seven-point scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Table 3-4 segments the items by their dimension, and provides both the original phrasing for each item in the survey as well as its code used for data analysis. Figure 3-8, found in Appendix C, provides a visual representation of the structure of the hypothesized person-place bonding measurement model typically used in the outdoor recreation literature. 31

43 Table 3-3 Operationalization of satisfaction and site-specific items. Category Scale Prompt Items/ Satisfaction Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of SCEC 1-7 scale Facilities/Buildings 1-7 scale Natural environment 1-7 scale Recreation experiences 1-7 scale Learning/Interpretation 1-7 scale Sense of community 1-7 scale Opportunities to connect with nature 1-7 scale Opportunities to improve one s health/wellbeing 1-7 scale Opportunities to explore personal interests, independently and self-directed Site-specific behaviors Yes or No Are you currently a member of SCEC? Yes or No Have you volunteered at SCEC in the past? Yes or No Have you donated to SCEC in the past? Labels for the 1-7 scale: 1- Not at all satisfied, 2, 3, 4- Satisfied, 5, 6, 7- Extremely satisfied Table 3-4 Operationalization and codes for the four-dimensional person-place bonding measure, segmented by dimension Prompt: Please indicate how you feel about the SCEC by responding to the following statements below Dimension Code Item Place identity PID1 I feel SCEC is a part of me PID2 I feel that my identity is reflected in SCEC PID3 Visiting SCEC says a lot about who I am Place dependence PD1 I can t imagine a better place than SCEC for what I like to do PD2 I feel a lot of other nature centers could substitute for SCEC PD3 SCEC is the best place for the recreation activities that I enjoy Affective AA1 I really enjoy SCEC AA2 I m happiest when I am at SCEC AA3 I have a strong emotional bond to SCEC Social Bonding SB1 I associated special people in my life with SCEC SB2 I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends at SCEC SB3 SCEC is a place where I can connect with my friends SB4 The time spent at SCEC allows me to bond with my family Labels for the 1-7 scale: 1- Strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Somewhat disagree, 4- Neither disagree or agree, 5- Somewhat agree, 6- Agree, 7- Strongly agree 32

44 Sampling and Response Adapting the recommendations for online survey distribution explained in Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, Smyth, Jolene, & Melani, 2014) the list was contacted a total of four times over four weeks. The survey was activated on January 30 th and ran through February 24 th. The first contact was an introductory (Appendix B), including a link to the survey, sent on January 30 th. The second was sent as a reminder, with a link to the survey, and delivered four days later to those who had yet to complete the survey. The third was sent on the 16 th day, and the final reminder delivered on the 26 th day. Once again, each rendition of the was only delivered to those who had not yet completed the survey, and a link to the survey was embedded in each reminder. The survey was closed on the 30 th day. Out of the original 6,675 addresses contacted, a total of 325 addresses were returned as undeliverable. As such, the maximum number of possible addresses contacted was 6,350. It can be assumed, because of personal correspondence with respondents, that the address list did include multiple addresses for a single individual. Therefore, the following response rates are considered conservative. Overall, 992 people began the survey, and a total of 580, answered the survey to its terminus. The response rate is considered to be 14.9% with a completion rate of 58.5%. Data Preparation Data were downloaded from the Qualtrics server into SPSS software (Qualtrics, 2015), where the data preparing and cleaning process was conducted. Items were provided codes, and missing data were screened and organized as such. The analysis presented in this thesis focuses on a set of items intended to reflect the respondent s attachment to the setting at SCEC. 33

45 Therefore, those items received special attention, deleting outliers beyond three standard deviations of the mean; only a total of eight responses met this criterion. After this process, the responses to these items along with the responses to the place attachment items were transferred into Microsoft Excel and saved as a comma delineated file (.csv), which is compatible with the Mplus software (Muthen & Muthen, 1999) used for the confirmatory factor analyses performed. 34

46 Chapter 4 RESULTS Introduction The contents of chapter four explain the data analysis and results of the online survey that was distributed to the set of SCEC listservs. Chapter four consists of seven separate sections, the last five of which target the research questions provided in the introduction. The first two sections highlight the sample s demographic and site-specific characteristics, providing a better understanding of the respondents. The third section presents a description of the responses to the battery of items reflecting the construct of setting attachment. The fourth section then breaks down the dimensions embedded within setting attachment and investigates their viability as latent constructs and compares the differences between these dimensions. The fifth section presents the structural relationships between the dimensions of setting attachment through a series of confirmatory factor analyses, demonstrating the evolution of the hypothesized models (Appendix C, Figures 3-1 through 3-7) to the final model (Figure 4-14, page 62). The sixth section then segments the respondents by their level of attachment to the setting at SCEC based on the final model in the fifth section and presents a comparison of those groups to a selection of variables including demographic characteristics, satisfaction with SCEC, and site-specific behaviors. The last section provides the results of a confirmatory factor analysis that introduces setting attachment as a fifth dimension to the traditional four-factor model of person-place bonding. 35

47 Sample Characteristics Demographic Information. The following demographic information discussed in this section can be seen in more detail in Table 4-1. Overall within the sample the average age, in years, of the respondents was 47.3, with a standard deviation of Forty-five percent of the sample fell between the ages of 36 and 55. Interestingly, the categories of below the age of 26 and above the age of 65 each represented approximately 15% of the sample. The majority of the respondents were women, representing 69% of the sample. The racial distribution of the sample was fairly homogenous, with 99.1% of the respondents identifying as Non-Hispanic and 90.2% identifying as white. For the majority of the sample (51.7%), household size was comprised of either three or four people. Furthermore, an additional 24.4% of respondents had a household size of only two individuals. Regarding education attainment, respondents were asked, What is the highest level of education you completed? [please check one] ; this question was categorically broken up, as indicated in Table 4-1. Forty-eight percent of the sample completed at least a Bachelor s degree, and an additional 20.5% of the sample completed some college or received a degree from a trade or business school. Respondents were also asked about their current employment status in detail, with the option to select multiple categories. Interestingly, 6.4% did select multiple categories. Employed (full-time) was the largest portion of the sample (46.7%), followed by employed (parttime) with only 15.8%. Retired respondents made up 15.0% of the sample, and those identifying as students accounted for 13.4% of the sample. Responses to a question about household income (before taxes) indicated that the only 20.1% of the sample made below $50,000 and 42.5% made above $100,000, for the year of

48 Table 4-1 Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percent Age < > Gender Male Female Other Race/Ethnic Background Hispanic Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black /African American Chicano/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White Other Multiple options selected Household Size >

49 Table 4-1 Demographic Characteristics Continued Frequency Percent Level of Education Some high school High school graduate/ged Business/trade school/some college College degree/bachelor s Some graduate school Masters/doctoral/professional degree Employment Status Employed, full-time Employed, part-time Under-employed, looking Under-employed, not looking Student, full-time Student, part-time Unemployed, looking Unemployed, not looking Retired Multiple options selected Household Income < $15, $15,000 - $24, $25,000 - $34, $35,000 - $49, $50,000 - $74, $75,000 - $99, $100,000 - $150, > $150,

50 Site-specific Information. The following section describes relevant characteristics of the sample related specifically to SCEC; this information can be seen in more detail in Table 4-2. The respondents were asked if they were directly affiliated with The Pennsylvania State University, since as mentioned earlier SCEC is an outreach facility of the university. Within the sample, 67.8% indicated that they were affiliated with the university, and out of those respondents, 44.6% are currently an employee or retired from the university. An additional 29.9% are alumni, and 23.7% are currently students. Another set of questions asked about the respondent s current/previous employment with, volunteer work for, membership with, and donations to SCEC. Overall, only 10.6% of respondents currently or previously worked for SCEC. Nineteen percent of the sample volunteered at SCEC in the past. Thirty-eight percent of the sample are currently members of SCEC, of which the majority (82.5%) fall under the membership category of Cast of Falcons (membership cost, $35.00/year). An additional 119 respondents were members of SCEC in the past, but are not currently members. Lastly, 53.1% of respondents donated to SCEC in the past. The median donation amount was dollars. These results indicated a fairly engaged sample of respondents, in regard to their association with SCEC. 39

51 Table 4-2 Site-specific Information Frequency Percent Pennsylvania State University affiliated Yes No Type of affiliation Student Employee (or retired) Alumni Other Work(ed) at SCEC Yes No Volunteer(ed) at SCEC Yes No Type of volunteer work (N=129) Animal care Grounds maintenance Trail maintenance Facility maintenance Outdoor school School groups Camp Special Events Multiple options selected Current member of SCEC Yes No Level of membership Venue of vultures Cast of falcons Kettle of hawks Parliament of owls Aerie of eagles Past member (not current) of SCEC Yes No Donated to SCEC Yes No Median donation amount $

52 Attachment to the setting This section directly addresses the first research question, and provides a description of the responses to the battery of items reflecting the construct of setting attachment. As reference, on pages 29-30, both Table 3-1 and 3-2 provide the setting attachment items codes and the corresponding language used in the survey. Table 4-3, seen on the next page, provides the frequencies in responses to each item within the setting attachment battery. Overall, for each item, the majority of respondents fell between the categories of Neither agree or disagree and Agree categories. Figure 4-1 provides a visual representation of the frequency distributions, and highlights the fact that responses to items I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC (NEA2, reverse coded), The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful (NEA3), The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose (NEA4), The built environment at SCEC serves an important purpose (BEA3), and The buildings and natural environment of SCEC serve and important purpose (PFA3) tended to have higher frequencies in the Agree and Strongly agree categories than the other items in the battery. 41

53 Percentage Table 4-3 Response percentages for setting attachment items Neither agree or disagree Item N Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree NEA NEA NEA NEA NEA BEA BEA BEA BEA PFA PFA PFA PFA Strongly agree Setting Attachment Responses NEA1 NEA2 NEA3 NEA4 NEA5 BEA1 BEA2 BEA3 BEA4 PFA1 PFA2 PFA3 PFA4 Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree or disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly Agree Figure 4-1. Response percentages for the setting attachment items. 42

54 Table 4-4 provides a series of summary statistics for the setting attachment items, including the items number of responses, mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis, as well as the overall reliability (alpha) and the alpha if the item were deleted. Overall, the item means ranged from just below the Neither agree nor disagree value (4) to just below the Agree (6) value, and standard deviations fell between 1 and 2. Figure 4-2 provides a visual reference for the mean and standard deviation for each setting attachment item. Most items were skewed towards the agree end of the spectrum; nonetheless, all item values for skewness and kurtosis are around or below one, indicating only a mild departure from a normal distribution (Kline, 2016). The Cronbach s alpha value, of 0.881, indicates a high degree of internal consistency between the items (Vaske, 2008), suggesting appropriate measurement reliability for the items as an assessment of setting attachment. Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 4-5. All items are significantly correlated (below the level), except items I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC (NEA2) and I cannot imagine a more beautiful are than SCEC (PFA2), which are not significantly correlated at the 0.05 level. 43

55 Table 4-4 Summary statistics for setting attachment items Item N Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach s Alpha Alpha if deleted.881 NEA NEA NEA NEA NEA BEA BEA BEA BEA PFA PFA PFA PFA Setting Attachment Items Means and Standard Deviations NEA1 NEA2 NEA3 NEA4 NEA5 BEA1 BEA2 BEA3 BEA4 PFA1 PFA2 PFA3 PFA4 Figure 4-2. Means and standard deviations for setting attachment items (1 7 scale, strongly disagree strongly agree) 44

56 Table 4-5 Bivariate correlations between setting attachment items NEA1 NEA2 NEA3 NEA4 NEA5 BEA1 BEA2 BEA3 BEA4 PFA1 PFA2 PFA3 PFA4 NEA1 1 NEA (674) NEA (674) (672) NEA (647) (673) (672) NEA (675) (674) (673) (675) BEA (647) (673) (673) (673) (674) BEA (676) (675) (674) (676) (677) (676) BEA (671) (670) (670) (670) (671) (672) (673) BEA (674) (673) (672) (674) (675) (673) (676) (670) PFA (675) (674) (673) (675) (676) (675) (678) (672) (675) PFA2.420 (675).067* (674).348 (673).162 (675).309 (676).460 (675).325 (678).207 (672).321 (675).446 (677) PFA (675) (674) (673) (675) (676) (675) (678) (672) (675) (677) PFA (675) (674) (673) (675) (676) (675) (678) (672) (675) (677) * Correlation not significant at the 0.05 level. All other values are significant at < level (677).132 (677) (677) 1

57 Dimensionality of Setting Attachment The following section, presents the relationships within the tangible and psychological dimensions of setting attachment. The analysis address research questions two ( Is the operationalization of the tangible dimensions of setting attachment and effective measurement tool? ) and three ( Is there a significant difference between the respondent s level of attachment to the natural, built, and physical features of the setting at SCEC? ) as well as research questions four ( Is the operationalization of the psychological dimension of setting attachment an effective measure? ) and five ( Is there a significant difference in the respondents cognitive and affective appraisals of the setting at SCEC ), respective of each subsection. The research questions are answered by first analyzing the measurement reliability and factor validity of the thirteen items organized by their tangible dimensions are presented. This is followed by a comparison of the dimensions means through a set of paired samples T-tests. Then the same series of analyses are performed on the thirteen items reorganization in their psychological dimension categories. The results of this section support the argument that the operationalization of each sub-dimension of setting attachment is, independently, a viable construct. Tangible Dimensions. The first analysis, presented in Table 4-6, includes the setting attachment items that represent the respondents feelings towards the natural environment around SCEC (NEA1 NEA5). The Cronbach s alpha of indicates a strong measurement reliability. The second analysis in Table 4-6 incorporated the setting attachment items that represent the built environment at SCEC, such as the buildings or pavilions. The Cronbach s alpha of indicates a good measurement reliability. The third analysis presented in Table 4-6 includes the setting attachment items referred to as physical features, which represents phrases and words that 46

58 incorporate both the natural and built environment. The Cronbach s alpha, for the physical features category indicates a weaker measurement reliability, but is still considered sufficient (Vaske, 2008). Table 4-6 also contains the results from a reliability analyses for all thirteen items, as seen earlier in Table 4-4. It is included here for comparison purposes, and again indicates a high degree of internal consistency between all thirteen items (Vaske, 2008). As a follow up, the items representing each tangible dimension were averaged together to represent a single measure of their respective dimension. Then a series of paired-samples T-tests were run, and the results are presented in Table 4-7. The results indicate a statistical difference between the means of all three tangible dimensions of setting attachment. Given the sufficient measurement reliability and significant differences in the mean values for the tangible dimensions of setting attachment, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were run to verify the items representing each dimension as a latent variable. This confirmatory factor analysis, and all subsequent confirmatory factor analyses were conducted through the Mplus computer software (Muthen & Muthen, 2015). Furthermore, this and all subsequent confirmatory factor analyses utilized a robust maximum-likelihood estimator; this estimator was chosen because the data fit the criteria as continuous and near-normal distribution (Kline, 2016). Table 4-8 provides the global fit statistics for the initial hypothesized models, and final modified models. Based on the modified models insignificant chi-square values (Hu & Bentler, 1999), the modified models fit the data better than the original hypothesized models. The results indicate that the tangible dimensions of setting attachment manifested within the sample. Figure 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 show the results of the hypothesized models, and Figures 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8 present the final modified models. A number of modifications were made to the hypothesized models. First, within the natural environment model, the item NEA2 was deleted 47

59 from the analysis because its R-squared value was not significant at the level. This item was the only negatively worded item, not only within the natural environment items but within all thirteen items measuring setting attachment, and as such was likely contributing the poor fit of the data to the model (Kline, 2016). Additionally, the errors of The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion (NEA1) and The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose (NEA4) were allowed to correlate because they were both measuring the same latent variable and had the highest modification index score. Similarly, both final measurement models for the built environment and physical features had two items with correlated errors. The errors of the items I feel an emotional attachment to the buildings at SCEC (BEA1) and I have a lot of memories tied to the buildings at SCEC (BEA4), as well as I have strong feelings attached to the physical features of SCEC (PFA1) and I cannot imagine a more beautiful area than SCEC (PFA2), were allowed to correlate because each set was measuring their respective latent variable and allowing their errors to correlate would produce the greatest change in the global fit indices as indicated by the modification indices. 48

60 Table 4-6. Item reliabilities within setting attachment and segmented by setting attachment s tangible dimension: natural environment, built environment, and physical features. Items by Tangible Dimensions All Items Dimension Mean Cronbach s Cronbach s Item (Std. Dev) Alpha Alpha if deleted Alpha Alpha if deleted Natural NEA (1.25) NEA (1.32) NEA (0.99) NEA (0.96) NEA (1.43) Built.748 BEA (1.44) BEA (1.11) BEA (1.01) BEA (1.53) Physical Features.631 PFA (1.39) PFA (1.26) PFA (1.01) PFA (1.67) Table 4-7. One-sample test results comparing the means within setting attachment s tangible dimensions. Standard Variable Mean Deviation T-value d.f. p-value NEA < BEA NEA < PFA BEA PFA

61 Table 4-8. Results of the global fit indices for hypothesized and modified models for the tangible dimension of setting attachment. Hypothesized Models Modified Models Index Natural Environment Built Environment Physical Features Natural Environment Built Environment Physical Features Chi 2 value d.f p-value RMSEA C.I CFI SRMR Sufficient Criterion: Chi 2 p-value > 0.05; RMSEA < 0.08 (C.I. = ); CFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 50

62 Figure 4-3. Standardized results for the hypothesized natural environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure 4-4. Standardized results for the hypothesized built environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure 4-5. Standardized results for the hypothesized physical features latent variable of the setting attachment construct 51

63 Figure 4-6. Standardized results of the final model for the natural environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure 4-7. Standardized results of the final model for the built environment latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure 4-8. Standardized results of the final model for the physical features latent variable of the setting attachment construct 52

64 Psychological Dimensions. The next analysis investigated the psychological dimensions of setting attachment. As discussed earlier, the theoretical structure of attachment integrates both affective and cognitive processes of the mind. Table 4-9 provides the Cronbach s alphas for both affective (0.808) and cognitive (0.805) dimensions of setting attachment; both values suggest strong measurement reliability. Also included in Table 4-9, for comparison purposes, are the results from a reliability analyses of all thirteen items as a single measurement of setting attachment. The same results were shared earlier in Table 4-4 and 4-7; once again, for the thirteen items as a single measurement scale, their Cronbach s alpha, of 0.881, indicates a high degree of internal consistency between all thirteen items (Vaske, 2008). The items representing the cognitive and affective dimensions off setting attachment were averaged together to represent a single measure of their respective dimension. Following that, a paired-samples T-tests was executed and the results are presented in Table The results indicate a statistical difference between the means of the psychological dimensions of setting attachment. Once again, given the strong measurement reliability and statistical difference between the mean values of the psychological dimensions, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to verify the items represented each dimension as a latent variable. Table 4-11 provides the global fit statistics for the initial hypothesized models and the final modified models. As evident in the global fit statistics, based on Hu and Bentler s (1999) cut-off criteria, the modified models fit the data better than the original hypothesized models. Although the original hypothesized models were insufficient, the global fit indices for the modified models support the psychological dimensions of setting attachment manifested within the sample. 53

65 Figures 4-9 and 4-10 show the standardized results of the hypothesized models, and Figures 4-11 and 4-12 present the standardized results of the final modified models. As with the tangible models, the psychological models went through a similar series of evaluations to determine how best to modify the models to their final state. Within the affective measurement model, like the natural environment dimension discussed earlier, NEA2 ( I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC ) was deleted from the analysis because its R-squared value was not significant at the level. Then, in an iterative process, errors between The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion (NEA1) and The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful (NEA3) as well as NEA3 and BEA2 ( The manmade features of SCEC are very attractive looking ) were allowed to correlate because of similar wording between the items and the modification indices suggest the greatest improvement to the model fit. Likewise, for the cognitive model, the errors for The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose (NEA4) and I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC (NEA5) as well as NEA5 and BEA4 ( I have a lot of memories tied to the buildings at SCEC ) were allowed to correlate because of similar wording and the modification indices suggest the greatest improvement to the model fit. 54

66 Table 4-9. Item reliabilities within setting attachment and segmented by setting attachment s psychological dimensions: affective and cognitive. Items by Psychological Dimensions All Items Dimension Mean Cronbach s Cronbach s Alpha if Item (Std. Dev) Alpha Alpha if deleted Alpha deleted Affective NEA (1.25) NEA (1.32) NEA (0.99) BEA (1.44) BEA (1.11) PFA (1.39) PFA (1.26) Cognitive.805 NEA (0.96) NEA (1.43) BEA (1.01) BEA (1.53) PFA (1.01) PFA (1.67) Table One-sample t-test results comparing the means between setting attachment s psychological dimensions. Standard Variable Mean Deviation T-value d.f. p-value Affective < Cognitive Table Results of the global fit indices for the hypothesized and modified models for the psychological dimensions of setting attachment. Hypothesized Models Modified Models Index Affective Cognitive Affective Cognitive Chi 2 value d.f p-value RMSEA C.I CFI SRMR Sufficient Criterion: Chi 2 p-value > 0.05; RMSEA < 0.08 (C.I. = ); CFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 55

67 Figure 4-9. Standardized results for the hypothesized affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure Standardized results for the hypothesized cognitive latent variable of the setting attachment construct

68 Figure Standardized results of the final model for the affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct Figure Standardized results of the final model for the affective latent variable of the setting attachment construct

69 The Structure of Setting Attachment s Dimensions As discussed in Chapter 3, latent variables can manifest through observed variables in multiple ways, providing an array of possible measurement model structures. Research question number six is answered by analyzing seven hypothesized latent variable structures (Appendix C, Figures 3-1 through 3-7) comprised of all thirteen setting attachment items, and compared through a series of confirmatory factor analysis: two orthogonal models (A & B), two bifactor models (C & D), two hierarchical models (E & F), and one unidimensional model (G). Ultimately, the global fit statistics, seen in Table 4-12, indicate that none of the seven hypothesized models fit the data sufficiently. Standardized results for each of the seven hypothesized models can be seen in Appendix D (Figure 4-20 through 4-26, pages ). The analyses indicated that several of the variables created issues because of severe multivariate collinearity, suggesting that some of the latent variables may be linearly dependent on each other or specific observed variables within the model (Kline, 2016). As such, specific observed variables were removed from the analysis, and a more parsimonious five-item measurement model emerged as a strong alternative for measuring setting attachment within the sample. The new five-item measurement model still maintains both theoretical components, tangible and psychological, of the setting attachment construct. The five items that were maintained are as follows: The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful (NEA3), I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC (NEA5), The manmade features of SCEC are very attractive looking (BEA2), The built environment at SCEC serves an important purpose (BEA3); The buildings and natural environment of SCEC serve an important purpose (PFA3). Seen on page 61, Figure 4-13 provides the results for the newlyhypothesized five-item unidimensional measurement model of setting attachment. Figure

70 provides the final modified version of the unidimensional measurement model. The modifications for the final five-item model were selected based on the output s highest modification indices values that were considered theoretically rational, based on conceptual similarities and wording. Table 4-13 (page 60) provides the global fit statistics and Cronbach s alpha for both the initial and final five-item setting attachment measurement model. Based on Hu and Bentler s (1999) criteria, the results suggest that the final model is a good fit for the data. 59

71 Table Results of the global fit indices for seven hypothesized setting attachment measurement models. Orthogonal Models Bifactor Models Hierarchical Models Unidimensional Index A B C D E* F Model (G) Chi 2 value d.f p-value RMSEA C.I CFI SRMR Sufficient Criterion: Chi 2 p-value > 0.05; RMSEA < 0.08 (C.I. = ); CFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). *Chi-Square and global fit indices could not be computed because of one or more severe linear dependency(ies) between latent variables. Table Results of the global fit indices for the five-item setting attachment models. Five-item Setting Attachment Models Index Initial Model Final Model Chi 2 value d.f. 5 3 p-value RMSEA C.I CFI SRMR Cronbach s alpha Sufficient Criterion: Chi 2 p-value > 0.05; RMSEA < 0.08 (C.I. = ); CFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 60

72 Figure Standardized results for the hypothesiezed five-item, unidimensional setting attachment meausrement model 61

73 Figure Standardized results for final five-item, unidimensional setting attachment meausrement model 62

74 Understanding Who is Attached to SCEC s Setting The following section address research question number seven by comparing characteristics of the respondents, based on their strength/level of setting attachment. The segmentation of the sample was derived from a K-means cluster analysis preformed on the five items represented in the final setting attachment model, presented earlier in Figure Seen below, Table 4-14 provides the final cluster means from the K-means cluster analysis. A threegroup approach to the cluster analysis was chosen because the means for each item progressed in a fairly linear fashion from group to group. As the number of clusters increased the differences between the groups became more intricate, and thus would likely complicate the relationships the groups would have with other variables. So, the means for the items in the first cluster hovered close to 4.0, which on the scale was represented by the phrase Neither agree nor disagree, indicating a fairly ambivalent set of respondents towards the setting at SCEC. Therefore, the first cluster was labeled as Ambivalent. The second cluster s means ranged from 4.1 to 5.7, and the average of its means was 5.14 which corresponds with the category of Slightly agree. As such, this segment of the respondents was titled Slightly attached. The final cluster s means ranged from , which represents the Agree category, and are subsequently referred to as Attached. There were several significant differences between the groups of respondents segmented by their level of setting attachment. Out of the demographic analyses compared, only the relationship between gender and level of setting attachment was not significant. In other words, the ratio between males and females did not statistically change between the three groups. More interestingly, there was a statistical difference between the three groups in regard to age. As seen in Table 4-15 (page 66). The ambivalent group had a higher percentage (40.3%) of 18 to 25 63

75 years of age compared to both the slightly attached (15.5%) and attached (15.5%) groups. Furthermore, the slightly attached and attached groups had the largest proportions of their respondents in the age range of (28.4% and 25.1%, respectively). Level of setting attachment also showed significant difference depending on the highest level of education attained. Not surprisingly, the pattern paralleled that between age and level of setting attachment. Those with less than or equal to a high school diploma or GED were more likely to fall into the Ambivalent group (30.3%) of respondents than the slightly attached (10.4%) or attached (10.6%) groups. The site specific related behaviors and the respondents level of satisfaction with SCEC were statistically different based on the cluster they belonged to. The three behaviors (current member, volunteer in the past, and donate in the past), were simple dichotomous variables, but satisfaction was an indexed value derived from the average of eight items evaluating various aspects of the SCEC experience. Table 4-16, provides the means and standard deviations for the eight items, as well as the overall Cronbach s alpha and the alpha if the item was removed. The Cronbach s alpha (0.946) reveals that the eight items prove to have strong measurement reliability. Table 4-17 provides the results of a one-way analysis of variance between the three clusters of setting attachment and the level of satisfaction with SCEC as the dependent variable. The results of the analysis of variance test indicates that there is a significant difference within the means of the three groups. Not surprisingly, the more attached the group was to the setting at SCEC, the more satisfied they were with their experience. The ambivalent group s mean satisfaction score was 4.77, a little below the Satisfied (5) category. The Slightly attached group s mean was 5.10 and the attached group s mean was the highest with the value of

76 Given the uneven group sizes, a Scheffe test was chosen to further parse out the differences between the three groups. Its results are visible in Table 4-18 and indicate that there is not a statistical difference between the means for the ambivalent and slightly attached groups. However, there are significant differences between means for the remaining comparisons. Regarding each of the three site-specific behaviors, Table 4-19 provides the chi-square values and distribution between the three groups. The attached group had the highest rate of involvement with SCEC: member, 43.5%; volunteered, 29.7%; and donated, 61.6%. And, with the exception of volunteering in the past, the ambivalent group had the lowest rate of involvement across all three categories: member, 22.2%; volunteered, 8.8%; and donated, 28.6%. In regard to volunteering, the slightly attached group (9.7%) volunteered at nearly an equal rate as the ambivalent group. Regarding the other two site-specific behaviors, the slightly attached group fell in-between the ambivalent and attached groups. 65

77 Table Final clusters for a K-means cluster analysis of the five-item setting attachment model. Item Ambivalent (N =97) Slightly attached (N = 244) Attached (N = 339) NEA NEA BEA BEA PFA Table Analysis of variance and respondent distribution between degree of setting attachment and demographic characteristics. Level of Setting Attachment Slightly Attached Variable Chi 2 d.f. Ambivalent Attached Gender (NS) 2 Male 23 (36.5%) 63 (31.5%) 87 (29.1%) Female 40 (63.5%) 137 (68.5%) 212 (70.9%) Age *** (40.3%) 30 (15.5%) 85 (15.5%) (6.5%) 14 (7.2%) 51 (9.3%) (12.9%) 40 (20.6%) 109 (19.9%) (16.1%) 55 (28.4%) 138 (25.1%) (11.3%) 26 (13.4%) 84 (15.3%) (9.7%) 23 (11.9%) 58 (10.6%) > 75 2 (3.2%) 6 (3.1%) 24 (4.4%) Education *** 8 High school graduate/ GED 20 (30.3%) 21 (10.4%) 60 (10.6%) Some college 7 (10.6%) 21 (10.4%) 59 (10.4%) College graduate 7 (10.6%) 56 (27.9%) 155 (27.2%) Some graduate 6 (9.1%) 11 (5.5%) 44 (7.7%) MS/PhD/Prof. degree 26 (39.4%) 92 (45.8%) 252 (44.2%) *Sig. p < 0.05, **Sig. p < 0.01, *** Sig. p <

78 Table Item reliabilities for satisfaction measure. Cronbach s Alpha if Standard Satisfaction Items Alpha deleted Mean Deviation Facilities/buildings Natural environment Recreation experiences Learning/interpretation Sense of community Opportunities to connect with nature Opportunities to improve one s health/wellbeing Opportunities to explore personal interests, independently and self-directed Table Analysis of variance between degree of setting attachment and satisfaction with SCEC. Level of Setting Attachment F-value Total d.f. Significance level Satisfaction Mean (Std. Dev.) <0.001 Ambivalent 4.77 (1.1) Slightly attached 5.10 (1.0) Attached 5.85 (1.0) Table Shaffe s Post Hoc test for analysis of variance between degree of setting attachment and satisfaction with SCEC. I J Mean Difference between (I J) Std. Error Significance Level Ambivalent Slightly Attached Attached*** Slightly Attached Ambivalent Attached*** Attached Ambivalent*** Slightly Attached*** *Sig. p < 0.05, **Sig. p < 0.01, *** Sig. p <

79 Table Respondent distribution between degree of setting attachment and site-specific characteristics. Level of Setting Attachment Slightly attached Variable Chi 2 d.f. Ambivalent Attached Member Yes 7.58*** 2 20 (22.2%) 88 (37.1%) 145 (43.5%) No 70 (88.8%) 149 (62.9%) 188 (56.5%) Volunteer Yes 32.75*** 2 8 (8.8%) 23 (9.7%) 98 (29.7%) No 82 (92.2%) 214 (90.3%) 232 (70.3%) Donation Yes 18.32*** 2 26 (28.6%) 121 (50.6%) 204 (61.6%) No 65 (71.4%) 118 (50.4%) 127 (38.4%) *Sig. p < 0.05, **Sig. p < 0.01, *** Sig. p <

80 Setting Attachment and Person-Place Bonding This section addresses research question number eight by providing the results of a series of confirmatory factor analyses that support the standard four-factor model person-place bonding model; and introduces setting attachment as a fifth dimension to the standard person-place bonding model. The initial hypothesized four-factor person-place bonding model, seen in Figure 4-15 on page 72, was based on the standard person-place bonding model in the outdoor recreation literature. The global fit statistics results for that model, presented in Table 4-20 (page 71), indicate that the data did not sufficiently fit the model. Modifications to the hypothesized model were made based on the highest Modification Index values that were conceptually justified. This process was completed iteratively, first allowing the errors of SB2 and SB3 then and the errors of PID1 and AA3 to correlate, until the global fit statistics matched Hu and Bentler s (1999) cut-off criteria. The standardized results for the final model are shown in Figure 4-16, and its global fit statistics are presented in Table The initial five factor person-place bonding model was derived from the observed variables in both the five-item setting attachment model and the four-factor person-place bonding model. Based on Hu and Bentler s (1999) cut-off criteria, the global fit statistics for the model (found in Table 4-20) suggest an insufficient model fit for the data. The standardized result for this model can be seen in Figure 4-17 (on page 74). The second five-factor measurement model for person-place bonding, seen in Figure 4-18 (on page 75) incorporates the final five-item setting attachment with the final four-factor person-place bonding models, which provided the best fit for the data independent of each other. These are the same final models as presented in Figure 4-14 (page 62) and Figure4-16 (page 73). The results in Table 4-20, reveal that the global 69

81 fit statistics for the second five-factor model still remains outside of Hu and Bentler s cut-off criteria. Through an iterative process, based on the local fit statistics and the modification index values, several theoretically viable alterations to the second five-factor model were made. First, the correlated error between the observed variables NEA5 ( I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC ) and PFA3 ( The buildings and natural environment of SCEC serve an important purpose ) was no longer significant in the five-factor person-place bonding model; therefore, this correlated error was freed. Second, the errors between BEA2 ( The man-made features of SCEC are very attractive looking ) and BEA3 ( The built environment at SCEC serves an important purpose ) were allowed to correlate because each represented the built environment. And finally, the errors for SB2 ( I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends at SCEC ) and NEA5 ( I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC ) were allowed to correlate because both variables shared similar wording regarding memory formation. The results in Table 4-20 show that global fit statistics for the final five-factor person-place bonding model meet Hu and Bentler s cut-off criteria, with the exception of the SRMR value, which is above the criterion. Figure 4-19 provides the visual representation and the standardized results for the final five-factor person-place bonding model. 70

82 Table Results of the global fit indices for the four-factor and five-factor person-place bonding models. Person-Place Bonding Models Four-factor Model Five-factor Model Index Initial Final Initial Second Final Chi 2 value d.f p-value RMSEA C.I CFI SRMR Sufficient Criterion: Chi 2 p-value > 0.05; RMSEA < 0.08 (C.I. = ); CFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 71

83 Figure Standardized results for hypothesiezed four-factor person-place bonding meausrement model 72

84 Figure Standardized results for the final four-factor person-place bonding meausrement model 73

85 Figure Standardized results for initial five-dimensional person-place bonding meausrement model 74

86 Figure Standardized results for the second five-factor person-place bonding measurement model 75

87 Figure Standardized results for the final five-factor person-place bonding measurement model 76

88 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to address a theoretical gap within the typical person-place bonding model used in outdoor recreation research. This gap, conceptualized here as setting attachment, specifically targets the physical dimension of place. Integrating the physical dimensions of place into the person-place bonding models extends our current understanding of the bonds between people and places. Furthermore, including setting attachment as a dimension of person-place bonding may improve the content validity of the person-place bonding model. As explained earlier, the operationalization of setting attachment is a subjective evaluation of an individual s cognitive and affective connection between themselves and the physical elements of a place, Shaver s Creek Environmental Center (SCEC). The following discussion outlines evidence for the viability of setting attachment as an independent construct and as a dimension of person-place bonding. A series of one sample t-tests (Table 4-7) addressed research questions three, by demonstrating that the respondents provided statistically different appraisals between the natural and built environments at SCEC. These intuitively distinct dimensions of the setting were also intentionally merged together through broad phrasing and umbrella terms as a set of four items (seen in Table 3-1). The mean for this set of four items fell between the means for the natural and built dimension, but still remained statistically different from each of the other means. This result suggests that the phrasing used in those four items instigated the respondents to consider both physical dimensions of the setting. It also suggests that the umbrella phasing could be a viable alternative for future researchers who may not be directly interested in the natural and built environments as separate constructs. However, for the purpose of this study, the conceptual distinction was important for two reasons. One, it provides more insight into the setting 77

89 attachment construct. And two, because of planned renovations to SCEC s built environment, it was pertinent to distinguish between the two dimensions for future studies. Research question two was addressed through three confirmatory factor analyses, the measurement models for each tangible dimension of setting attachment adequately fit the data, which provides more support for the validity of each dimension. The tangible dimensions are only one layer within the setting attachment construct. Previous literature also highlights the dynamic relationship between emotional and cognitive dimensions of person-place bonding and related topics (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006). In general, person-place bonding is considered an attitude that an individual has towards a geographic area (Kyle et al., 2014; Stedman, 2002). Cognition and affect represent two broad components of attitudes. Heberlein (2011) emphasized the importance of considering both dimensions of attitudes when investigating human behavior related to natural environments. The results presented earlier supports these claims. Table 4-10, addressed research question number five, and revealed that the sample s responses to the items representing the cognitive and affective dimensions of setting attachment differed significantly from each other. Therefore, considering both aspects of attitude is important for understanding the dynamic relationship between people and setting. Research question number four was investigated, through two separate confirmatory factor analyses, the adequate fit of the data to the measurement models for each psychological dimension further supports the validity of each dimension. Ultimately, this initial set of analyses indicate that the dimensions of setting attachment, as operationalized in this study, function independently from each other as strong measures evaluating different components of setting attachment. In other words, each dimension in its own right represents a viable construct evaluating the physical dimensions of place. However, this 78

90 only begins to shed light on the relationships between the physical elements of a place. The next step is to understand how the dimensions function together as a larger, aggregated construct representing all of the dimensional components of the setting at SCEC. Combining the dimensions of setting attachment together in a single measurement model attempts to prove factorial validity (Kline, 2016; Williams & Vaske, 2003) and as such provides evidence supporting the measurement validity of setting attachment as operationalized in this study. This analytic approach intended to address research question number six. There are many ways of structuring a measurement model. Figures 3-1 through 3-7 (Appendix C) represent common confirmatory factor analysis models adapted and hypothesized to theoretically fit the battery of items representing setting attachment. Unfortunately, none of the seven initial models, nor their modified extensions, sufficiently fit the sample s data as indicated by the global fit statistics in Table 4-12 (page 60). The results and warning messages produced by the Mplus program while testing the hypothesized models instigated a trimming of the model. Because of the distinct nature within the tangible dimensions and between the cognitive and affective dimensions, the model was trimmed to preserve an element of each dimension. As a result, while striving to maintain as much content validity as possible, the best fitting model for the setting attachment construct was a five-item version structured as a unidimensional (single factor) model. Convergent and divergent validity was considered as the next step towards pursuing measurement validity, and the following discussion address research question number seven. Convergent validity asserts that a valid measurement tool should statistically relate to variables that are theoretically related to the construct (Vaske 2008). Convergent validity was investigated by grouping the sample based on their level of attachment to the setting at SCEC and running a 79

91 set of crosstabs (Table 4-19) and a one-way ANOVA (Table 4-17) with variables expected to relate to setting attachment. The results indicate that an individual s level of attachment related, in the expected directions, to their level of satisfaction with SCEC, whether or not they volunteered at or donated to SCEC in the past, and if they are currently members of SCEC. These statistically significant relationships provide evidence for convergent validity. Discriminant validity is another element of measurement validity that asserts the opposite of convergent validity: variables that are expected not to be related are not statistically related in the data (Vaske, 2008). Discriminant validity was investigated in the same way as convergent validity, but instead related level of attachment to gender, age, and education. Although a distinct pattern in the data did arise, there was no statistical relationship between gender and level of attachment to SCEC s setting, therefore providing evidence for discriminant validity. However, not as expected, based on Williams and Vaske (2003) original suggestion, both age and education did prove to have a statistical relationship to level of setting attachment. Under closer examination, it seems that age - specifically the younger age group - may be dominating these significant relationships. This can be theoretically rationalized by the possibility that many younger respondents have not had as many formative experiences at SCEC to instigate higher levels of setting attachment as compared to the older cohorts. These results align with Kyle, Graefe, and Manning s (2004) investigation of Appalachian Trail thru hikers, which indicated the more place attached hikers were statistically older than the less attached hikers. Therefore, validity concerns regarding the evidence of discriminant validity can be moderated. The results from the five-item setting attachment model s confirmatory factor analysis and the series of ANOVAs suggest that this operationalization of setting attachment could be a valid measurement for the theoretical concept targeted by this study. The final analysis was conducted 80

92 to further strengthen the validity of the five-item setting attachment measure and addresses research question number eight. The measurement model was introduced to the typical factor structure of person-place bonding within outdoor recreation research. As the results indicated (Table 4-20), adding setting attachment into the person-place bonding model did fit sufficiently with the data after allowing certain errors to correlate. This suggests both convergent and factorial validity of setting attachment as a dimension of person-place bonding. These results not only further support setting attachment s own construct validity, but theoretically strengthens the person-place bonding model by improving the model s content validity. Interestingly, the two person-place bonding measurement models (four-factor verses five-factor) are statistically comparable. The five-factor person-place bonding model has a stronger RMSEA value (0.077) as compared to the four-factor model s RMSEA value (0.079). However, the CFI (0.931) and SRMR (0.052) values for the four-factor model are better than the five-factor model s values (0.902 and 0.064, respectively). Because of the similar global fit statistics, there is no distinctly superior model between the four- and five-factor person-place bonding models. Future researchers will need to weigh the advantage of a more holistic understanding of person-place bonding (improved content validity) and the disadvantage of including five additional items within an already lengthy set of questions (survey burden). Within this study s context, understanding the relationship between the respondent and the physical features of SCEC is an important consideration as the nature center goes through dramatic changes to its built and natural environments. However, this relationship might not be as important in other research contexts. For example, places where the physical space never changes or where the physical features are relatively indistinct compared to similar venues, as is 81

93 in commercial franchise spaces. But in other contexts, a person s relationship with the setting may be more important than the other dimensions of person-place bonding model. Considering a place where an individual goes to find solitude, the dimension of social bonding would likely be less important than that of setting attachment. Another example could be a location where a person feels the sublime power of natural spectacles, such as an expansive mountain range or a powerful waterfall. These scenarios present situations where the cognitive and affective imprint of the setting would likely play an important role in the person-place bonding process. In certain contexts, setting attachment, as the subjective evaluation of the relationship an individual has with the physical features of a place, undoubtedly plays an important role in the bond between people and places. But it could be argued that setting attachment can manifest within any place. It is important to continue to investigate setting attachment as part of the person-place bonding processes in a wide range of contexts in order to understand how it manifests within the experience of place. Study limitations There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample is not a representative of a specific population. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to a larger population. Furthermore, there are several limitations associated with modality of the survey. Because of the lack of a trained interviewer, the accuracy of the respondents answers to the survey instrument may be questionable. As is the case for most online surveys, this study had a fairly low response rate. The low response rate was further aggravated by a low completion rate as well. After adjusting for false starts, approximately 100 people did not fully complete the survey, dropping out by the demographic section. The root of this issue was likely the survey s length. It took 82

94 respondents an average time of 22 minutes to complete the survey. It is important keep in mind these limitations when considering the results and discussion above. Implications for SCEC Maintaining or fostering a connection between the visitors and SCEC benefits SCEC as an organization. If the public and visitors did not care about nor felt invest in SCEC s, it would not likely have the support needed to sustain itself into the future. Understanding the diversity of the bonds between the visitors and SCEC is an important step towards multiplying and strengthening those bonds. Although each of the dimensions of person-place bonding play a different role in the bonding process, setting attachment seems particularly relevant given SCEC is currently undergoing renovations. The construct of setting attachment reveals to SCEC managers how individuals evaluate the natural and built environment at SCEC. There is a basic utility in understanding the users aesthetic appraisal of the built and natural environment. At the time of the survey, before renovations had started, respondents tended to give a more positive aesthetic appraisal of the natural environment as compared to the built environment around SCEC. Rounding to the nearest category, respondents on average (5.75) tended to agree that the natural environment was incredibly beautiful. Whereas respondents on average (5.09) only somewhat agreed that the built environment was attractive looking. This room for improvement in the built environment bodes well for SCEC as construction continues on new buildings and structures. If the completed renovations are able to capture characteristics that embody the dimensionality of person-place bonding, then the improved aesthetic will possibly increase the bond between the people and SCEC. For example, if the maintain some of the original built environment or reuse old materials for the original buildings these element will provide a congruency overtime and change, possibly helping to maintain an individual s place identity associated with SCEC. 83

95 Furthermore, taken as a whole, setting attachment is positively correlated with the respondent s satisfaction with their SCEC experience as well as pro-scec behaviors, such as donating to, volunteering at, and becoming a member of SCEC. Because of the cross-sectional design of this study, it cannot be assumed that setting attachment causes pro-scec behavior. Nonetheless, if the general cognitive hierarchy is accepted, and theories such as Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) are applied, then it can be hypothesized that person-place bonding (as an attitudinal measure) influences pro-scec behaviors. This same hypothesis becomes more problematic when adopting satisfaction as the dependent variable, because it too is an attitudinal measure. One finding is evident from the results, there is a positive relationship between setting attachment and satisfaction/pro-scec behaviors, which is ripe for future investigation. The implication of this finding begs a broader question: what should be the ultimate goal resulting from the person-place bond cultivated at SCEC? Should SCEC strive to increase visitation and usage by establishing more bonds with new members of the public? Or should they strengthen the already existing connections, and to what end? Person-place bonding provides insights into individuals perceptions and behaviors associated with SCEC. Managers at SCEC need to consider the impacts of person-place bonding in relation to broader goals and missions of the center. Directions for Future Research This study was only the first step in beginning to understand the role that the setting of SCEC plays in influencing the visitor s bond with SCEC. More research should also be completed to better understand setting attachment s role as both a dependent and independent measure. How do place meanings relate to setting attachment at SCEC? How does setting attachment impact pro-environmental behavior? Setting attachment and person-place bonding 84

96 have the potential to impact and be impacted by a wide variety of psychological and behavioral variables. In general, more research is needed to understand how setting attachment and personplace bonding change overtime. As mentioned throughout this thesis, SCEC is undergoing dramatic changes to the built facilities. How will these changes impact both person-place bonding and setting attachment at SCEC? This study provides an initial baseline to compare to future data collection efforts. On a related note, the renovation at SCEC provides a natural experiment that could begin to reveal how setting attachment or person-place bonding may cause changes in human behavior or other psychometric measures. Longitudinal studies are essential for furthering our understanding of setting attachment and person-place bonding. Directly relating to the operationalization of setting attachment in this study, future research needs to address the issues of collinearity between the items and latent variables. Rewording some items that were too similarly phrased could help with this issue. Other items, such as NEA1 ( The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion ), seemed to dominate the relationship between itself and other observed variables, which in turn caused multivariate collinearity issues with the latent variables it reflected. On the opposite side of the spectrum, NEA2 ( I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC ), the only negatively worded item, responses were too different from the other observed variables, which prevented it from working well within a latent variable. Collinearity issues were likely aggravated by the set of items that informed the physical features dimension. As discussed earlier, the operationalization of the physical features dimension reflected both the natural and built environments found at SCEC. Although the three dimension were statistically different from one another, the conceptual overlap and similarity in wording could create issues with the covariation between error terms of the other items comprising the natural environment and built 85

97 environment dimensions. Eliminating the physical features dimension in future data collection efforts may provide better fit from the data, as well as provide the additional advantage of reducing survey burden. Lessons learned from the initial pilot test, regarding the operationalization of setting attachment, were reinforced with the more robust sample supplied from the full study. As mentioned earlier, the negatively worded item s error terms did not covary with the other items in the full thirteen-item measurement model of setting attachment. Additionally, as seen within the pilot study, the few items that used absolute phrasing within in their sentence created issues with many of the items that were less extreme. For example, PFA2 read as I cannot imagine a more beautiful area than SCEC, this item did not fit with the two other aesthetic appraisal items because its language established SCEC as the most beautiful space. The other items suggested a more moderated aesthetic appraisal: The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful (NEA3) and The man-made features of SCEC are very attractive looking (BEA2). Future research questions should eliminate these inconsistencies in phrasing. Given the sufficient, but mediocre global fit statistics for the four and five factor personplace bonding models, there is also the possibility that the current models should be reorganized or new avenues should be explored. Kyle and colleagues (2014) began to shift the structure of person-place bonding measurement model by situating place identity as an antecedent to place dependence, social bonding, and affect. Kyle and colleagues reorganization of person-place bonding deviates dramatically from the traditional person-place model. Re-investigating the organization of person-place bonding should continue, as long as the changes are a priori and theoretically supported. In this study, the results of the final five-item person-place bonding model suggest that memory formation, a long-time theorized process leading to place attachment 86

98 (Hammitt et al., 2006; Low & Altman, 1992; Taun, 1980), could be manifesting within this data set as a possible latent variable. Allowing the error terms between the three items SB4 ( The time spent at SCEC allows me to bond with my family ), SB2 ( I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends at SCEC ), and NEA5 ( I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around SCEC ) all of which deal with memories begins to hint that memory formation is a construct worth investigating more in empirical research. Conclusion In the field of outdoor recreation, the study of person-place bonding and by extension place attachment has evolved dramatically over the last twenty-five years. Integrating the visitor s perception of and attachment to the physical features that define and frame a place is an important theoretical step that expands our understanding of person-place bonding. This study provided a strong example of how to integrate the visitor s subjective evaluation of the setting into the operationalization of the traditional person-place bonding model used within the field of outdoor recreation. Setting attachment, as operationalized in this study, lays a strong foundation for future research in this topic area. However, there is room for improvement. Future research needs to address some of the issues discussed in the previous section. Nonetheless, this study demonstrated two important findings. Within the context of SCEC, setting attachment 1) proved to be a measurable and valid construct, and 2) plays a role in the person-place bonding model. 87

99 LITERATURE CITED Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Level of Specialization and Place Attachment: An Exploratory Study of Whitewater Recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22(4), Breakwell, G.M. (1986). Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen Publishing. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity Processes and Social Stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), Buttimer, A. (1980). Social space and the planning of residential areas. In A. Buttimer, D. Seamon (Eds.) The Human Experience of Space and Place (p ). New York, NY: Routledge. Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Melani, C. L. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The tailored Design Method, 4 th edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. L.J. Duhl (Eds.), The Urban Condition (p ). Hillsdale, NJ: Basic Books. Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation places: conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25(1), Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2004). Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), Retrieved from 1&u=mtlib_1_1195&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Hammitt, W. E., Kyle, G. T., & Oh, C. O. (2009). Comparison of place bonding models in recreation resource management. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), from ABI/INFORM Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press. Hidalgo, M. C. (2013). Operationalization of place attachment: A consensus proposal. Studies in Psychology 34(3),

100 Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly, 58(4), Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Convventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, Huitt, W. G., & Cain, S. C. (2005). An Overview of the Conative Domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Hummon, D.M. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (p ). New York: Plenum Press. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 79(3), Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(4), Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9(3), Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4 th edition). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure sciences, 25(1), Kyle, G. T., Jun, J., & Absher, J. D. (2014). Repositioning identity in conceptualizations of human-place bonding. Environment and Behavior, 46(8), 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(4), Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2004). Attached Recreationalists Who are they? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(2),

101 Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2003). Satisfaction derived through leisure involvement and setting attachment. Leisure/Loisir, 28(3 4), Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (p. 1-12). New York: Plenum Press. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Milligan, M. M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail- Trail Users. Leisure Sciences, 16, Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. ( ). Mplus (Version 7.4): Base program and combination add-on (64-bit). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. N. A. ( ). Qualtrics (Version February 2017). Provo, UT: Qualtrics. Nielsen-Pincus, M., Hall, T., Force, J. E., & Wulfhorst, J. D. (2010). Sociodemographic effects on place bonding. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), Ramkissoon, H., G., Smith, L. D., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviors: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36, Raymond, C. M. (2009). Assessment of rural landholder and NRM staff attitudes, goals and place values in the Eyre Peninsula region, South Australia. Adelaide, SA: Enviroconnect Pty Ltd. 90

102 Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Limited. Roberts, E. (1996). Place and spirit in public land management. In B. L. Driver (Ed.), Nature and the Human Spirit (p ). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Sampson, K. A., & Goodrich, C. G. (2009). Making Place: Identity construction and community formation through sense of place in Westland, New Zealand. Society and Natural Resources, 22(10), Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), Shaver s Creek Mission. (n.d.). In Shaver s Creek Environmental Center s About Us. Retrieved from Shumaker, S.A. & Taylor, R.B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place. In N.R. Feimer, E.S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (p ). New York: Praeger. Smaldone, D., Harris, C., & Sanyal, N. (2008). The role of time in developing place meanings. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(4), Retrieved from Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from placebased cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), Stokols, D., & Schumaker, S. A. (1981). People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings. In J. Havery (Ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior and Environment (p ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and Family 30(4),

103 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, Inc. Wagar, J.A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Forest Science, 10(3), Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. Outdoor Planning and Management NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric Approach. Forest Science, 49(6),

104 APPENDIX A Survey Instrument 1) Are you 18 years-of-age or older? [If yes, continue to question 2; if no, skip to question 74] Yes No 2) Before we begin please create a unique survey identification number. In the future, a follow-up survey will be ed to you, this unique survey identification number, will allow the researchers to link your survey responses over time, while keeping your responses and opinions anonymous. Create your unique survey identification number by combining the two digits representing your birth month, then the last two digits the year you were born, and finally that last two digits of your phone number. For example, consider John Doe: he was born in May of 1982, and his phone number is (123) John s unique survey identification number would be Your unique survey identification number: - - 3) As best as you can recall, how many different nature centers have you visited? 4) In the past 12 months, how many visits have you made to The Arboretum at Penn State? _ 5) In the past 12 months, how many visits have you made to Stone Valley Recreation Area? 6) In a typical year, how many visits do you make to Whipple Dam State Park? 7) In a typical year, how many visits do you make to Millbrook Marsh Nature Center? _ 8) Have you ever visited Shaver s Creek Environmental Center (SCEC) in the past? [If No, skip to Q11] Yes No 9) In the past 12 months, how many visits have you made to SCEC? _ 10) In what year did you first visit SCEC? 11) In what year was your most recent visit to SCEC? 12) In a typical year, how many visits to SCEC do you make? 13) When you visit SCEC, who do you typically visits it with you? Alone Friends Other: Family Family & Friends 14) The following is a list of potential activities you could do while at SCEC. Please check all activities that you have done within the past 12 months at SCEC: o Hiking o Fishing o School program o Walking o Hunting o College course o Birding o Geocaching o Team building o Cross-country skiing o Sight seeing o AURORA program o Snowshoeing o Picnicking o Summer camp o Nature study o Relaxing/hanging out o Outdoor school o Star gazing o Attending a program o Working/Interning o Mountain biking o Attending a festival o Volunteering o Canoeing/kayaking o Attending an event o Researching o Other: 15) From that list, on your most recent trip, what was your primary activity? 16) From that list, on a typical trip, what was your primary activity? 93

105 17) Please indicate how you feel about SCEC by responding to each of the statements below. Somewhat agree Strongly Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree disagree disagre nor agree agree e disagree I feel SCEC is a part of me I feel that my identity is reflected in SCEC Visiting SCEC says a lot about who I am I can t imagine a better place than SCEC for what I like to do I feel a lot of other nature centers could substitute for SCEC SCEC is the best place for the recreation activities that I enjoy I feel a strong sense of belonging at SCEC SCEC means a lot to me I really enjoy SCEC I m happiest when I am at SCEC I have a strong emotional bond to SCEC Important people in my life would be disappointed if I stopped going to SCEC My friends and family feel the same way about SCEC as I do The people I care most about don t care about SCEC I associate special people in my life with SCEC I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends at SCEC SCEC is a place where I can connect with my friends The time spent at SCEC allows me to bond with my family SCEC is important to me because my family has been going there for generations

106 18) Please indicate how you feel about the physical features at SCEC by responding to each of the statements. Neither Somewhat -what Agree Some Strongly disagree Strongly Disagree disagree nor agree disagree agree agree The natural environment around SCEC always makes me feel a strong emotion I am not drawn to the natural environment around SCEC The natural environment at SCEC is incredibly beautiful The natural environment of SCEC serves an important purpose I have a lot of memories tied to the natural environment around at SCEC I have a lot of memories tied to the buildings at SCEC The built environment of SCEC serves an important purpose I feel an emotional attachment to the buildings at SCEC The man-made features of SCEC are very attractive looking I could draw a rough map of SCEC I have strong feelings attached to the physical features of SCEC The buildings and natural environments of SCEC serve an important purpose I cannot imagine a more beautiful area than SCEC

107 19) Below is a list of beliefs people could have about SCEC. Please indicate how strongly YOU agree with each statement. In my opinion, SCEC is a place Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither disagree nor agree Some -what agree Agree that creates a sense of community where people come together and connect that helps different types of people achieve shared goals used by many different types of people to relax after a difficult day that improves individuals wellbeing to recharge after a hard day s work that encourages curiosity of learning where discovering never stops that teaches all types of people important lessons that connects people to the natural world for people to think about their role in the natural world where people feel at one with nature for personal reflection where people can find solitude where people can be alone and think of adventure of excitement for outdoor recreation that embodies a healthy ecosystem that is important for local wildlife that provides essential ecological functions Strongly agree 96

108 20) Are you currently a member of SCEC? [If yes, continue on to Q21; if no, skip to Q23] Yes No 21) What level of membership are you? Venue of Vultures (free student membership) Cast of Falcons ($35/year) Kettle of Hawks ($120/year) Parliament of Owls ($365/year) Aerie of Eagles ($1000/year) 22) How many years have you been a member? [Skip to Q26] 23) In the past, have you been a member of SCEC? [If yes, continue on to Q24; if no, skip to Q26] Yes No 24) What level of membership were you? Venue of Vultures (free college student membership) Cast of Falcons ($35/year) Kettle of Hawks ($120/year) Parliament of Owls ($365/year) Aerie of Eagles ($1000/year) 25) How many years were you a member at SCEC? 26) Have you ever made a donation to SCEC? [If yes, continue on to Q27; if no, skip to Q28] Yes No 27) Over the years, as best as you can recall, what is the total amount you have donated to SCEC? (in dollars) $ 28) Have you volunteered at SCEC in the past? [If yes, continue on to Q29; if no, skip to Q32] Yes No 29) In the last 12 months, how many days have you volunteer at SCEC? _ 30) How many years have you volunteered at SCEC? 31) What type of volunteer work have you done at SCEC? [check all that apply] Animal care Outdoor school Grounds keeping School visits Trail maintenance Summer camps Facility improvement/ development Special events 32) In the last 12 months, how many organizations have you volunteered for? 33) Are you currently, or have you been, an employee or intern at SCEC? [If yes, continue to Q34; if no, skip to Q36] Yes No 34) How many years did you work at SCEC? 35) What year did you start working at SCEC? 97

109 36) This is a list of feelings or opinions people could have about SCEC. Consider your expectations for your future relationship with SCEC and please indicate how strongly YOU agree with each statement: I will do more at SCEC in the future I plan on engaging with SCEC more in the future I think the culture at SCEC will stay the same into the future I think in the future, SCEC will be less valuable to me No matter what physical changes happen at SCEC, I will always feel the same way about it Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither disagree nor agree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 37) Over the next 12 months, how many trips do you plan on making to SCEC? _ 38) Over the next 12 months, how many trips do you plan on making to Stone Valley Recreation Area? 39) Over the next 12 months, how many trips do you plan on making to The Arboretum at Penn State? _ 40) Over the next 12 months, how many trips do you plan on making to Mill Brook Marsh? _ 41) Over the next 12 months, how many trips do you plan on making to Whipple Dam State Park _ 42) Over the next 12 months, how many days do you plan on volunteering for SCEC? 43) If you do plan on volunteering, what type of volunteer work do you plan to do for SCEC? [check all that apply] Animal care Outdoor school Grounds keeping School visits Trail maintenance Summer camps Facility improvement/ Special events development 44) Over the next 12 months, do you plan on becoming (or renewing) a member of SCEC? [if no, skip to Q46] Yes No 45) What level of membership do you plan to enroll in? Venue of Vultures (free college student membership) Cast of Falcons ($35/year) Kettle of Hawks ($120/year) Parliament of Owls ($365/year) Aerie of Eagles ($1000/year) 98

110 46) Compared to places that offer similar services, please rate the quality of the following items at SCEC: Significantly Significantly No below Average above opinion average average Diversity of recreation opportunities Length/Amount of trail systems Maintenance of trails Maintenance of buildings and grounds Aesthetic of the buildings Indoor facilities (discovery room, indoor classrooms, etc..) Outdoor facilities (pavilions, -99 raptor center, teambuilding courses, etc ) Availability of restrooms Availability of parking during a special event Availability of parking on a normal day Availability of information about planning a visit Clarity of signage directing you towards facilities/trails Printed interpretive information Interpretive displays/kiosks Programs offered Community outreach efforts Availability of staff members Helpfulness of employees Friendliness of other visitors Opportunities to connect with other visitors The beauty of the natural environment The health of the natural environment The diversity of plants and animals

111 47) Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of SCEC: Not at all Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Facilities/Buildings Natural environment Recreation experiences Learning/Interpretation Sense of community Opportunities to connect with nature Opportunities to improve one s health/wellbeing Opportunities to explore personal interests, independently and self-directed ) Do you have any recommendations to improve SCEC? Please elaborate. SCEC is about to undergo renovations to portions of its facilities and immediate grounds. Consequently, the buildings at SCEC are not accessible to the public, but the trail system remains open. The facility will remained closed until the renovations are completed. The following questions address the planned renovation: 49) Were you aware of the renovation planned for SCEC? (if yes, continue to Q50; if no, skip to Q52) Yes No 50) How did you learn about the upcoming renovations at SCEC? SCEC Social media (Facebook or Instagram) SCEC mail Penn State University correspondence Word-of-mouth Other: 51) How familiar are you with the details of the renovation? Not at all moderately Extremely ) Regarding the renovations that will be starting in the near future, please respond to the following questions (A) Are you apprehensive of the renovations? (B) Are you excited about the renovations? Do you think the renovations will change your experience at SCEC? Not at all moderately Extremely

112 53) [if A2-7 was selected] Why are you apprehensive of the renovation? 54) [if B2-7 was selected] Why are you excited about the renovation? 55) How will the renovations at SCEC affect your experience? Please elaborate. 56) While the renovations are underway, will you still use the trail system at SCEC? Yes No a. If no, why not? 57) Because of the renovations, do you plan to visit other places as an alternative to SCEC? Yes No a. If yes, what is your back-up location? b. If no, why not? 58) Overall, how do you feel about the upcoming renovation? Negatively Positively or I don t know 59) After the renovations are complete, I will likely visit SCEC often than I do now: Much less Much more or I don t know 60) This is a list of feelings people could have towards SCEC. Please indicate how strongly YOU agree with each statement: Somewhat agree nor what Agree Neither Some- Strongly Strongly Disagree disagree agree disagree disagree agree I wish I could be more connected to SCEC If I wanted to, I could do more at SCEC If I wanted to I could visit SCEC as often as I pleased (over the next 12 months) If I wanted to I could become a member of SCEC If I wanted to I could volunteer for SCEC

113 61) This is a list of feelings or opinions people could have about SCEC. Reflecting on your experience with SCEC, please indicate how strongly YOU agree with each statement: Neither Somewhawhat Agree Some- Strongly disagree Strongly Disagree disagree nor agree disagree agree agree As time goes on, I feel that SCEC is a different place than it used to be I think the values at SCEC have changed over the years The things I consider to be important have changed a lot over the years As I gain new life experiences, my feelings towards SCEC change My feelings towards SCEC have changed a lot since my first visit there ) Are you affiliated with Penn State University? Yes No a. If yes, how are you affiliated with Penn State University? [please check one] Student Alumni Faculty/Staff Other 63) In the following diagram, one circle represents yourself and the other circle represents nature, which includes animate objects (like plants and animals) and inanimate objects (like streams, the atmosphere, and rocks). Please circle the diagram that best describes the extent to which you feel that you and nature are the same. 64) Please indicate where your political views fall regarding the appropriate solutions to following topics: Extremely Extremely No Moderate Liberal Conservative opinion Social issues Economic issues Environmental issues ) What is the highest level of education you completed? [please check one] Some high school High school graduate/ged Business/trade school/some college College graduate/bachelors Some graduate school Master, doctoral, or professional degree 102

114 66) What is your gender? Male Female Other 67) In what year were your born? 68) Which of the following categories best describes your race and/or ethnic background? (select all that apply) a. Hispanic or Non-Hispanic b. White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Asian Chicano/Latino Other, specify American Indian or Alaskan Native 69) What is your home ZIP Code? 70) Including yourself, how many people live in your household? c. The number of children (16 and under) d. The number of adults 71) What was your total household income (before taxes) in 2014? [please check one] Less than $15,000 $35,000 to $49,999 $100,000 to $149,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $150,000 or more $25,000 to $34,999 $75,000 to $99,000 72) What do you consider to be your employment status? (Select all that apply) Employed, full-time Under-employed, not looking Unemployed, looking Employed, part-time Under-employed, looking Unemployed, not looking Student, full-time Student, part-time Retired 73) The following three pages will contain identical maps. In rank order, please click one location per map and explain why it is important to you. (First map, click your most important spot. Then on the second map, click your second most important spot. And so on...) a. Click the location at SCEC that is the most important to you, please explain why. [MAP IMAGE, see page 108] b. Click the location at SCEC that is the second most important to you, please explain why this location is important. [MAP IMAGE, see page 108] c. Click the location at SCEC that is the third most important to you, please explain why this location is important. [MAP IMAGE, see page 108] 74) Thank you for participating in the survey. Please feel free to leave any comments about the survey or SCEC in space below. Thank you again! 103

115

116 APPENDIX B Survey Invitation and Reminders 105

117 INVITATION Good Afternoon ${m://firstname}, We are contacting you to ask for your help in a study of Shaver s Creek Environmental Center (SCEC) visitors. The survey will allow SCEC to gain more insight into their visitors and help inform management decisions. We are reaching out to you because you provided your contact information to Shaver's Creek in the past, and we are very interested in your opinions about SCEC. The purpose of the study is to understand visitors use of, attachment to, and satisfaction with SCEC. Understanding these aspects of your experiences and their implications regarding future behavior (such as visiting, volunteering and donating) is key for making well-informed management decisions. Your experience at SCEC, regardless of how brief or long-ago, is incredibly important to us. Your participation in the study will help us understand how to provide the most positive and long-lasting experiences for old and new visitors into the future. Please complete the questionnaire (following the link below). The questionnaire should take between minutes to complete. This survey is voluntary and there are no risks associated with your participation. No identifying information will be collected and your responses will remain anonymous. You may skip any question or stop the survey at any time without any negative repercussions. But not surprisingly, a fully-completed survey would be preferred. In approximately twelve months, an additional follow-up survey will be distributed to you. Your continued participation would be greatly appreciated, but once again completely voluntary. Understanding changes overtime as decisions are made, is essential for monitoring the quality of your experience at SCEC. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, please contact Pennsylvania State University s Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program at (814) or irb-orp@psu.edu. If you have any questions about the study do not hesitate to contact the Primary Investigator, Max Olsen at mho10@psu.edu Thank you. Sincerely, Maxwell Olsen Graduate Student Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management Pennsylvania State University Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://surveylink?d=take the survey} 106

118 Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://surveyurl} Follow the link to opt out of future s: ${l://optoutlink?d=click here to unsubscribe} 107

119 REMINDER ONE Hello ${m://firstname}, Earlier in the week we sent you a link (see below) to an online survey seeking your opinions about Shaver's Creek Environmental Center (SCEC). We would greatly appreciate your help with understanding and improving your SCEC experience. We want to emphasize that regardless of how brief, long-ago, or the type of experience (visitor, volunteer, intern, employee, etc.), your feedback about your experience with SCEC is incredibly important to us. This voluntary survey is meant to capture the full range of possible experiences at and connections to SCEC. Your participation in the study will help us understand how to provide the most positive and long-lasting experiences for old and new visitors into the future. If you have already completed the online survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so today! If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, please contact Pennsylvania State University s Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program at (814) or irb-orp@psu.edu. If you have any questions about the study do not hesitate to contact the Primary Investigator, Max Olsen at mho10@psu.edu Thank you. Sincerely, Max Olsen Graduate Student Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management Pennsylvania State University Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://surveylink?d=take the survey} Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://surveyurl} Follow the link to opt out of future s: ${l://optoutlink?d=click here to unsubscribe} 108

120 REMINDER TWO Hello ${m://firstname}, At the beginning of the month we sent you a link (see below) to an online survey seeking your opinions about Shaver's Creek Environmental Center (SCEC). We would greatly appreciate your help with understanding and improving the SCEC experience. The survey will close on Monday, February 27th at 11:59PM. There will be one more sent as a reminder to complete the survey. As before, we want to emphasize that regardless of how brief, long-ago, or the type of experience (visitor, volunteer, intern, employee, etc.), your feedback about your experience with SCEC is incredibly important to us. This voluntary survey is meant to capture the full range of possible experiences at and connections to SCEC. Your participation in the study will help us understand how to provide the most positive and long-lasting experiences for old and new visitors into the future. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, please contact Pennsylvania State University s Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program at (814) or irb-orp@psu.edu. If you have any questions about the study do not hesitate to contact the Primary Investigator, Max Olsen at mho10@psu.edu Thank you. Sincerely, Max Olsen Graduate Student Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management Pennsylvania State University Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://surveylink?d=take the survey} Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://surveyurl} Follow the link to opt out of future s: ${l://optoutlink?d=click here to unsubscribe} 109

121 REMINDER THREE Hello ${m://firstname}, At the beginning of the month we sent you a link (see below) to an online survey seeking your opinions about Shaver's Creek Environmental Center (SCEC). We would greatly appreciate your help with understanding and improving the SCEC experience. The survey will close on Monday, February 27th at 11:59PM. This is the final reminder to completing the survey. As before, we want to emphasize that regardless of how brief, long-ago, or the type of experience (visitor, volunteer, intern, employee, etc.), your feedback about your experience with SCEC is incredibly important to us. This voluntary survey is meant to capture the full range of possible experiences at and connections to SCEC. Your participation in the study will help us understand how to provide the most positive and long-lasting experiences for old and new visitors into the future. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, please contact Pennsylvania State University s Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program at (814) or irb-orp@psu.edu. If you have any questions about the study do not hesitate to contact the Primary Investigator, Max Olsen at mho10@psu.edu Thank you. Sincerely, Max Olsen Graduate Student Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management Pennsylvania State University Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://surveylink?d=take the survey} Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: ${l://surveyurl} Follow the link to opt out of future s: ${l://optoutlink?d=click here to unsubscribe} 110

122 APPENDIX C Hypothesized Setting Attachment Factor Structures 111

123 Figure 3-1. Orthogonal setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (A) Figure 3-3. Orthogonal setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as latent variables with correlated error (B) Figure 3-2. Bifactor setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as second-order latent variables (C) Figure 3-4. Bifactor setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as secondorder latent variables (D) 112

124 Figure 3-5. Hierarchical setting attachment model, tangible dimensions as second-order latent variables (E) Figure 3-7. Hierarchical setting attachment model, psychological dimensions as secondorder latent variables (F) Figure 3-6. Unidimensional setting attachment model (G) Figure 3-8. Orthogonal place attachment model, four dimensions as latent variables with correlated error 113