Exploring The Efects of Environmental Experience On Attachment

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHA
10.1177/0013916504264147
Ryan / URBAN NATURAL VIOR / January 2005
AREAS
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE
ON ATTACHMENT TO
URBAN NATURAL AREAS
ROBERT L. RYAN is an assistant professor at the Department of Landscape Archi-

tecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His current re-
search areas include place attachment, greenway planning, and rural character pres-
ervation. He is the coauthor with Rachel and Stephen Kaplan of the book With People
in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature (Island Press, 1998).
ABSTRACT: This study explored the relationship between place attachment and
both environmental experience and environmental attributes within three urban natu-
ral areas in Michigan. To understand these relationships, 328 park users—including
neighbors, visitors, volunteers, and staff—were asked about their attachment, use,
environmental knowledge, and attitudes toward management using a photo question-
naire. The results showed that attachment has different manifestations related to expe-
rience—a place-specific attachment was generally held by neighbors and recreational
users, whereas a conceptual attachment was held by volunteers, staff, and those with
extensive natural-areas knowledge. Each form of attachment was associated with dis-
tinctive perspectives on management. The study showed that the expert’s vision of
appropriate management of a natural area may differ from those of neighbors and
users, which can readily lead to conflict. If, however, attachment is recognized as a
multifaceted and far-reaching component of people’s relationship to a place, such
conflicts can be mitigated.
Keywords: place attachment; urban parks; natural-areas management; landscape
surveys; attitudes toward ecological restoration
Urban parks and natural areas are valuable resources in overcrowded cit-
ies. They sustain the ecological health of cities by maintaining natural sys-
tems and processes (Hough, 1995) and are often hot spots for biodiversity.
For example, the Chicago metropolitan region is home to the highest
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 1, January 2005 3-42
DOI: 10.1177/0013916504264147
© 2005 Sage Publications
3
4 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2005
concentration of rare and endangered species in the entire state of Illinois

(Chicago Regional Biodiversity Council, 1996). The importance of urban
nature to the health and well-being of urban residents has also been the sub-
ject of substantial research (Kaplan, 1983). Urban parks and trees hold a spe-
cial meaning for urban residents (Dwyer, Schroeder, & Gobster, 1994).
However, urban parks and natural areas are sensitive to environmental
change and development. Trees are cut down to make way for power lines
and wetlands are filled to make way for wider roads. Although human deci-
sions often create landscape changes, natural processes such as flooding or
windstorms can also drastically affect the landscape. These changes can have
sad consequences for those who have an attachment to natural areas. Yet the
effects of these changes on people and on their attachment to natural areas
have gone relatively unstudied.
People experience natural areas in a variety of activities and opportunities.
These different experiences can lead to discrepant attitudes about manage-
ment and use. And these, in turn, can promote changes to the landscape that
may be perceived as positive by one group and as undesirable by others. Eco-
logical restoration work is one such activity that has led to controversy in
urban parks (Gobster, 1997; Shore, 1997). The restoration of degraded urban
natural areas into native prairies and woodlands has been conducted by dedi-
cated park volunteers and staff who are interested in promoting biodiversity
and environmental education in urban natural areas across the United States.
These well-intentioned efforts, however, have sometimes been vehemently
opposed by other park users and neighbors (Shore, 1997). Understanding the
attachment that local residents and other park users have to urban natural
areas may be the first step in learning more about the root of these controver-
sies. This article describes a study of urban natural areas in Ann Arbor, Mich-
igan, that explored the relationship between environmental experience,
attachment, and attitudes toward management.
REVIEW OF PLACE ATTACHMENT RESEARCH
People have the ability and even the need to form emotional attachments
to other people (Levitt, 1991; Weiss, 1991). Just as attachments to others are
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank the USDA Forest Service, North Central For-
est Research Station, for their help funding this research through cooperative agree-
ment number 23-96-06. My grateful appreciation also goes to Rachel Kaplan for her
help designing this research and reviewing this article. Thanks also goes to Donna
Erickson, Stephen Kaplan, and Raymond DeYoung for their keen insights during this
study.
Ryan / URBAN NATURAL AREAS 5
important parts of being human, so are the attachments that people form to
the environments around them. This emotional bond between people and
places has been termed place attachment (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983). To
identify factors that may influence place attachment, this section focuses on
several key studies that have attempted to understand this phenomenon.
The majority of studies on place attachment have attempted to understand
people’s feelings for residential settings, such as home (Cooper-Marcus,
1995) and neighborhood (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003;
Lalli, 1992; Rivlin, 1987), rather than for natural settings. In his early seminal
work, sociologist Marc Fried (1963) showed that some residents of Boston’s
West End felt a strong affinity for what urban planners termed a slum neigh-
borhood. He found that those residents who had the strongest attachment to
their former neighborhood experienced intense grief and depression when
forced to relocate for urban renewal. It is important to note that residents not
only grieved for their close-knit social network in the old neighborhood; they
also missed the physical places in the neighborhood such as a favorite corner
store or their apartment house. This study shows that environmental change
is an important mechanism for revealing more hidden attachment feelings.
Other studies in residential place attachment suggest that familiarity in
terms of length of residence and intensity of use of neighborhood facilities is
positively associated with place attachment (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Brown et al.,
2003; Lalli, 1992). However, familiarity with a place does not always equate
to attachment, especially if the setting does not meet one’s needs (Stokols,
Shumaker, & Martinez, 1983). Particular types of residents, such as the
elderly, are often more attached to their neighborhood than are others
because their sense of identity is linked to these places, which can make resi-
dential relocation especially painful (Rubinstein & Parmelee, 1992).
Only recently have ecologists begun to discuss the emotional conse-
quences of such environmental changes as species extinction. Research biol-
ogist Phyllis Windle (1992) suggests that people experience a sense of loss
for ecological change. She recounts her own feelings of grief for the extinc-
tion (by disease) of the dogwoods in the forests of the southeastern United
States. Similarly, conservationists such as Aldo Leopold (1949) expressed
the idea that humans’ experiences on this planet are diminished by the loss of
any plant or animal species. At the landscape scale, a study in Norway found
that place attachment had a significant effect on rural residents’ attitudes
toward a proposed hydroelectric project (Vorkinn & Riese, 2001). There is
the need to know how environmental changes caused by restoration efforts
affect attachment to natural areas.
Feldman (1990) proposed that people identify with a type of residential
setting, such as city neighborhood, suburb, or small town, rather than with a
particular place or town, as a means of coping with frequent residential

moves. In a large-scale survey of Denver, Colorado, residents, she found that
people who identified with a particular settlement type were more likely to
give these places higher ratings of desirability. They were also more likely to
indicate an intention to move there in the future. Her findings suggest that
people easily transfer their allegiance from one place to another.
Applying Feldman’s (1990) research findings to the natural environment
leads to an interesting hypothesis. It could be that people have an attachment
to a type of landscape, such as an oak savanna, as well as to a particular place,
such as the stand of oak trees in their local park. A generic landscape attach-
ment implies that one natural area may be substituted for another as long as
they are of the same ecosystem or landscape type. However, the research sup-
port for such a theoretical connection is very tenuous; it may be the case that
feelings for a residential location (Feldman’s research) may be different from
feelings for a natural area.
Recent studies in the leisure science field have looked at visitor’s attach-
ment to large-scale recreational settings. Moore and Graefe (1994) surveyed
rail-trail users about their attachment for these recreational areas. They found
that spatial proximity and trail use were important factors in place attach-
ment; people who used the trail more frequently and who lived closer to the
trail expressed a stronger attachment for it. Unfortunately, this study did not
examine the physical characteristics of the trail or nearby landscape that may
contribute to attachment.
Inspired by Feldman’s (1990) settlement-identity study, Williams,
Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson (1992) explored attachment to the con-
cept of wilderness. They found that higher levels of attachment to the concept
of wilderness were held by those with membership in outdoor-oriented orga-
nizations. As in Moore and Graefe’s (1994) study of rail-trail users, more
prior visits to a wilderness setting equated with a higher degree of place
attachment. Lower place-attachment ratings were indicated by trail users
who were more likely to visit another wilderness site if the site at which they
were surveyed was closed to use. This last finding is noteworthy as it intro-
duces the idea of substitutability as a gauge of place attachment.
In an innovative study of national forest users, Mitchell, Force, Carroll,
and McLaughlin (1993) used in-depth interviews to understand visitors’
attachment to special places along the Chiwawa River in Washington State.
They discovered that visitors were divided between those who were use-
oriented and those who were attachment-oriented. The use-oriented visitors
were those who focused on their activities in the forest setting (i.e., fishing or
boating) rather than the place itself. The attachment-oriented visitors focused
on the qualities of the places and often described an emotional connection to
a particular favorite spot, such as a hiking trail or camping site. Although this
study was successful in measuring attachment feelings, it did not make a
strong connection between visitors’ feelings of attachment and the physical
environment.
Many environmental educators believe that gaining knowledge about nat-
ural environments will lead to a more earth-sensitive public (Chawla & Hart,
1988; Louv, 1991). There is an implicit assumption that learning about local
flora and fauna will lead children to form an attachment to their local biologi-
cal landscapes (Nabhan & Trimble, 1994) and that this attachment is neces-
sary for environmental stewardship. Although this could be a useful means
for developing concerned citizens, there have been no studies that link
natural-features knowledge to place attachment. Tanner (1980), using an
open-ended survey of environmental activists, found that one fourth of the
participants experienced some loss of a special natural area during their
childhood or adolescence. These findings support the idea that place attach-
ment plays a role in fostering environmental stewardship. However, there is a
need to expand on this research to include more specific measures of place
attachment and to broaden the sample beyond those who are self-declared en-
vironmental activists.
There is ample evidence that shows landscape preference to be remark-
ably predictable and consistent (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). People may like a
particular place and with time, develop an attachment for it. Therefore, it
makes sense to consider whether some factors that influence preference may
also influence attachment. Environmental experience (i.e., expertise or
knowledge about a particular landscape) has been shown to be a significant
factor in differentiating landscape preference. Kaplan and Herbert (1987), in
their study of native and introduced landscapes in Western Australia, found
that members of a local wildflower club, who presumably were knowledge-
able about their native plant species, had a greater preference for native eco-
systems than did a group of Australian university students and also had a sig-
nificantly lower preference for landscapes of introduced species. In a very
different setting—northern Michigan—Anderson (1978) found that forestry
professionals had significantly higher preference for heavily manipulated
landscapes (i.e., cutover forests) than did local residents and students.
Gallagher’s (1977) study of landscape preference for an alternative corporate
landscape showed that those with more knowledge about the prairie land-
scape (including neighbors and staff) had a higher preference. Nearby
homeowners, on the other hand, were less appreciative of the unkempt
appearance of this native landscaping.
Nassauer’s research (1993, 1995) shows that suburban homeowners may
be more accepting of native plants when they are used in more refined config-
urations, where so-called cues to care within the front yard plantings tell
other neighbors that this is an intentional, managed landscape. For example,
prairie grass and trees were seen as acceptable in the residential landscape
when bordered by a mowed lawn or edged by a well-maintained fence. As in
previous preference research, environmental knowledge was an important
factor: Those with a greater knowledge about indigenous plants had a greater
preference for yards with more area devoted to native landscaping.
RESEARCH GAPS IN UNDERSTANDING

ATTACHMENT TO URBAN NATURAL AREAS
This review of place attachment research has revealed several key factors
that should be studied to understand the attachment that people may develop
toward urban natural areas.
Effects of environmental experience. Within the studies of attachment to

natural areas (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989), envi-
ronmental experience has been narrowly defined as recreational use. Yet peo-
ple experience natural areas in many other ways. Current research has not
dealt with the effects of these other types of environmental experience (e.g.,
volunteers who actively restore the landscape or passive users who only view
the setting but do not use it in the traditional sense). In addition, it is important
to understand how expertise may affect the attachment that people may build
to urban natural areas.
Effects of place. The connection between the physical characteristics of

the place and people’s attachment has been relatively neglected in previous
studies. Understanding how the physical attributes of a place affect attach-
ment is sorely needed by those who make planning and management deci-
sions. The existing research (Feldman, 1990; Williams et al., 1992) suggests
that people may have an attachment to a type of setting (i.e., urban neighbor-
hood or wilderness) and to specific places. However, this hypothesis has not
been tested within the setting of urban natural areas. There is the need to know
if certain types of landscapes (e.g., prairies or marshes) ensure attachment.
Impact of attachment on attitudes toward planning and management. The

effects that place attachment may have on the environment, in the form of
environmental attitudes, remains largely ignored. Although current research
has informed managers about the location of special areas (Mitchell et al.,
1993), it has not produced information to help them more sensitively manage
these areas. Furthermore, there is a need to know whether developing an
attachment for natural settings affects people’s environmental actions, par-

ticularly their stewardship of local natural areas.
METHOD
This study explored the relationship between place attachment and envi-
ronmental experience within the context of three urban natural areas along
the Huron River in Ann Arbor, Michigan (Ryan, 1997). Two of the sites are
within Ann Arbor’s park system and the other is a university arboretum.
These study sites were chosen because they are actively managed by volun-
teers and staff to restore the native prairie and riparian forest ecosystems.
This study involved a survey of 328 park users, including park staff (n =
18), volunteers (n = 60), neighbors (n = 115), visitors (n = 74), and members
of a nonprofit arboretum organization (n = 61). Eight-hundred and twenty-
four surveys were distributed by mail and on-site with a 40% response rate. It
is important to note that although park staff make up a very small percentage
of the total sample (5.5%), their viewpoint is critical because it often guides
the changes that occur to these natural areas. Demographically, the sample
was evenly divided between men and women, 49% and 51%, respectively,
with the median age being approximately 50 years old.
A written survey instrument was used to ask participants about their
attachment to the study sites, using both photo-based and verbal measures.
First, participants were asked to rate 24 black-and-white photographs of the
study sites according to their attachment to these specific locations or views.
This photo-based survey methodology developed by Kaplan and Kaplan
(1989) has been used extensively to measure landscape preference, but the
current study adapted the wording for attachment rating. Participants were
also given the option of indicating with an X if any individual picture was not
applicable for this question. Because the intention was to assess attachment
to a specific site and not just a type of natural area, the photographs were
grouped and labeled by site with one page of eight scenes for each study area.
Care was taken to randomly order the scenes on each page with respect to
location within the natural area.
The remaining attachment measures focused on participants’ respective
park site. The first measure asked them about their thoughts and feelings
about their respective natural area. Because attachment may be most appar-
ent after some negative change has occurred to a place, another question
asked participants about their possible responses to some hypothetical, nega-
tive change to this natural area. The final attachment measure addressed envi-
ronmental changes that had actually occurred in these parks as a result of

management or natural causes. Unless otherwise indicated, the survey used a
5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much).
In addition, participants were asked about their frequency and type of use
of the study sites, their knowledge about nature in general, and their attitudes
toward management of these areas. Participants were categorized by their
responses according to their type of natural area experience: conceptual (i.e.,
staff), active in working on the site (i.e., volunteers), actively traversing the
site (i.e., walkers, bikers), and passive users, such as viewing the site from
one’s window or while driving by in one’s car. These groups were then used
to compare participants’ attachment and attitudes toward management.
DATA ANALYSIS
Principal axis factor analysis (varimax rotation and pair-wise deletion of

missing data) was used to determine meaningful categories within each bank
of photo-based and verbal survey items relating to attachment, management,
and expertise. The criteria used to designate categories were as follows:
eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1.00, loadings greater than .40, exclusion
of items with loadings of .40 or greater on multiple categories, inter-
pretability of the category, and a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient greater than
.50 (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally, 1978). The results of the factor analyses
were used to create scales by calculating participant’s average ratings of the
items that formed the category.
Independent means t tests and one-way analysis of variance were used to
compare groups. In addition, multiple regression was used to further under-
stand the effects of multiple independent variables. This analysis was con-
ducted in the following manner: The independent variables were entered
simultaneously into linear regression using pair-wise deletion of missing
data. Nominal variables such as study site were coded as dummy variables
for these analyses. Independent variables with a significant t < .05 in the ini-
tial regression run were then entered into the final linear regression model
using the forward command. This method identifies the most significant
independent variables and shows the increase in variance explained for each
new variable that is added to the regression model. Only those variables that
were also significant in this second run are included in the final regression
model. Separate analyses were run for each of the attachment and manage-
ment categories.
RESULTS: ATTACHMENT FOR URBAN NATURAL AREAS
This study used multiple measures of attachment to more fully explore the
factors that affect the emotional bond between people and urban natural
areas. The research showed that attachment is a complex construct that is
influenced by the physical characteristics of the place itself, the type and
intensity of people’s experience with a place, and their knowledge about
nature in general.
PLACE ATTACHMENT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES:

PHOTO-BASED ATTACHMENT MEASURES
It is important for natural-areas managers to know if certain parks or types

of parks (i.e., restored natural areas and traditional parks) are more special
than others. In addition, it is important for designers to know if there are cer-
tain physical features of parks that foster attachment. Measuring attachment
using photo ratings proved to be an innovative and useful tool for addressing
these issues. Participants gave attachment ratings for 24 scenes from three
urban natural areas in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Factor analysis showed that par-
ticipants’ attachment differentiated between the three study sites and
between the different landscapes within these study sites (i.e., prairies and
riverscapes).
The three study sites are part of a greenway corridor that follows the
Huron River through the City of Ann Arbor. The largest of the natural areas,
Nichols Arboretum, is adjacent to the University of Michigan and is heavily
used by the surrounding university neighborhoods. As the oldest designated
natural area of the three, the majority of its outdoor spaces were designed to
showcase both ornamental and native plantings. Nearby Furstenberg Park is
a much newer park and highlights existing and recreated native ecosystems in
a riparian floodplain environment. Barton Park, on the edge of the city, is a
large oxbow in the Huron River, which consists of an old farm field of
successional shrub vegetation and a native grassland called the Oxbow Prai-
rie. At the north end of the park, a large dam creates Barton Pond, which is
used for fishing and boating.
To understand participants’ attachment to the landscapes and features
within each natural area, they were asked to rate scenes from the three study
sites according to their attachment to that location (1 = not at all, 5 =
extremely). Participants were also given the option of indicating with an X if
the question was not applicable to a particular scene. Of those answering this
question, more than 90%, expressed an opinion about their attachment to the
arboretum scenes, whereas a smaller percentage, approximately 76% and

70%, answered about Barton and Furstenberg Parks, respectively.
Factor analyses of the photo-based attachment ratings were carried out
separately for each of the study sites. Results of the arboretum and Barton
Park analyses showed that participants distinguished between different land-
scape types, yielding more than one factor for each of the parks. For
Furstenberg Park, the scenes all formed a single category or factor. More spe-
cifically, the results of these analyses showed the following:
The Nichols Arboretum scenes formed two distinct categories, the River-
side and Dow Prairie. The Riverside area includes three river scenes as well
as a scene of the adjacent tree-canopied road (see Figure 1). It is noteworthy
that participants were able to recognize this road (Scene c) as being part of the
same area despite the fact that the scene showed no view of the river. The two
scenes in this category, which included the river, were the only ones among
all the scenes to receive mean attachment ratings above 4.0. The Riverside
factor as a whole thus received the highest attachment rating of any natural
area location with a category mean of 3.95. The Dow Prairie category con-
sists of two scenes from different sides of the prairie (see Figure 2), including
a distant view of adjacent high-rise apartment towers that overlook this area.
Although still loved by participants, this open landscape received signifi-
cantly lower attachment ratings (category M = 3.70) than did the Riverside
area (see Table 1). Of the remaining three arboretum scenes, an open ever-
green forest and a park bench in Dow Prairie were eliminated because they
had dual loadings. The third scene, a view to the arboretum from a nearby
high-rise apartment building, did not factor with either category and was not
used in further comparisons.
Factor analysis of the eight Barton Park scenes also yielded two distinct
categories with respect to attachment. The first of these categories, the Barton
Oxbow Prairie, consists of three prairie scenes (see Figure 3), which received
a midlevel attachment rating (category M = 3.59). The second category at
Barton Park consists of three scenes of Barton Pond and the adjacent dam
(see Figure 4). Despite the fact that the Barton Pond category received a sta-
tistically similar rating (category M = 3.47) to the Oxbow Prairie, its appear-
ance as a distinct factor shows that participants’ attachment ratings distin-
guished between these two areas. (Two scenes were eliminated from the
Barton Park photo categories because of dual loadings.)
Unlike the scenes of Nichols Arboretum and Barton Park, participants did
not seem to differentiate among the eight scenes of Furstenberg Park. Factor
analysis yielded a single category with a very high Cronbach’s coefficient of
internal consistency, .94 (see Figure 5). This is surprising considering the
wide range of natural landscapes (e.g., forests, wetland, and prairie) and fea-
(text continues on page 19)
a.
b.
c.
Figure 1: Arboretum: Riverside Area Photo Category

NOTE: Category M = 3.95.
a. M = 4.01.
b. M = 4.04.
c. M = 3.80.
a.
b.
Figure 2: Arboretum: Dow Prairie Photo Category

a. M = 3.61.
b. M = 3.81.
TABLE 1
Photo-Based Attachment Categories: Mean Scores
Category
Category Name M SD Cronbach’s α
Nichols Arboretum
Riverside Area 3.95 1.05 .87
Dow Prairie 3.70 1.20 .84
Barton Park
a
Oxbow Prairie 3.59 1.07 .82
a,b
Barton Pond 3.47 1.15 .81
b
Furstenberg Park 3.32 1.15 .94
NOTE: All pair-wise comparisons of means are significant at p < .05, except for those indicated by a
superscripted a or b.
a.
b.
c.
Figure 3: Barton Park: Oxbow Prairie Photo Category

a. M = 3.55.
b. M = 3.40.
c. M = 3.75.
a.
b.
c.
Figure 4: Barton Park: Pond Photo Category

a. M = 3.48.
b. M = 3.61.
c. M = 3.30.
a.
b.
c.
Figure 5: Furstenberg Park Photo Category

a. M = 3.81.
b. M = 3.55.
c. M = 3.45.
d.
e.
f.
Figure 5: continued
d. M = 3.42.
e. M = 3.34.
f. M = 3.21.
g.
h.
Figure 5: continued
g. M = 3.11.
h. M = 2.80.
tures (e.g., paths, boardwalk, and buildings) shown in these scenes. Fursten-
berg Park also received the lowest attachment rating of any natural area (cate-
gory M = 3.32).
The results of the photo-based attachment measure indicate that certain
water-oriented landscapes, such as the Riverside area in the arboretum, elicit
a stronger attachment than do the more open prairie landscapes—Dow Prai-
rie and Barton Park’s Oxbow Prairie (see Table 1). However, the presence of
water alone is not a sure indicator of attachment feelings; the Barton Pond area
received significantly lower ratings than the arboretum’s Riverside area. One
explanation could be the difference in configuration of these water-oriented
landscapes. The arboretum’s riverside is a tree-covered, flowing river, whereas
the Barton Pond area is an open reservoir with few trees and a large dam.
Attachment to the prairies was also significantly different. The arbore-

tum’s Dow Prairie received significantly higher attachment ratings than did
Barton’s Oxbow Prairie, indicating that attachment is not constant within the
same type of landscape. These site-specific differences suggest that attach-
ment involves an interaction between landscape features and their setting.
Place attachment in the context of urban natural areas, therefore, appears to
be specific to both place and landscape. The implication for managers and
designers is that in the public’s eyes, one park is not necessarily interchange-
able for another one.
The results of this attachment measure revealed several key findings.
First, a photo-based technique can be used successfully to measure attach-
ment. Second, this methodology was helpful for showing that participants’
attachment distinguished among different places and the landscapes within
these places. Certain landscapes, such as riverside areas with moving water
and trees, were more loved than were open prairie landscapes. These findings
held true even when taking into consideration participants’ attachment to
their own park.
ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO ACTUAL LANDSCAPE CHANGE
Attachment is likely to be reflected in one’s feelings about changes that

are made to a setting. This aspect of attachment was measured by a series of
items related to changes that had occurred to participants’ respective natural
areas (e.g., the arboretum, Barton Park, or Furstenberg Park). Because
changes can be seen as positive or negative, items were included to examine
both kinds of changes. Factor analysis produced scales that clustered around
either positive or negative changes, despite the fact that the two sets had been
analyzed together (see Table 2). The highest rated category reflected partici-
pants’ positive response to changes that made the parks appear more natural.
However, the category’s Cronbach’s alpha of .64 suggests a somewhat low
coherence. Another positive change item, the increased access provided by
new or improved trails, did not load on any category. This change was also
highly appreciated by participants.
The items related to negative changes formed two distinct categories. One
of these was made up of three items reflecting a loss or reduction in the park,
such as removal of a favorite tree or reduction in the perceived size of the park
caused by development. Participants rated this category as significantly more
of a problem than the items forming the second category. This latter category
involved negative changes that made the area appear too unmanaged (e.g.,
allowing views to be obscured by overgrown trees). Despite receiving a rela-
tively low Cronbach’s alpha of .51, this category was retained because it met
TABLE 2
Attachment: Response to Actual Change in Respective Urban Natural Area
Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s α
Enjoy more natural appearance 4.55 0.65 .64

Enjoy the new wildflowers which have
sprung up
Glad to see majority of area remain natural
a
Appreciate increased access provided
by new and improved trails 3.91 1.23
Reduction in special qualities 1.94 0.93 .71
New development near the park makes
it feel smaller
There are fewer distinct areas than before
Some of my favorite trees have been
removed
Too unmanaged 1.48 0.74 .51
Trees have grown up to cover a favorite view
Appears too unmanaged
NOTE: All pair-wise comparisons of means shown in bold type are significant at p < .001.
a. Single item.
the minimum category requirements (outlined in the Method section) and its
item made sense together, from a theoretical standpoint. In general, partici-
pants did not appear to feel that these changes were very negative; both cate-
gories received significantly lower ratings than those received by the positive
categories.
Participants were also encouraged to write down other positive or negative
changes that had occurred in these parks. The new trails and boardwalks at
two of the parks proved to be controversial improvements. Although the sur-
vey item about increased access provided by these trails indicated that partic-
ipants, on average, felt positive about these improvements (M = 3.91), a vocal
minority from both Barton and Furstenberg Parks considered the new trail
and boardwalk in the respective parks to be extremely negative changes. In
their opinion, improving access has brought too many people (and their dogs)
to these natural areas. Increased use, in turn, has harmed the wildlife and
ruined the wilderness ambiance. These comments suggest that for those who
already had an attachment to these natural areas as symbols of untouched
nature, these improvements negatively affected their attachment. However,
other comments suggest that these improvements actually increased partici-
pants’ attachment, especially by providing access for those who were unable
to visit them in the past and who now may have a chance to develop an
attachment for these natural areas.
Participants’ responses to the physical changes that had been made to

these parks show that physical features can impact attachment in both a posi-
tive and negative manner. For example, participants applauded the removal
of a privet hedge in the arboretum because it opened up a beautiful view of
the Huron River Valley. However, in another area of the arboretum, partici-
pants were dismayed when the removal of a tree row revealed an unsightly
view of nearby railroad tracks and power lines. Although it may be difficult
to point to any one physical feature that ensures attachment, participants
were particularly positive about the trend to a more natural quality of these
places. For example, several comments indicated that trees were particularly
appreciated.
THE AFFECTIVE QUALITIES OF ATTACHMENT:

THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS
The previous section focused on the physical features of a place and

their impact on attachment. This section looks at the affective quality of
attachment—the range of feelings that these natural areas evoke within local
residents and the effect that environmental change may have on their attach-
ment to these places.
A number of items relating to participants’ thoughts and feelings were
crafted to measure different theoretical expressions of place attachment, such
as identifying with the place, showing it to others, and compatibility with
one’s skills and desires. Despite the efforts to identify different types of
attachment however, 13 of the 16 items clustered to form a single general
attachment scale, with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of .94;
see Table 3). The many different expressions of place attachment forming
this scale include items such as being confident in finding one’s way around
the park, missing the park if one were to move to another community, and
feeling peaceful after visiting the park. The category mean of 3.66 is slightly
lower than expected; the wide range of items that form this scale have means
between 2.80 and 4.10.
The three remaining items, all relating to fears, formed a distinct category.
This negative attachment scale received a significantly lower category mean
(1.96) than did the more positive expressions of attachment, indicating that
participants felt only slightly fearful or unsafe in these natural areas. This is
surprising considering the overgrown nature of many areas within these
parks and the lack of visibility from nearby roads or houses.
TABLE 3
Attachment Categories: Thoughts and Feelings
General attachment 3.66 0.98 .94

One of my favorite places
The park feels like home
Would miss the park if I moved to
another community
This park is like an old friend
Thinking about this place cheers me up
Like to show it to others
Enjoy telling others about this place
Feel more peaceful after visiting the park
Enjoy being familiar with the plants and
animals there
Not boring to visit there often
After going there, I find it easier to handle
challenging tasks
Confident that I can find my way around the park
Would like to have pictures of the park
Negative attachment 1.90 1.01 .81
Afraid to venture into certain areas
Feel unsafe there
Hesitate to stray off trails
NOTE: Pair-wise comparison of category means is significant at p < .001.
RESPONSE TO HYPOTHETICAL CHANGE

AS A MEASURE OF ATTACHMENT
The idea that place attachment may be most apparent in the face of nega-
tive change was the basis of a set of items asking participants about their
likely response to hypothetical changes to their respective park that they con-
sidered to be negative. Factor analysis yielded categories around themes of
emotional responses and environmental activism (see Table 4). The first clus-
ter of items, called personal loss, showed the strong personal impact that a
negative change could have on attachment. The mean for these items (e.g.,
“missing many characteristics of the existing park” and “feeling a reduction
in quality of life”) was relatively high (3.79).
The second factor shows that place attachment may manifest itself in tak-
ing environmental action to protect a special place (category M = 3.19),
including becoming involved in efforts to preserve the remainder of the park,
attending public meetings to voice opposition, or joining a local environmen-
tal group.
TABLE 4
Attachment Categories: Response to Hypothetical Change
Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s
Personal loss 3.79 1.05 .91

Experience some sense of loss
Feel sad
Miss many characteristics of the existing park
Feel a reduction in quality of life
a
Environmental activism 3.19 1.19 .85
Become involved in preserving remainder of park
Attend public meetings to voice my opposition
Join a local environmental group
b a
Seek another nearby park to satisfy my needs 3.10 1.32
b
Stop visiting this park 2.70 1.17
NOTE: All pair-wise comparisons of means shown in bold type are significant at p < .05, except for
those indicated by a superscripted a.
a. Indicates pair-wise comparison means that are not significant at the p < .05 level.
b. Single item.
Two items had been developed to measure the degree to which negative
change might force participants to substitute another park for the study sites.
These items did not form a distinct cluster and were analyzed as individual
items. The response to the first item showed that even after a negative change,
participants did not think that they would be very likely to stop visiting this
park (category M = 2.70). However, they would be somewhat more likely to
seek another nearby park to satisfy their needs (category M = 3.10).
The results of this measure indicate that the threat of a negative change is
an effective measure of different attributes of attachment. First, attachment
can have profound implications for personal well-being, as expressed by a
strong sense of loss. Second, disruptions to one’s attachment for a natural
area can result in changes in behavior, both personal (i.e., no longer visiting
the place) and public (i.e., becoming more environmentally active). Third,
attachment can be both place specific and generic with regard to natural
areas. People love certain places so much that they would continue to visit
despite negative changes.
THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE ON PLACE ATTACHMENT
People experience urban natural areas in many different ways: driving by

on their way to work, going for a morning walk, or viewing them from the
windows of their home. It would be interesting to know how different types
of experiences affect attachment to place. For purposes of further analysis,
participants were categorized along a gradient related to their interaction

with the site. This gradient incorporates (a) type of experience (i.e., concep-
tual, active, and passive) and (b) intensity of use. The gradient begins at the
conceptual end with the park staff who are intensely involved in park plan-
ning and management. The next four categories reflect different forms of
active involvement, beginning with the volunteers who work to restore these
sites. They are followed by those whose active experience is recreational:
walkers, bikers, and joggers. The active recreationalist group is further
divided into three smaller groups according to proximity to the natural area
(i.e., neighbor or nonneighbor) and intensity of use. The passive section of
the spectrum includes two groups: neighbors who are infrequent park users
and nonneighbors who only drive by these parks on their way to work but do
not actively use them. It should be noted that these are exclusive categories,
with participants classified according to their most prevalent involvement
with the site. For example, although few volunteers were also homeowners or
frequent users, they were still placed in the volunteer category.
One-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between
the seven levels of environmental involvement with regard to the attachment
measures (see Table 5). Independent means t tests between individual pairs
showed that significant differences were often clustered between certain lev-
els of involvement. All significant differences described in the text are at the
p < .05 level. At the conceptual end of the involvement scale, there were no
significant differences between the staff and the volunteers in their responses
to the attachment measures. These results suggest that even though the volun-
teers were categorized as having an active involvement with the site, the dis-
tinction between their effort and the staff’s is blurred. These similarities may
stem from the fact that the majority of volunteers and staff often work closely
together to modify these sites for the same goal: habitat restoration.
The frequent park users had significantly higher attachment ratings, as
measured by the general attachment category, than did the volunteers. How-
ever, both groups expressed equally high levels of personal loss should there
be a negative change to these natural areas and would respond similarly to
this hypothetical change by becoming more involved in environmental activ-
ities. On the surface, this seems to contradict the active park users’ stronger
attachment ratings, but it could be that these two groups are attached to differ-
ent aspects of these natural areas. This hunch is supported by the fact that the
volunteer group was significantly more likely to seek another park to fulfill
their needs should this park change in a negative manner than would the fre-
quent park users. This suggests that the park volunteers were less attached to
their respective natural areas as particular places and more attached to them
in a conceptual way, for instance, as ecosystems. In other words, it is not the
arboretum prairie itself toward which volunteers have strong feelings but
rather the importance of native prairie grasslands in general. Therefore, the
volunteers’ expression of loss may be in response to environmental degrada-
tion in general, (e.g., loss in biodiversity) rather than to the demise of this par-
ticular place. Frequent park users, on the other hand, are keenly tied to the
specific place.
Some of the most significant group differences were related to intensity of
park use for recreation. Frequent park users showed significantly higher gen-
eral attachment to their respective natural areas than did those who only used
the parks with moderate frequency. Similarly, those park neighbors whose
main interaction with these natural areas was passive (i.e., infrequent recre-
ational users) expressed only moderate attachment to these natural areas, as
compared to those park neighbors who were also frequent active park users.
However, among nearby residents, there were no significant differences in
anticipation of seeking an alternative park in the face of negative hypothetical
change, indicating that nearby residents are more dependent on these nearby
natural areas even if they are not frequent active park users. Furthermore, the
neighbors felt they would experience a greater personal loss as a result of a
negative change to their nearby natural areas than would frequent park users.
It may be that the additional loss that the neighbors would feel comes, in part,
from losing a cherished view from their home. Unlike other park users, the
park neighbors are by far the most place dependent because their view is not
portable but remains a constant reminder of the state of the adjacent open
space. Of all of the park users, the park neighbors also must expend the most
energy (i.e., move elsewhere) to change their interaction with the park. This
place dependency is further reflected in the higher rating that the neighbors
gave to the environmental activism items. However, just living near a natural
area without actively using it was not in itself enough to increase the level of
environmental advocacy. Nearby residents who were not frequent park users
were significantly less likely to become environmental advocates than were
frequent park users.
This is not to say, though, that the more passive park neighbors were not
concerned about these natural areas. The park neighbors (both frequent and
infrequent users) felt significantly more strongly than did the frequent users
that these natural areas had become too unmanaged. Thus, concerns over the
view from one’s window appear to have an effect on attitudes toward man-
agement of these places.
These results suggest that patterns of involvement with a park are related
to attachment in diverse and meaningful ways. General attachment was
strongest for those who use the area and for the staff. Staff and volunteers
were less attached to a particular park if there were a (hypothetical) reason to
TABLE 5
Significant Relationships Between Experience and Place Attachment Measures
Neighbor: Medium Neighbor: Drive by

Staff Volunteer High Use High Use Use Low Use Only
Attachment Categories (n = 17) (n = 60) (n = 52) (n = 71) (n = 71) (n = 17) (n = 22) F p<
General attachment 4.18 3.77 4.12 4.10 3.34 3.07 2.55 19.28 .0001
a
Negative attachment 1.40 2.08 2.37 .05
Hypothetical change:
personal loss 4.16 4.09 4.34 4.04 3.42 3.23 2.97 10.32 .0001
environmental activism 3.65 3.64 3.82 3.41 2.71 2.69 2.27 11.00 .0001
stop visiting park 2.41 2.83 2.71 2.45 3.09 2.50 2.75 2.20 .05
seek another park 3.35 3.50 2.85 2.85 3.38 2.60 2.81 2.77 .05
Positive change:
more natural 4.88 4.69 4.71 4.62 4.39 4.57 3.97 5.82 .0001
Negative change:
too unmanaged 1.47 1.38 1.58 1.30 1.50 2.08 1.35 2.44 .05
a. Indicates significant t test only between this pair.
27
seek an alternative. In this sense of attachment, the frequent users and/or

viewers of a park have a more location-specific bond. Although high use is an
important factor in attachment, those for whom the park is a nearby resource
(and available in their view from home) are more likely to have concerns
about a too unmanaged appearance.
EXPERIENCE AND ATTACHMENT: ADDITIONAL

INSIGHTS FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSION
As mentioned earlier, the experience continuum in the previous analyses

used exclusive categories. Thus, it could not account for the effects of partici-
pants’ multiple types of involvement with these sites (e.g., being a park
neighbor and volunteer). Therefore, multiple regression was used to ascer-
tain these cumulative effects. Multiple regression also allowed the inclusion
of additional factors such as familiarity and expertise that cut across different
levels of involvement.
The independent variables used to predict attachment included individu-
als’ ratings of their familiarity with their respective park and three separate
measures of frequency of use (driving by, nature-centered activities, and
active use). Knowledge of natural areas was reflected by three measures:
staff, volunteer, and the self-reported expertise items. Variations in attach-
ment to the target natural areas led to including site as a predictor. In addition,
the analysis included neighbor, visitor, members of the Friends of the
Nichols Arboretum, and gender.
The multiple regression results shown in Table 6 show that familiarity and
active use were the top predictors of attachment feelings as measured by the
general attachment and response to hypothetical change: personal loss cate-
gories. In addition, the arboretum sample also expressed a greater general
attachment to their natural area than did the other two samples.
Natural-areas expertise, on the other hand, was less associated with gen-
eral attachment feelings and more associated with a sense of loss and with
taking environmental action in the face of potential negative change to these
natural areas. However, using these areas for nature-centered activities was
the leading predictor of participants’ expectation that they would take action
to fight some negative change. The results suggest that conceptual knowl-
edge (expertise) may propel one into environmental activism. A more per-
sonal connection to a site that comes from using a site, on the other hand,
leads to both general attachment and a strong response to an environmental
threat. The hypothesis that natural-areas expertise is not a place-based con-
cept is further supported by the fact that expertise was associated with seek-
ing another park should this one change in a negative way. It is interesting that
volunteers, as opposed to neighbors, were more likely to anticipate a per-

sonal loss and to think that they would be active in the call for change.
Natural-areas expertise was related negatively to the negative attachment
category. In other words, experts were less fearful of using these natural
areas. Gender (i.e., female) was the most significant factor in predicting par-
ticipants’ fearfulness of these natural areas. These differences in perceptions
can be especially problematic because often those (men and women) in
charge of managing these areas have a high degree of expertise and level of
comfort. Thus, the experts’ perception that these often overgrown areas are
safe may not be shared by many women who might want to use these natural
areas. Those who used these areas for nature-centered activities were likely
to feel that the parks were changing in a positive manner by becoming more
natural. In contrast, visitors and Friends of the Nichols Arboretum were more
likely to have a negative reaction to this type of change. In the arboretum,
with its long history of ornamental plantings, changes that are making it
appear more natural could be construed by the Friends of the Nichols Arbore-
tum to be creating a more overgrown landscape than the traditional landscape
of the arboretum.
EXPERIENCE AND PHOTO-BASED ATTACHMENT MEASURES
Multiple regression was also used to create models to predict the photo-
based attachment measures. To relate participants’use and familiarity of their
respective parks to their attachment for them, analyses were conducted on the
individual park samples. The results in Table 7 show that familiarity and
use were significant predictors of attachment, which supports the findings
among the verbal measures of attachment. In the arboretum sample, partici-
pants’attachment for specific locations differed by the type of use. Active use
such as walking and jogging was more predictive of attachment to the scenic
Riverside area, whereas nature-centered use predicted attachment to the
arboretum prairie. This seems to indicate that less traditionally scenic natural
areas such as prairies are likely to draw a particular segment of the popula-
tion, amateur nature lovers, as opposed to the so-called typical park visitor
engaged in more active recreation such as walking.
In a similar manner, the Furstenberg Park natural area, which includes a
mixture of prairie and riparian wetland ecosystems, received higher attach-
ment ratings from volunteers and those who use it for nature-related activi-
ties. This further supports the notion that wilder natural areas are more appre-
ciated by a certain segment of park users—those who are more interested in
natural-areas activities or restoration.
30
TABLE 6
Predicting Attachment: Multiple Regression Results
Attachment Feelings Response to Hypothetical Change Actual Change

Independent Variables General Negative: Personal Environmental Seek Another Positive Change:
(Beta Coefficients) Attachment Fear Loss Activism Park More Natural
a,b
Use: active .31**** .30**** .28****
a,c,d
Use: nature .20**** .17** .26****
Use: drive by
b,d
Familiarity .32**** .25**** .20***
Staff
Volunteer .09* .12* 0.13*
c
Expertise –.16*** .14* .20*** .16**
Neighbor
Visitor –.11* –.14*
Site: Nichols Arboretum sample .11* –.33****
Site: Barton Park sample –.23***
Friends of Nichols Arboretum –.14*
Gender: female .34****
R2 .53 .15 .30 .31 .10 .19
F 63.80 26.89 31.54 26.10 11.24 16.30
NOTE: Regression models were conducted for all of the attachment categories; however, those results that explained a minimal amount of their variance (i.e., R 2 less
than .10) are not shown.
a. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
b. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
c. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
d. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p < .0001.
The results at Barton Park allow a comparison between the wilder Oxbow
Prairie area and the more refined and developed pond area. Park neighbors
were more likely to indicate a lower attachment for the Oxbow Prairie. Park
volunteers, on the other hand, reacted negatively to the refined, developed
area around Barton Pond. This further supports the notion that their natural-
area attachment is related to so-called appropriate native landscapes rather
than to particular places. These results also suggest that park neighbors have
less appreciation for the prairie areas than do some of the park managers and
volunteers who are working to restore this park.
ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL-AREAS MANAGEMENT
At the heart of many conflicts over natural-areas management are differ-

ent visions about nature. Should natural areas be the exclusive domain of
native plants and showplaces of regional ecosystems? Or is there a place in
these natural areas for lawns, picnicking, or even a Frisbee toss? To address
these issues, participants were asked their opinions about different manage-
ment strategies for their respective natural area. The list of management
options included those relating to vegetative management, such as cutting
and thinning trees and shrubs, as well as those related to more intensive park
development, such as increasing parking areas or building a visitors’ center.
Participants were asked to use a 5-point, bipolar scale with 1 = very negative,
3 = neutral, and 5 = very positive. In addition, participants were offered a do
not know option for items that they felt unqualified to answer. In general, this
option was not heavily used, ranging from 2.2% to 13.3% of responses to
these survey items.
The results of the individual survey items showed predominantly neutral
attitudes toward these management options. However, items relating to
increasing park development (e.g., increasing parking areas) received rela-
tively negative responses. Scales based on the factor analysis results are pre-
sented in Table 8. The first category, eliminate nonnatives, is about actively
managing to promote native plant species. In the case of these natural areas,
this means eliminating certain nonnative species that are aggressively invad-
ing native habitats. This is the predominant type of management that is cur-
rently being conducted by park volunteers and staff. Although this category
only received a neutral rating (M = 3.12), the individual item scores within
this category ranged considerably. For instance, controlled burning, which is
conducted in all of these native grassland areas, received a positive rating of
3.90, whereas spraying herbicides to eliminate nonnative shrubs received a
negative rating of 2.22. This seems to indicate that although participants may
32
TABLE 7
Predicting Photo-Based Attachment: Multiple Regression Results
Photo-Based Attachment Categories

Independent Variables Arboretum: Riverside Arboretum: Dow Barton: Oxbow Barton: Pond Furstenberg Park
(Beta Coefficients) Area (n = 123) Prairie (n = 123) Prairie (n = 99) Area (n = 102) (n = 70)
a,b
Use: active .27**** .44**** .26*** .26*
a,c,d
Use: nature .19* .30**
Use: drive by
b,d
Familiarity .47**** .43****
Staff .28*
Volunteer –.32**** .22**
c
Expertise
Neighbor –0.19*
Visitor
R2 .43 .29 .18 .19 .41
F 47.80 25.73 10.79 12.54 12.06
NOTE: Analysis was run for participants’ respective park only (i.e., Arboretum sample, etc.).
a. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
b. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
c. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
d. Indicates variables that are moderately correlated (Pearson’s r ⱖ .40).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p < .0001.
TABLE 8
Attitudes Toward Management: Categories and Mean Scores
a
Eliminate nonnatives 3.12 1.10 .81
Spraying herbicides to eliminate nonnative
shrubs
Removing nonnative wetland plants
Cutting down nonnative trees and shrubs
Controlled burning of native grassland areas
a
Minimal management 3.10 1.08 .56
Allowing nature to take its course without
human intervention
Minimizing management activities
More refined management 2.88 0.95 .68
Removing dead or dying trees
Mowing grass next to paths
Pruning shrubs along trails
Thinning trees to allow more light into woods
Increase parking areas (single item) 2.08 1.30 —
Increasing parking areas
No loaders
Building a visitor center 2.30 1.36
Creating more boating opportunities 2.17 1.18
NOTE: All pair-wise comparisons of category means are significant at p < .05, except for those indi-
cated by a superscripted a. Scale: 1 = very negative, 2 = slightly negative, 3 = neutral, 4 = slightly pos-
itive, 5 = very positive; X = feel unqualified to respond to this item.
a. Not significant at the p < .05 level.
support removal of nonnative shrubs, they are concerned about the type of
methods used to achieve this goal.
The second category focused on minimizing management activities or
allowing nature to take its course. This category, called minimal manage-
ment, received an equivalent mean score (3.10) to the rating of the eliminate
nonnatives category despite the apparent philosophic differences between
the two categories.
The third category focused on creating a more refined landscape, regard-
less of species. Items in this refined management category include pruning
shrubs along trails and mowing grass along paths. This category is also about
improving visual access to these natural areas. With a category mean of 2.88,
this factor received a significantly lower rating than the first category,
although it too is near the neutral point of the scale.
Despite the fact that the latter two categories described here, refined man-
agement and minimal management, received relatively low Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients, they were retained as categories because these items
clearly represent distinct types of management and because they meet the
minimum criteria for scale construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MANAGEMENT
It is important to understand if participants’ attitudes toward management

are a product of their type of experience with these natural areas. The results
shown in Table 9 support this hypothesis. Independent means t tests between
individual pairs showed that significant differences were often clustered
between certain levels of involvement; the significant differences described
here are at the p < .05 level. Staff members, not surprisingly, were extremely
positive about managing these areas to eliminate nonnative species (M =
4.57). In fact, they were significantly more positive about this type of man-
agement than were the volunteers who assist them with these efforts. The
staff members, presumably, have a much richer conceptual understanding of
the importance of these efforts than do many of the volunteers. More impor-
tantly, however, both staff and volunteers were significantly more positive
about actively managing this area to eliminate exotic species than were all
other groups, including neighbors and frequent users, who were equally
neutral to slightly negative about these management efforts.
Considering the response of lay persons to managing for native species, it
is not surprising that the active park users, neighbors, and even drive-by visi-
tors were significantly more positive about minimizing management activi-
ties than were park staff or volunteers. To the latter groups, minimizing man-
agement would result in the aggressive exotic species overrunning the native
ecosystems. It could be that the general public, including concerned park
users and neighbors, have a less differentiated vision of nature and are
equally appreciative of native and ornamental species.
The active park users (i.e., walkers, bikers, and joggers) and neighbors
were also significantly more positive than staff and volunteers were about
management options that result in a more refined landscape such as mowing
grass along paths and pruning shrubs along trails. These results suggest that
although staff and volunteers were extremely supportive of cutting out exotic
species for ecological reasons, they were not very supportive of using the
same type of methods to create a more refined landscape. However, other
research studies have shown (Nassauer, 1995) that often these signs of
human care are important for the general public to appreciate landscaping
with native plants. Instead of traditional landscape management, the staff and
volunteers appear to envision these places as returning to the appearance of
untouched nature, despite the fact that managing for native species may
TABLE 9
Significant Relationships Between Experience and Management Attitudes
Neighbor: Medium Neighbor: Drive by

Staff Volunteer High Use High Use Use Low Use Only
Management Attitudes (n = 17) (n = 60) (n = 52) (n = 71) (n = 71) (n = 17) (n = 22) F p<
Eliminate nonnative species 4.57 4.02 2.61 2.93 2.80 2.77 2.65 22.66 .0001
Refined management 2.46 2.49 2.95 3.05 2.89 3.23 3.13 3.43 .005
Minimal management 2.11 2.70 3.43 3.15 3.41 3.18 3.14 6.16 .0001
Increase parking 1.61 1.91 1.68 2.16 2.33 2.06 2.45 2.16 .05
35
require an equal amount of human intervention as does more traditional

management.
All groups were slightly negative about increasing the development
within these natural areas. However, those living near the parks were signifi-
cantly more negative about these development options, including increasing
parking areas, than were other park users. To nearby neighbors, these added
parking facilities could be perceived as bringing more people to their per-
sonal backyard nature preserve.
EFFECTS OF NATURAL-AREAS EXPERTISE

ON ATTITUDES TOWARD MANAGEMENT
Many of the differences in attitudes toward management occurred between

the staff and volunteers on one hand and other park users and neighbors on
the other. On the surface, these differences relate to natural-areas use. How-
ever, there may be some additional factors at work here. Many studies have
shown that experts look at the world differently than nonexperts (Anderson,
1978; Kaplan & Herbert, 1987). Thus, natural-areas expertise may be a sig-
nificant construct underlying attitudes toward management. To explore this
relationship, participants were asked about their knowledge or experience
with respect to native plants, natural-areas management, natural history,
wildlife habitats, and bird identification. Factor analysis yielded a single fac-
tor that included all of these expertise items with a strong indication of inter-
nal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .89). A large percentage of the parks and
arboretum staff (83%) indicated that they had a high degree of natural-areas
knowledge, as did many of the volunteers (48%). However, many in the high-
expertise group, almost half, came from the ranks of the general public (i.e.,
park users and nearby residents), which suggests that expertise is not the
exclusive domain of the professional staff or even volunteers.
One-way analysis of variance comparing natural-areas expertise levels
showed significant differences about managing these areas (see Table 10).
Natural-areas knowledge was associated with an increase in support for man-
agement options that try to eliminate nonnative species. In contrast, non-
experts were significantly more positive about refined management than
were the experts. Likewise, those with less natural-areas expertise felt signif-
icantly more positive about minimizing management in these areas than did
the experts. The responses to development options were also similar, with the
nonexperts being less negative about increasing parking than were the
experts.
One goal of this study was to explore the effects of experience and attach-
ment on attitudes toward management. The results of the environmental
TABLE 10
Significant Relationships Between Natural-Areas Expertise
and Management Attitudes
Management Attitudes Low Medium High F p<
Eliminate nonnative species 2.67 3.09 3.72 23.44 .0001

Refined management 3.24 2.85 2.41 19.51 .0001
Minimal management 3.32 3.08 2.90 3.37 .05
Enlarge turf areas 2.19 1.92 1.40 15.27 .0001
Increase parking 2.54 1.93 1.73 10.29 .0001
experience variables indicate some strong predictors associated with the

expertise of staff and volunteers. Multiple regression analyses found that the
attachment variables were much weaker as a group than the environmental
variables were for predicting management attitudes. These results indicate
that although participants may have similar attachments for a place, they vary
significantly on their attitudes toward management. In retrospect, this rela-
tionship makes sense considering that the route they took to that attachment
(i.e., environmental experience) varied greatly and appears to strongly affect
how they will view the management of these natural areas.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study showed that the public has a strong attachment for
urban parks and natural areas. This attachment can be a powerful force for the
preservation and restoration of urban parks. Furthermore, it showed that
attachment to urban parks and natural areas is a complex construct that is
affected by the physical characteristics of the landscape itself, the experi-
ences that people have within these natural areas, and their knowledge of
natural areas in general.
This research study was the first effort (that we are aware of) to use photo-
graphs to measure place attachment to urban parks. The results supported the
study’s hypothesis that the environmental characteristics of urban natural
areas affect attachment. However, these relationships were complex; river
areas and prairies showed strongly different degrees of attachment depend-
ing on the site. Wilder areas were more appreciated by those who are engaged
in nature-centered activities or restoration as opposed to nearby residents or
others whose contact with these areas is more passive. Thus, attachment rat-
ings appear to be affected by environmental expertise, as are landscape pref-
erence ratings (Anderson, 1978; Kaplan & Herbert, 1987; Nassauer, 1993,
1995). Furthermore, study participants appreciated changes that gave these
parks a more natural appearance and did not appreciate elements, such as
power lines and chain-link fences, that they perceived to be incompatible
with these natural-area settings.
Environmental experience was an important influence on participants’
attachment and attitudes toward management. As in previous studies (Moore
& Graefe, 1994), the more frequently participants used these sites, the stron-
ger their attachment, which suggests that attachment is built through experi-
ence. The importance of familiarity in building attachment is also supported
by many of the residential-attachment studies in which long-term residents
had stronger attachment to their neighborhoods than did newer residents
(Ahlbrandt, 1984; Brown et al., 2003; Lalli, 1992). However, unlike previous
studies of place attachment in recreation settings (Moore & Graefe, 1994;
Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989), this study expanded the definition of expe-
rience beyond traditional recreation users to include other types of use,
including volunteers, staff, and neighbors. The results of the study showed
that attachment has different manifestations related to type of experience. A
place-specific attachment was generally held by neighbors and recreational
users, whereas a conceptual attachment was held by volunteers, staff, and
those with a high degree of natural-areas knowledge. Those who had a place-
specific attachment were especially tied to the particular park or natural area
and were unwilling to go elsewhere in spite of potentially negative changes.
Conceptual attachment was identified in this study as an attachment to a type
of landscape, such as a prairie, rather than to a particular place. The notion of
substitutability of place is important to this idea of conceptual attachment.
This subset of study participants was willing to substitute one place for
another, similar place in the face of negative changes that presumably made
these natural areas less pristine. These results support Feldman’s (1990) set-
tlement identity study, in which people were attracted to certain types of resi-
dential settings, such as suburbs, rather than to a particular place, as well as
the wilderness identity concept of Williams and others (1992).
These results show that attitudes toward the management of natural areas
are strongly influenced by the type of environmental experience that people
have with these areas. Those who have a conceptual involvement (i.e., staff
and volunteers) were more concerned with promoting native plant communi-
ties through active vegetation management than with other management
strategies. Natural-areas expertise was also significantly related to managing
these areas for native plants and for a preference for a more wild form of
nature. However, a broad spectrum of park users (including recreationalists
and neighbors) indicated that a more hands-off approach to management or
refined management would be at least as preferred. Those with only a passive

involvement with these natural areas had an even stronger preference for
more refined types of management. Thus, those whose experience with these
natural areas is primarily visual expressed a concern that these natural areas
exhibit a more ornamental appearance. These results support the work of
Nassauer (1993, 1995), which showed that suburban dwellers were more
accepting of native plantings that exhibited some cues to care, such as
mowing the borders of native grass areas or containing more flowering
plants.
The study showed that the expert’s vision of what is appropriate within a
natural area may differ from those of neighbors and users. The park staff and
volunteers have an attachment that is rooted in such concepts as biodiversity
and native ecosystems, whereas other park users, especially park neighbors,
appreciate a more refined, ornamental landscape. Such differences in attach-
ment can readily become a source of conflict. Reactions of the active park
users and nearby homeowners in this survey suggest that there are many local
residents who are, at best, neutral and, at worst, opposed to the current efforts
to eliminate invasive, exotic plant species from these areas. Therefore,
despite the lack of vocal opposition to the current management regimes that
have occurred in other regions of the country (Gobster, 1997; Shore, 1997),
natural-areas managers should be aware that there are a number of opposing
attitudes about how these areas should be managed.
This study has several implications for urban natural-area planners and
managers concerned with respecting and encouraging an attachment between
urban residents and their nearby natural areas. First, this study found that
urban residents have a strong attachment to nearby natural areas, and this
attachment is a multifaceted and far-reaching component of people’s rela-
tionship to place. Park planners can tap into this attachment between people
and their parks as a positive force for promoting stewardship of urban natural
areas and for raising funds for natural area preservation.
Second, there is a need to include multiple perspectives in park planning
and management that go beyond traditional recreation users. Park neigh-
bors, volunteer groups, and even those who view these urban natural areas
from the windows of their home, office, or car all have a stake in park plan-
ning and design decisions. Public participation is essential to ensure that pro-
posed design and management decisions are responsive to a wide range of
viewpoints.
Third, there are several key concepts to consider in promoting an attach-
ment between the public and urban natural areas (Ryan, 2000). One key part
of the participation process is to identify those places and characteristics that
are important to a particular user group. The next step is to develop a plan that
balances the various attitudes held by users. For example, native plantings
that environmentalists would like to see in the parks should exhibit more
intentional management or cues to care, such as routine pruning or mowing
in key areas (Nassauer, 1995). This is not only important for the public accep-
tance of native plantings but also to increase perceptions of safety in urban
natural areas where the public may be afraid of overgrown areas (Matsuoka,
2002). Park volunteers could be actively involved in these management
activities.
Because this study found a strong relationship between natural-area use
and attachment, there is a need for natural-area planners and managers to
facilitate public use of urban natural areas while respecting fragile native
ecosystems. Providing physical access via trails and boardwalks can make it
easier for the public to use these areas for recreational activities. Improving
visual access through careful pruning or framing of views can increase visi-
bility from both nearby homes, sidewalks, and streets.
Finally, because place attachment is often most apparent in the face of
changes to the landscape, natural-area planners and managers should strate-
gize ways to implement design and management decisions incrementally.
Smaller scale changes to the landscape allow time to evaluate these decisions
and to revise them according to the public response (Kaplan, Kaplan, &
Ryan, 1998).
Urban natural areas are extremely important to many local residents.
Attachment to these places makes people concerned about protecting nature
within the city. Yet people view natural areas through the lens of their own
different experiences, which, in turn, creates attachments to different quali-
ties of these places. It is essential that park planners and managers incorpo-
rate these diverse viewpoints when making design and management deci-
sions. As part of larger regional ecosystems, urban natural areas are
particularly vulnerable to disturbance and change. The survival of these pre-
cious natural areas depends on the stewardship of local residents, park staff,
and volunteers. Facilitating a connection between people and their local nat-
ural areas is key to the survival of these precious urban environments.
REFERENCES
Ahlbrandt, R. S. (1984). Neighborhoods, people, and community. New York: Plenum.

Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environ-
ments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in revitalizing neighborhoods:
Individual and block level analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259-271.
Chawla, L., & Hart, R. A. (1988). The roots of environmental concern. In D. Lawrence, R. Habe,
A. Hacker, & D. Sherrod (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the Envi-
ronmental Design Research Association (pp. 15-18). Pomona, CA: Environmental Design
Research Association.
Chicago Regional Biodiversity Council. (1996). Chicago wilderness: An atlas of biodiversity.
Chicago: Chicago Regional Biodiversity Council.
Cooper-Marcus, C. (1995). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home.
Berkeley, CA: Conari.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-335.
Dwyer, J. F., Schroeder, H. W., & Gobster, P. H. (1994). In R. H. Platt, R. A. Rowntree, & P. C.
Muick (Eds.), The ecological city: Preserving and restoring biodiversity (pp. 137-150).
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile
society. Environment and Behavior, 22(2), 183-229.
Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition: People and
policy in the metropolis (pp. 151-171). New York: Basic Books.
Gallagher, T. J. (1977). Visual preference for alternative natural landscapes. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Gobster, P. H. (1997). The Chicago wilderness and its critics: The other side: A survey of argu-
ments (Part III). Restoration & Management Notes, 15(1), 32-37.
Hough, M. (1995). Cities and natural processes. New York: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.),
Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum.
Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preference for nat-
ural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-283.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: University of Cambridge
Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of
everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-303.
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac with other essays on conservation from Round River.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Levitt, M. A. (1991). Attachment and close relationships: A life-span perspective. In J. L.
Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 183-205). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Louv, R. (1991). Childhood’s future. Boston Houghton Mifflin.
Matsuoka, R. (2002). Increasing the acceptability of urban nature through effective cues to care:
A study of Lower Arroyo Seco Natural Park, Pasadena, California. Unpublished master’s
thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Mitchell, J. E., Force, J. E., Carroll, M. S., & McLaughlin, W. J. (1993). Forest places of the heart:
Incorporating special places into public management. Journal of Forestry, 91(4), 32-37.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail
users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17-31.
Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). A geography of childhood: Why children need wild places.
Boston: Beacon.
Nassauer, J. I. (1993). Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes.
In P. H. Gobster (Ed.), Managing urban and high-use recreation settings (General technical
report No. NC-163, pp. 55-60). St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station.
Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161-170.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rivlin, L. (1987). The neighborhood, personal identity, and group affiliation. In I. Altman &
A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments (pp. 1-34). New York:
Plenum.
Rubinstein, R. L., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation of life
course by the elderly. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 139-163). New
York: Plenum.
Ryan, R. L. (1997). Attachment to urban natural areas: Effects of environmental experience.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ryan, R. L. (2000). Attachment to urban natural areas: A people-centered approach to designing
and managing restoration projects. In P. H. Gobster & R. B. Hull (Eds.), Restoring nature:
Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities (pp. 209-228). Washington, DC:
Island.
Shore, D. (1997). The Chicago wilderness and its critics: Controversy erupts over restoration in
Chicago area (Part II). Restoration & Management Notes, 15(1), 25-31.
Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A
model of attachment to place. In N. R. Feimar & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychol-
ogy: Directions and perspectives (pp. 219-251). New York: Praeger.
Stokols, D., Shumaker, S. A., & Martinez, J. (1983). Residential mobility and personal well
being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 5-19.
Tanner, R. T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental educa-
tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20-24.
Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of
place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249-263.
Weiss, R. S. (1991). The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In C. M. Parkes &
J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 66-76). New York:
Routledge.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the com-
modity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Journal of Lei-
sure Sciences, 14, 29-46.
Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary
results. In Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium on Leisure Research (p. 32).
Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
Windle, P. (1992). The ecology of grief. Bio Science, 42(5), 363-366.

Exploring The Efects of Environmental Experience On Attachment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Efects of Environmental Experience On Attachment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHA

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF

ROBERT L. RYAN is an assistant professor at the Department of Landscape Archi-

concentration of rare and endangered species in the entire state of Illinois

REVIEW OF PLACE ATTACHMENT RESEARCH

particular place or town, as a means of coping with frequent residential

RESEARCH GAPS IN UNDERSTANDING

Effects of environmental experience. Within the studies of attachment to

Effects of place. The connection between the physical characteristics of

Impact of attachment on attitudes toward planning and management. The

attachment for natural settings affects people’s environmental actions, par-

ronmental changes that had actually occurred in these parks as a result of

Principal axis factor analysis (varimax rotation and pair-wise deletion of

RESULTS: ATTACHMENT FOR URBAN NATURAL AREAS

PLACE ATTACHMENT AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES:

It is important for natural-areas managers to know if certain parks or types

arboretum scenes, whereas a smaller percentage, approximately 76% and

Figure 1: Arboretum: Riverside Area Photo Category

Figure 2: Arboretum: Dow Prairie Photo Category

Figure 3: Barton Park: Oxbow Prairie Photo Category

Figure 4: Barton Park: Pond Photo Category

Figure 5: Furstenberg Park Photo Category

Attachment to the prairies was also significantly different. The arbore-

ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO ACTUAL LANDSCAPE CHANGE

Attachment is likely to be reflected in one’s feelings about changes that

Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s α

Enjoy more natural appearance 4.55 0.65 .64

Participants’ responses to the physical changes that had been made to

THE AFFECTIVE QUALITIES OF ATTACHMENT:

The previous section focused on the physical features of a place and

Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s α

General attachment 3.66 0.98 .94

RESPONSE TO HYPOTHETICAL CHANGE

Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s

Personal loss 3.79 1.05 .91

THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE ON PLACE ATTACHMENT

People experience urban natural areas in many different ways: driving by

participants were categorized along a gradient related to their interaction

Neighbor: Medium Neighbor: Drive by

seek an alternative. In this sense of attachment, the frequent users and/or

EXPERIENCE AND ATTACHMENT: ADDITIONAL

As mentioned earlier, the experience continuum in the previous analyses

volunteers, as opposed to neighbors, were more likely to anticipate a per-

EXPERIENCE AND PHOTO-BASED ATTACHMENT MEASURES

Attachment Feelings Response to Hypothetical Change Actual Change

ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL-AREAS MANAGEMENT

At the heart of many conflicts over natural-areas management are differ-

Photo-Based Attachment Categories

Category Name and Items M SD Cronbach’s α

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MANAGEMENT

It is important to understand if participants’ attitudes toward management

Neighbor: Medium Neighbor: Drive by

require an equal amount of human intervention as does more traditional

EFFECTS OF NATURAL-AREAS EXPERTISE

Many of the differences in attitudes toward management occurred between

Management Attitudes Low Medium High F p<

Eliminate nonnative species 2.67 3.09 3.72 23.44 .0001

experience variables indicate some strong predictors associated with the

refined management would be at least as preferred. Those with only a passive

Ahlbrandt, R. S. (1984). Neighborhoods, people, and community. New York: Plenum.

You might also like