AP  >> Vol. 8 No. 4 (April 2018)

    人与地的联结:地方依恋
    The Connection between People and Place: The Place Attachment

  • 全文下载: PDF(472KB) HTML   XML   PP.585-599   DOI: 10.12677/AP.2018.84070  
  • 下载量: 385  浏览量: 553  

作者:  

李春霖,曾维希:电子科技大学公共管理学院,四川 成都

关键词:
地方依恋地方认同地方依赖地方理论Place Attachment Place Identity Place Dependence Place Theory

摘要:

地方依恋作为地方理论的一个分支,是指人与地方发展的联结,由情感、认知和实践三个部分所组成。它的研究对象通常是家、社会和城市等。地方依恋可以维持生存感、安全感和连续性,同时也能增强社会联结感和归属感,但是它也有消极的一面,比如抵制变化和保护现状,甚至还会影响到社区内小孩的发展。目前对于地方依恋的研究主要采用定量研究法、定性研究法以及定量和定性相结合的方法,已有一些研究用于自然资源的管理和保护以及增强社区认同方面。

Place attachment is a branch of place theory and refers to the connection between human and place development. It consists of three parts: emotion, cognition, and practice. Its research objects are usually home, society and city. Place attachment can maintain the sense of survival, security, and continuity. At the same time, it can also enhance the sense of social bonding and belonging. However, it also has negative aspects, such as resisting changes, protecting the status quo, and even affecting the development of children in the community. At present, the researches on place attachment mainly use quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, and a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Some studies have been used to manage and protect natural resources and enhance community identity.

1. 地方依恋的概念

地方理论(place theory)是从人们的感觉、心理、社会文化、伦理道德的角度来认识人与地方关系的理论。华裔地理学家段义孚在1974年首先观察到并提出“恋地情结(Topophilia)”概念,即“地方与人之间存在着的一种特殊的依赖关系”(Tuan, 1974)。接下来西方学者们提出了地方感知(Relph, 1976)、地方依赖(Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989)等概念,这些概念一起组成了初步形成了“地方理论”。地方理论立足于行为地理学、环境心理学、游憩地理学,在旅游学、休闲学、建筑学、景观学等方面有着广泛的应用。

Fried于1963年在他研究中最早提及人地关系,波士顿“伦敦西区”的人们对于强迫再安置的不情愿心理反映出了人们对一个地方的感情,人们也会对失去重要的地方而感到悲伤(Fried, 1963)。Gerson等人提出了地方依恋但未给出明确的定义(Gerson, Stueve, & Fischer, 1977)。Shumaker在1977年明确的给出了地方依恋的定义,即人们与其居住地之间的情感联结(Shumaker & Taylor, 1983)。Williams在1989年提出了“地方依恋”的概念(Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989),并且在随后又提出了它的理论框架,是由“地方认同(place identity, PI)”和“地方依赖(place dependence, PD)”两个维度构成(Williams, Patterson, & Roggenbuck, 1992)。Sharpe从地方依恋的中断的角度出发,将其理论进行了扩展并提出了地方干扰(place interference)的概念(Sharpe & Ewert, 2000)。Hidalgo进一步限定了地方依恋的含义,将其定义为个人与特定地方之间的积极情感纽带(Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001)。

“依恋(attachment)”的概念最初是由英国精神病学家Bowlby提出的,它最初是指当幼儿感知到威胁或者不适的时候,向抚养者寻求亲近的生物性本能(Bowlby, 1960),后来代指所有个体与依恋对象的情感联结(Prior & Glaser, 2006)。Place在中文里常译为“地方”,也有被译为“场所”。地理学家将地方描述为对其用户有意义的有界空间(Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1974),但地方的意义不仅仅在于它的位置;而且它也是景观和环境的一种情感联系的产物(Cresswell, 2004; Relph, 1976; Trigg, 2012),这样的地方超越了空间位置,将人类与空间连接起来,成为“感觉价值的中心”(Tuan, 1974)。个人对特定的地方赋予了特殊意义,而使得个人与之产生正向情感联结并希望与该地方维持长久的紧密联结,这样便使得这个地方具有了精神层面上的意义,产了地方依恋。地方依恋(place attachment)作为地方理论的一个分支,是指人与地方发展的联结(Williams, Patterson, & Roggenbuck, 1992; Low & Altman, 1992; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Manzo, 2003; Giuliani, 2003; Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003),它是由三个部分所组成:情感(情绪、感觉)、认知(思想、知识、信仰)和实践(行动、行为) (Low & Altman, 1992; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004),其中,情感因素是第一位的,它能够有效的解释“人与地之间特殊的依赖关系”(Gieryn, 2000)。地方依恋的特征基本包括:个人对于其居住的环境或其他地方的一种认知或感情上的联系或一种在情感上融入到地方的感觉;而在空间上则希望与情感依恋的地方保持较近的距离(Altman, Low, 1992; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001)。

2. 地方依恋的构成维度

2.1. 二维理论

Williams和Roggenbuck在1992年提出地方依恋是由“地方认同”和“地方依赖”两个维度构成(Williams, Patterson, & Roggenbuck, 1992)。“地方认同”指一种精神性依赖,即个体与客观环境的一种依赖关系,这种依赖关系是依靠一个与该环境有关的个人有意或无意的想法、感觉、信仰、偏好、价值观、目的、行为趋向和技巧综合形成的复合体而形成(Proshansky, 1978),达到对该地方的情感依恋与归属感(Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983)。“地方依赖”指一种功能性依赖,体现了资源及其所提供的设施对想要开展的活动的重要性。黄向等人采用数学方法来理解地方依恋的结构,即从某个特定“地方”的角度去衡量“地方依恋”,事实上是一个连续轴,轴的一端为“地方依赖”,而另一端则是“地方认同”,如图1

其数学公式为 PA = X PD + ( 1 X ) PI 。其中PA为地方依恋,PD为地方依赖,PI为地方认同,X为方程变量。当X = 0时,即当地方依恋完全没有功能性依赖的因素,全为感情因素。当X = 1时,PA = PD,即当地方依恋完全为功能性依赖时,几乎没有感情因素。当0 < X < 1时,场所依赖既有功能性依赖因素,也有感情因素,只是在比例上存在差别(黄向,保继刚,Wall Geoffrey, 2006)。

2.2. 三维结构理论

Scannell和Gifford在2010年提出了地方依恋的三维结构理论用以将地方依恋的众多零散定义进行整合,该理论认为地方依恋包含了人、心理过程和地方三个维度。人(people)的维度是主体,指地方中有关的个人或者群体,即是个体或者群体赋予了地方意义,强调是谁对地方依恋以及依恋达到怎样的程度;心理过程(process)包含了地方依恋的情感、认知和行为过程,重点在依恋是怎样影响认知和行为;地方(place)维度是依恋的目标,强调依恋地方的特征,其中又分为物理水平和社会水平,用来说明人们依恋哪些地方及该地方具有什么样的特征(Scannell & Gifford, 2010a)。三维结构理论形成了对地方依恋较为完整的界定具有很强的综合性,它能将该领域有关的知识综合起来,其具体维度如图2所示。

2.3. 五维理论

Hammitt和Stewart之后又提出了地方依恋的金字塔图形,其形成的五个方面有人对地方的熟悉感(Place Familiarity)、归属感(Place Belongingness)、认同感(Place Identity)、依赖感(Place Dependence)到根深蒂固感(Place Rootedness),并以此设计了量表来测量五种不同的地方依恋感(Hammitt & Stewart, 1996)。

3. 地方依恋的对象

3.1. 家

家作为连续性,秩序,根源,自尊,依恋,隐私,舒适,安全和避难所的象征(Rybczynski, 1986; Tognoli, 1987; Case, 1996; Moore, 2000; Cooper Marcus, 2006),它意味着所有权,象征着家庭生活和幸福,同样它也是在研究人地关系时最常见的研究对象之一。家的规模可以看作是公寓或者住房,同样也可以是居民楼。人们在进行地方依恋的研究时,在评估地图上,家庭住址往往是被试最喜欢的地方(Gould & White, 1982; Foland & Lewicka, 2007)。

Figure 1. Two-dimensional coordinates of place attachment

图1. 地方依恋的二维坐标

Figure 2. The three-dimensional structure of place attachment

图2. 地方依恋的三维结构

3.2. 社区

对于社区的研究主要分为三类:社区规模、社区的开放类型和社区的同质化程度。在有些文献中,社区规模与地方依恋之间呈现负相关(Buttell, Martinson, & Wilkening, 1979; Wilson & Baldassare, 1996; Lewicka, 2005),然而除了社区规模以外,还有比如当地社会资本的实力(Wood & Giles-Corti, 2008),服务和景观类型(Kelly & Hosking, 2008)等其他因素也会显著的影响着人们的地方依恋。社区属于封闭式还是开放式对于社区内居民的地方依恋影响并不是显著,也会受到其他因素的影响。Wilson-Doenges比较了有门禁社区与开放式社区的居民地方依恋时发现两类社区居民的地方依恋和安全感差异随着社会地位和居住时间的延长而逐渐消失(Wilson-Doenges, 2000)。Kirby等人发现亚利桑那州凤凰城封闭社区的居民对邻里和城市的归属感稍低但是未达到显著水平(Kirby et al., 2006)。社区内成员的异质性会降低人们的地方依恋(Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Lewicka, 2010; Mesch & Manor, 1998; Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008; Putnam, 2007)。Leigh利用澳大利亚的调查数据发现邻居多样性与邻居之间的信任度之间存在负相关关系(Leigh, 2006)。Oliver使用美国人口普查数据来发现同种族的美国人倾向于聚在一起成为种族均质的邻居(Oliver, 2010)。

3.3. 城市

城市的边界和区域在地图上很好划分而且具有相对的稳定性,就算是在战争后,一个国家的版图可能就被划分到另一个国家中去,但是对于城市的界定还是停留在它原来的地方。Tuan也曾提及城市是专门为人类而创造的一个环境,能够在地图上轻易就找到,并且容易与外部的自然环境进行比较(Tuan, 1975)。

4. 地方依恋的预测因素

所谓预测因素,即是在预测者和依恋强度之间有正向关系。总结前人的研究中,可将地方依恋的预测因素分为三类:人口学变量(居住年限、流动性、年龄、性别、教育水平)、物理环境变量(距离、熟悉性、独特性、地方的大小、绿化、社区保养、住房类型、社区清洁)和社会变量(社会人际关系、安全感) (Lewicka, 2011)。

4.1. 人口学变量

“居住时间”作为测量地方依恋的重要因素,它与地方依恋之间呈现积极的正相关关系(Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Goudy, 1982, 1990; Krannich & Greider, 1984; Lalli, 1992; Hay, 1998; Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003, 2004; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006; Kelly & Hosking, 2008; Fleury-Bahi et al., 2008, Gustafson, 2009; Lewicka, 2005, 2010)。在Nielsen-Pincus等人的通过对美国西北部农村地区的研究发现对于家的地方依恋最好的预测因素是在这个地方的居住年限以及在这个家里居住了几代人(Nielsen-Pincus et al., 2010)。人们在特定地方的居住时间增加,逐渐开始了解地方并且在该地的经验也在逐渐增加,对地方的依恋感情逐渐增强,但是被试对地方的依恋程度在第一年内增长最快(Lalli, 1992; Harlan et al., 2005)。然而在另一些研究中却没有居住年限对地方依恋有显著影响(Stokols & Shumaker, 1982; Bolan, 1997; Scannell & Gifford, 2010b)。

关于流动性与地方依恋之间的关系,Gustafson分析了三组瑞典居民的地方依恋发现经常旅游的人与较大的地方(如欧洲的大城市)存在依恋并更愿意住在国外(Gustafson, 2009)。Kaltenborn和Williams在研究北美国家公园Femundsmarka National Park时发现永久居民的地方依恋要强于旅游者(Kaltenborn & Williams, 2002)。地方依恋在年龄和性别上差异显著,它随着年龄的增长而增加,但是在性别上的差异目前有不同的观点,有研究显示地方依恋的性别差异不显著(Lewicka, 2005);而有的研究却发现女性的地方依恋要强于男性(Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Tartaglia, 2006)。受教育水平却与地方依恋呈负相关,受教育水平越高的人会经常变更居住地,并且有较少的依恋于某个特定的地方(Tartaglia & Rollero, 2010)。

4.2. 物理环境变量

建筑的大小与住房类型作为地方依恋的预测因素,在许多研究中都曾被提及(Gillis, 1977; Sugihara & Evans, 2000; Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Gifford, 2007; Lewicka, 2010),在建筑物的楼层偏好上,不同的性别也存在一定的差异,男性更感兴趣的是位于较高楼层的公寓,而女性首选较低的楼层(Gillis, 1977)。除了建筑的尺寸,社区的保养、绿化和社区的清洁卫生也成为人们产生地方依恋的重要因素。早在1982年,Fried的研究就发现对于住宅满意度最主要的影响因素便是其自然环境,其次分别是住房和邻里质量,安全感,自置居所,市政服务,社区和社区意识以及家庭密度(Fried, 1982)。Lewicka也发现诸如建筑规模,保养,区域个性化水平,绿化和住房类型等物理特征对于人们的地方依恋具有显著的影响(Lewicka, 2010)。与某一特定地方的距离越近、访问的次数越多,地方依恋的强度越强(Kyle, Bricker, Graefe, & Wickham, 2004)。Moore和Scoot的研究表明使用频率与使用者对两者的依恋呈正相关,其中最强的解释因子为使用者对在该地方所从事活动的热衷程度(Moore & Scoot, 2003)。具有民族文化和宗教特色的地方对于特定民族地方依恋有重要的作用。Mazumdar研究了地方依恋如何通过宗教仪式、古器皿的使用、讲故事和地方朝觐等社会化过程而形成,其结果表明宗教地方依恋能够引导人们对特定地方的向往、朝觐而形成某种居住偏好并产生与地方相关的行为(Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2001)。

4.3. 社会变量

个体在地方中与他人相互而形成的社会人际关系是影响地方依恋的重要因素之一,在居住地有较强的社会联结会赋予该地方更多的意义并产生更多的情感联结,社会联结的增强与地方依恋的产生是呈积极正相关的关系(Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Mesch & Manor, 1998; Ringel & Finkelstein, 1991; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Moser, Ratiu, & Fleury-Bahi, 2002; Bonaiuto et al., 1999, 2006; Brown et al., 2004; Lewicka, 2005; Chow & Healey, 2008)。Lewicka的研究表明邻里间关系紧密不仅是家庭和邻里依恋产生的原因,而且对城市地区同样适用(Lewicka, 2010)。Scopelliti和Tiberio通过对罗马大学生思乡情绪的研究,采用问卷的方式测量了地方依恋与思乡情绪之间的关系发现,在家乡居住地的社会关系和早期的童年经验对于地方依恋有显著的影响(Scopelliti & Tiberio, 2010)。安全感作为地方依恋的又一主要的预测因素也在多个研究中被证实(Brown et al., 2003, 2004; Lewicka, 2010)。

5. 地方依恋的功能

5.1. 地方依恋的积极功能

5.1.1. 维持生存和安全感

地方依恋所产生的原因在于某些地方能够提供生存上的优势,当一些地点能够为人们的生存提供如食物、水、住所和其他资源等生活必需品,人们便在这些地方安定下来形成对这个地方的依恋。弗洛伊德认为婴儿依恋的产生是因为母亲满足了婴儿的生理需求(Freud, 1940),而Harlow的恒河猴实验却证明了依恋的产生并不仅仅只是对于生存的需要(Harlow, 1961),还有舒适感和安全感的需求(Bowlby, 1969)。关于人的安全寻求依恋同样可以解释地方依恋的形成,熟悉的地方为人们提供了保护和安全感(Fullilove, 1996; Fried, 2000; Giuliani, 2003; Chatterjee, 2005),并使人们增加了信心,不断探索新的世界。

5.1.2. 正文为追求目标而提供支持和进行自我管理

对于一个地方的依恋能够给人们提供情感联结,而这种联结中的积极情感是目标取得成功的结果,这种依恋的形成是由于个人重视其支持或促进的具体活动地方(Moore & Graefe, 1994; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001),当一个地方能够提供目标达成所需要的资源时,依恋便形成了(Stokols & Shumaker, 1981)。也有人认为地方依恋的主要功能是通过促进目标达成所必需的自律过程间接支持自己的目标。因为地方依恋加强了积极的情绪,由于人们在最喜欢的地方能够帮助人们进行自我修复,因此地方依恋是服务于自我调节的(Korpela, 1989)。在另一些研究中也曾显示对地方的参观具有恢复性的功能(Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001; Korpela, Kytta, & Hartig, 2002)。人们可以通过提供一个有利于自我反思、问题解决和缓解严厉的安全而舒适的环境,在这里进行自我修复可以改善自我调节的过程(Scannell & Gifford, 2010b)。

5.1.3. 维持连续性

自我连续性是一种稳定的自我意识或是自我意识的连续性,因此过去和将来的行为是相互联系的(Robinson & Freeman, 1954; Hallowell, 1955)。地方联结也随着时间的推移提供连续性,这个功能源于个体通过记忆和过去的联结而具有象征意义的地方的依恋。Twigger-Ross和Uzzell通过提醒个体发生在过去的事件,或通过允许个体比较他们现在和过去的自我,此时地方在不同时间创造连续性(Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996)。从这个意义上说,这个代表了这个人的个人历史的一部分。而在文化和宗教水平上同样存在连续性的功能(Low, 1990),比如重要文化一代代的传承,不同时代的人对圣地的朝拜等。

5.1.4. 建立社交联结和归属感

地方依恋的另外一个功能就是向个体提供了归属感(Giuliani, 2003)。有学者认为与地方发展情感联系是心理平衡和良好适应的前提(Rowles, 1990),它有助于克服认同危机,并使人们在不断变化的世界中获得所需要的稳定感(Hay, 1998),有利于人们参与到当地的活动中去(Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003; Guardia & Pol, 2002; Vorkinn & Riese, 2001),不管一个人的流动性有多大,在我们的生活中总会有某种形式的地方依恋(Cuba & Hummon, 1993; Gustafson, 2001; Williams & McIntyre, 2001)。在搬离原居住地时,人们往往会产生两种情感:一种是由于与原来具有强烈社会联结和归属感的地方分离而产生的紧张感,另一种则是对未来的不确定感(Lewicka, 2008)。当人们出现这种状态时,就更喜欢从当地人或者是书本上面知道这个地方的过去的历史,再怀想到跟自己记忆中原居住地的相似之处以获得安全感和归属感,更加快速的融入到新的地方(Lewicka, 2006)。

5.2. 地方依恋的消极功能

人们对一个地方产生依恋,除了会产生如增强邻里联结等积极功能还存在着一些消极功能,比如抵制变化和保护现状(Fried, 2000; Vorkinn & Riese, 2001; Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002; Devine-Wright, 2009),即使在遇到如地震等自然灾害时也不愿意搬离(Druzhinina & Palma-Oliveira, 2004),甚至还会影响到社区内小孩的发展(Brodsky, 1996)。Devine-Wright和Howes对位于海岸边的北威尔士的两个小城镇的居民关于计划建造的200个风力涡轮机的项目态度进行了研究。如果城镇主要是以秀丽的风景为主,由地方依恋所引发的情绪主要是愤怒和威胁,并且对项目持反对态度;在另一个被居民认为是大部分人失踪的城镇,地方依恋、对项目的态度和反对情绪之间的相关性并不显著(Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010)。

6. 地方依恋的研究方法

6.1. 定量研究法

最早的定量指标是居住时间(Riger & Lavrakas, 1981),邻居命名(Taylor, Gottfredson, & Brower, 1984; Taylor et al., 1985),房屋所有权(Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Taylor et al., 1985)和邻里关系(Riger & Lavrakas, 1981)。在随后的几年许多学者对地方依恋的测量开发了不同的量表(Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Shamai, 1991; Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Stedman, 2002; Williams & Vaske, 2003; Kyle, Mowen et al., 2004; Félonneau, 2004; Lewicka, 2005; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005; Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005; Hammitt et al., 2006; Hernandez et al., 2007; Scannell & Gifford, 2010b),但目前地方依恋测量的量表主要有两种:Likert量表和Guttman量表。前者主要是用于外来人员对某地地方依恋的测量,其中以Williams的地方依恋量表最具代表性(Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Williams, 2000),它包括了地方依赖和地方认同两个维度,其中地方认同又包含了身份/重要性,身份表达,中心性和满意度四个组成成分(Williams, 2000),主要测量了测量个人与户外游憩地的情感联结关系,该量表也是地方依恋测量的研究者应用最多的量表,在美国(Payton, 2003)、澳大利亚(Brown & Raymond, 2007)和挪威(Kaltenborn & Williams, 2002; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001)等地都被应用在各种研究中。该量表的每个项目都采用Likert五点量表来测评,1代表“非常不同意”、5代表“非常同意”,如表1所示;后者更多用于本地居民对某地地方依恋的测量,它可以测度复杂地理环境的地方(Williams, Patterson, & Roggenbuck, 1992)。

6.2. 定性研究法

定性研究常采用两种研究方法: 访谈法和图片测量法。访谈法经常采用的形式有深度访谈(Van Patten & Williams, 2008),出声思维法(Fishwick & Vining, 1992),焦点组讨论(Bow & Buys, 2003; Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010),自由联想任务(Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010),地方意义句子排序等(Milligan, 2003; Stedman, 2003; Wójcik, Bilewicz, & Lewicka, 2010; Rishbeth & Powell, 2013; Degnen, 2015)。图片测量方法则认为图片上不同的地方可以表示不同的意义,图片可以是事先准备好,在实验时直接提供给

Table 1. Williams’ place attachment scale

表1. Williams地方依恋量表

参与者(Fishwick & Vining, 1992; Galasinska, 2003; Bogaç, 2009; Wójcik et al., 2010);也可以由参与者自行拍摄(Beckley et al., 2007; Grosjean & Thibaud, 2001; Ponzetti Jr., 2003; Stedman, Beckley, Wallace, & Ambard, 2004)。这种研究常将访谈法和图片法结合在一起进行的(Stedman, Beckley, Wallace, Ambard, 2004; Ponzetti Jr., 2003)。Brown等人开发了一种基于地图的技术,要求参与者将有限数量的代币分配到“特殊场所”。地方依恋的强度可以通过计算每个地方分配的代币的数量和值来量化(Brown, 2005; Brown & Raymond, 2007)。在Foland和Lewicka的研究中,被试将获得专门准备的制图材料(网站地图),并要求用不同色彩的笔在图片上圈出与一定的心理意义相匹配的地方,如喜欢—讨厌、安全—危险等,通过颜色与数字对应,将反应转化为数字,并组合成复合地图,其中不同的颜色强度表示地图上给定点的选择数量的差异(Foland & Lewicka, 2007)。Williams和Vaske通过调查发现4个被试最喜欢参观的地点,然后再让参观过所有四个地方的被试评价对这4个地方的依恋程度。选用以前研究中证明过内部一致性较好的问卷12个条目分别对这四个地方进行施测,并要求被试说出他们是否曾经去过这个地方,如果去过,在过去12个月里去了多少次,以9分制衡量对该地区的熟悉程度以及该地区是否是对他们有特别的意义(Williams & Vaske, 2003)。

6.3. 定量与定性相结合

定量与定性相结合能够使研究者获得从不同角度进行分析的资料,确定不同变量之间在统计意义上的关系,并且能更好地分析人们与有意义地方的联系和个体自我建构的地方意义。Devine-Wright等人在研究北威尔士地区安装风力发电站的态度时,先用二维量表测量了地方依赖和地方认同,然后再通过焦点组讨论和自由联想任务获得了被试关于该地方的意义(Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010)。华沙小组在华沙犹太人区进行的“Muranów项目”中,其目的是确定当地居民与地方的情感联系,了解该地区的历史,以及对计划在区域中心建设的波兰犹太人历史博物馆的态度。该研究采用了各种地方依恋和地点认同量表以及定性测量的量化技术,如Q分类量度的意义,开放性问题,评估地图,重点访谈,横断步行,拼贴和摄影等技术,这些不同技术的使用有助于收集丰富的资料并且可以从不同角度进行分析,确定各个变量之间的关系(Szczepanska & Wieczorek, 2007; Wójcik et al., 2010)。

7. 地方依恋的应用

许多学者认为与地方发展情感联系是心理平衡和良好适应的前提(Rowles, 1990),它有助于克服认同危机,并使人们在不断变化的世界中获得所需要的稳定感(Hay, 1998),有利于人们参与到当地的活动中去(Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003; Guardia & Pol, 2002; Vorkinn & Riese, 2001),不管一个人的流动性有多大,在我们的生活中总会有某种形式的地方依恋(Cuba & Hummon, 1993; Gustafson, 2001; Williams & McIntyre, 2001)。

7.1. 自然资源管理

地方依恋理论被广泛应用到国家公园、自然遗产地、户外游憩地等自然资源的管理之中。对自然资源的不同程度的地方依恋,会影响到使用者对自然资源管理措施的态度和保护资源环境的日常行为。Vaske研究了自然资源依恋与个体对环境负责行为之间的关系,结果表明当人们对自然资源产生了情感依恋之后,人们在其日常生活中会表现出对环境更加负责(Vaske & Kobrin, 2001)。Kaltenborn比较了国家公园和作为世界遗产地的矿业历史文化城镇中,当地人和旅游者的地方依恋的性质与强度以及由此影响到的对资源管理措施的态度。资源管理研究和政策的制定都应该考虑利益相关者与特定地方的关系,对传统的地方观念进行重新建构(Kaltenborn & Williams, 2002)。

7.2. 社区认同

在现代城市化的进程加快,人们的居住环境也发生了很大的变化,钢筋混凝土的模式化建筑逐渐代替了原先富有地方特色的住所,由此而引发了的人们对于居住地的地方依恋程度的减弱、中断或者社区认同的丧失。通过地方依恋的研究,人为的进行一些干预措施,这些丧失在一定程度上能够得到缓解。Salamon研究了郊区化过程中农村社区的地方依恋和社区认同的丧失,以及由此对年轻人产生的负面影响(Salamon, 2003)。Corcoran通过对六个欧洲城市边缘邻里居民的调查分析表明地方依恋是由共同记忆和传统累积得来的,虽然现代化城市的发展会威胁到人们的地方感知,但是地方依恋仍然在人们的身份认同和社区认同中起着重要的作用(Corcoran, 2002)。

文章引用:
李春霖, 曾维希 (2018). 人与地的联结:地方依恋. 心理学进展, 8(4), 585-599. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2018.84070

参考文献

[1] 黄向, 保继刚, Wall Geoffrey (2006). 场所依赖(place attachment): 一种游憩行为现象的研究框. 旅游学刊, 21(9), 19-24.
[2] Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place Attachment. New York: Plennum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4
[3] Beckley, T. M., Stedman, R. C., Wallace, S. M., & Ambard, M. (2007). Snapshots of What Matters Most: Using Resident-Employed Photography to Articulate Attachment to Place. Society and Natural Resources, 20, 913-929.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701537007
[4] Bogaç, C. (2009). Place Attachment in a Foreign Settlement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 267-278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.01.001
[5] Bolan, M. (1997). The Mobility Experience and Neighborhood Attachment. Demography, 34, 225-237.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2061701
[6] Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimentional Perception of Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in the Urban Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0138
[7] Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local Identity Processes and Environmental Attitudes in Land Use Changes: The Case of Natural Protected Areas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 631-653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00121-6
[8] Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2006). Perceived Residential Environment Quality in Middle- and Low-Extension Italian Cities. European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 23-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2005.02.011
[9] Bow, V., & Buys, L. (2003). Sense of Community and Place Attachment: The Natural Environment Plays a Vital Role in Developing a Sense of Community. In The Social Change in the 21st Century Conference. Brisbane: Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland University of Technology.
[10] Bowlby J. (1960). Separation Anxiety. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 89-113.
[11] Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. In: Attachment, Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.
[12] Brodsky, A. (1996). Resilient Single Mothers in Risky Neighborhoods: Negative Psychological Sense of Community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 347-363.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:4<347::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-R
[13] Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00117-2
[14] Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2004). Incivilities, Place Attachment and Crime: Block and Individual Effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 359-371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.001
[15] Brown, G. (2005). Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 17-39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590881853
[16] Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The Relationship between Place Attachment and Landscape Values: Toward Mapping Place Attachment. Applied Geography, 27, 89-111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
[17] Buttell, F. H., Martinson, O. B., & Wilkening, E. A. (1979). Size of Place and Community Attachment: A Reconsideration. Social Indicators Research, 6, 475-485.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289440
[18] Case, D. (1996). Contributions of Journeys Away to the Definition of Home: An Empirical Study of a Dialectical Process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0001
[19] Chatterjee, S. (2005). Children’s Friendship with Place: A Conceptual Inquiry. Children, Youth and Environments, 15, 1-26.
[20] Chow, K., & Healey, M. (2008). Place Attachment and Place Identity: First-Year Undergraduates Making the Transition from Home to University. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 362-372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.011
[21] Cooper Marcus, C. (2006). House as a Mirror of Self. Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home. Berwick: Nicolas Hays.
[22] Corcoran, M. P. (2002). Place Attachment and Community Sentiment in Marginalized Neighborhoods: A European Case Study. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11, 47-67.
[23] Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
[24] Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A Place Called Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community and Region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111-131.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00133.x
[25] Degnen, C. (2015). Socialising Place Attachment: Place, Social Memory and Embodied Affordances. Ageing and Society, 36, 1645-1667.
[26] Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-Protective Action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426-441.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004
[27] Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to Place Attachment and the Protection of Restorative Environments: A Wind Energy Study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 271-280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008
[28] Druzhinina, I., & Palma-Oliveira, J. M. (2004). Radioactive Contamination of Wild Mushrooms: A Cross-Cultural Risk Perception Study. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 74, 83-90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.01.025
[29] Félonneau, M.-L. (2004). Love and Loathing of the City: Urbanophilia and Urbanophobia, Topological Identity and Perceived Incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 43-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00049-5
[30] Fishwick, L., & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a Phenomenology of Recreation Place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 57-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80297-X
[31] Fleury-Bahi, G., Félonneau, M.-L., & Marchand, D. (2008). Processes of Place Identification and Residential Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 40, 669-682.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507307461
[32] Foland, A., & Lewicka, M. (2007). Psi-Map: Psychological Method for Psycho-Cartographic Research. Poster presented at the Xth European Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic.
[33] Freud, S. (1940). Abriss der Psychoanalyse. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press.
[34] Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a Lost Home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The Urban Condition (pp. 151-171). New York: Basic Books.
[35] Fried, M. (1982). Residential Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community Satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 107-119.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01773.x
[36] Fried, M. (2000). Continuities and Discontinuities of Place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 193-205.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0154
[37] Fullilove, M. T. (1996). Psychiatric Implications of Displacement: Contributions from the Psychology of Place. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 1516-1523.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.12.1516
[38] Galasinska, A. (2003). Temporal Shifts in Photo-Elicited Narratives in a Polish Border Town. Narrative Inquiry, 13, 393-411.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.13.2.09gal
[39] Gerson, K., Stueve, C. A., & Fischer, C. S. (1977). Attachment to Place. In C. S. Fischer, R. M., Jackson, C. A., Stueve, K., Gerson, L. Jones, & M. Baldassare (Eds.), Networks and Places. New York: The Free Press.
[40] Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A Space for Place in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463-496.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463
[41] Gifford, R. (2007). The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings. Architectural Science Review, 50, 2-17.
https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5002
[42] Gillis, A. R. (1977). High-Rise Housing and Psychological Strain. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 418-431.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2955349
[43] Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 137-170). Hants: Ash-gate.
[44] Goudy, W. J. (1982). Further Consideration of Indicators of Community Attachment. Social Indicators Re-search, 11, 181-192.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302748
[45] Goudy, W. J. (1990). Community Attachment in a Rural Region. Rural Sociology, 55, 178-198.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1990.tb00679.x
[46] Gould, P., & White, R. (1982). Mental Maps. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.
[47] Grosjean, M., & Thibaud, J.-P. (Eds.). (2001). L’espace urbain en méthodes. Paris: Parentheses.
[48] Guardia, J., & Pol, E. (2002). A Critical Study of Theoretical Models of Sustainability through Structural Equation Systems. Environment and Behavior, 34, 137-149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034001010
[49] Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and Routes: Exploring the Relationship between Place Attachment and Mobility. Environment and Behavior, 33, 667-686.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973188
[50] Gustafson, P. (2009). Mobility and Territorial Belonging. Environment and Behavior, 41, 490-508.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508314478
[51] Hallowell, A. I. (1955). Culture and Experience. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512816600
[52] Hammitt, W. E., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Sense of Place: A Call for Construct Clarity and Management. In The Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management (pp. 23-35). University Park, PA, USA.
[53] Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual and Empirical Development. Leisure Studies, 25, 17-41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360500098100
[54] Harlan, S. L., Larsen, L., Hackett, E. J., Wolf, S., Bolin, B., Hope, D. et al. (2005). Neighborhood Attachment in Urban Environments. In Paper presented at the Annual Sociological Association, Philadelphia.
[55] Harlow, H. (1961). The Development of Affectional Patterns in Infant Monkeys. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
[56] Hay, R. (1998). Sense of Place in Developmental Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0060
[57] Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-Natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310-319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003
[58] Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B., (2001). Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
[59] Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners’ Attitudes toward Their Properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
[60] 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, 316-327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.003
[61] Kaltenborn, B. P., & Williams, D. R. (2002). The Meaning of Place: Attachment to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway among Tourists and Locals. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 56, 189-198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950260293011
[62] Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-339.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2094293
[63] Kelly, G., & Hosking, K. (2008). Nonpermanent Residents, Place Attachment and “Sea Change” Communities. Environment and Behavior, 40, 575-594.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507302246
[64] Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community. Environment and Behavior, 36, 313-340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
[65] Kirby, A., Harlan, S. L., Larsen, L., Hackett, E. J., Bolin, B., Nelson, A. et al. (2006). Examining the Significance of Housing Enclaves in the Metropolitan United States of America. Housing, Theory and Society, 23, 19-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090500435995
[66] Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-Identity as a Product of Environmental Self-Regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241-256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80038-6
[67] Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative Experience and Self-Regulation in Favorite Places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572-589.
[68] Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative Experience, Self-Regulation, and Children’s Place Preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387-398.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0277
[69] Krannich, R. S., & Greider, T. (1984). Personal Well-Being in Rapid Growth and Stable Communities: Multiple Indicators and Contrasting Results. Rural Sociology, 49, 541-552.
[70] Kyle, G. T., Bricker, K., Graefe, A. R., & Wickham, T. D. (2004). An Examination of Recreationists’ Relationships with Activities and Settings. Leisure Sciences, 26, 123-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400490432019
[71] 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, 439-454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001
[72] Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 153-177.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269654
[73] Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement and Empirical Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7
[74] Leigh, A. (2006). Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity. The Economic Record, 82, 268-290.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00339.x
[75] Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment, Cultural Capital and Neighborhood Ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 381-395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.004
[76] Lewicka, M. (2006). Regionalne zróżnicowanie poczucia tożsamości: porównanie Polski i Ukrainy.
[77] Lewicka, M. (2008). Place Attachment, Place Identity and Place Memory: Restoring the Forgotten City Past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209-231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001
[78] Lewicka, M. (2010). What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 35-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
[79] Lewicka, M. (2011). Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
[80] Low, S. M. (1990). Cross-Cultural Place Attachment: A Preliminary Typology. In Y. Yoshitake, R. B. Bechtel, T. Takahashi, & M. Asai (Eds.), Current Issues in Environment-Behavior Research. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
[81] Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 1-12). New York and London: Plenum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_1
[82] Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships with Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9
[83] Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2001). Religion and Place Attachment: A Study of Sacred Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 385-397.
[84] Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception and Local Attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504-519.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405
[85] Milligan, M. J. (2003). Displacement and Identity Discontinuity: The Role of Nostalgia in Establishing New Identity Categories. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 381-403.
https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.381
[86] Moore, J. (2000). Placing Home in Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207-217.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0178
[87] Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to Recreation Settings. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17-31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409409513214
[88] Moore, R. L., & Scoot, D. (2003). Place Attachment and Context: Comparing a Park and a Trail within. Forest Science, 49, 877-884.
[89] Moser, G., Ratiu, E., & Fleury-Bahi, G. (2002). Appropriation and Interpersonal Relationships: From Dwelling to City through the Neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 34, 122-136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034001009
[90] Nielsen-Pincus, M., Hall, T., Force, J. E., & Wulfhorst, J. D. (2010). Sociodemographic Effects on Place Bonding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 443-454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.007
[91] Oliver, J. E. (2010). The Paradoxes of Integration: Race, Neighborhood, and Civic Life in Multiethnic America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226626642.001.0001
[92] Payton, M. A. (2003). Influence of Place Attachment and Social Capital on Civic Action: A Study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
[93] Ponzetti Jr., J. J. (2003). Growing Old in Rural Communities: A Visual Methodology for Studying Place Attachment. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, 6, 1-23.
[94] Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of Place among Adolescents and Adults in Two Rural Australian Towns: The Discriminating Features of Place Attachment, Sense of Community and Place Dependence in Relation to Place Identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273-287.
[95] Prior, V., & Glaser, D. (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice (p. 290). Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
[96] Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The City and Self-Identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002
[97] Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.
[98] Putnam, R. D. E. (2007). E Pluribus unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
[99] Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness (p. 156). London: Pion Limit.
[100] Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55-66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00896360
[101] Ringel, N. B., & Finkelstein, J. C. (1991). Differentiating Neighborhood Satisfaction and Neighborhood Attachment among Urban Residents. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 177-193.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1202_4
[102] Rishbeth, C., & Powell, M. (2013). Place Attachment and Memory: Landscapes of Belonging as Experienced Post-Migration. Landscape Research, 38, 160-178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.642344
[103] Robinson, M. P., & Freeman, W. (1954). Psychosurgery and the Self. New York: Grune & Stratton.
[104] Rowles, G. D. (1990). Place Attachment among the Small Town Elderly. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, 11, 103-120.
[105] Rybczynski, W. H. (1986). A Short History of an Idea. London: Penguin Books.
[106] Salamon, S. (2003). From Hometown to Nontown: Rural Community Effects of Suburbanization. Rural Sociology, 68, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00126.x
[107] Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2010a). Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10.
[108] Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010b). The Relations between Natural and Civic Place Attachment and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 289-297.
[109] Scopelliti, M., & Tiberio, L. (2010). Homesickness in University Students: The Role of Multiple Place Attachment. Environment and Behavior, 42, 335-350.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510361872
[110] Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement. Geoforum, 22, 347-358.
[111] Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2005). Measuring Sense of Place: Methodological Aspects. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96, 467-476.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00479.x
[112] Sharpe, E. K., & Ewert, A. W. (2000). Interferences in Place Attachment: Implications for Wilderness. Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 3, 218-222.
[113] 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 (pp. 219-251). New York: Praeger.
[114] Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward Social Psychology of Place. Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561-581.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001
[115] Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671-685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189
[116] Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A Picture and 1000 Words: Using Resident-Employed Photography to Understand Attachment to High Amenity Places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 580-606.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950037
[117] Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment (pp. 441-488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
[118] Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The Psychological Context of Residential Mobility and Well-Being. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 149-171.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01776.x
[119] Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57-75.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x
[120] Sugihara, S., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Place Attachment and Social Support at Continuing Care Retirement Communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 400-409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972586
[121] Szczepanska, J., & Wieczorek, A. (2007). Places of Memory and Everyday Life: Spiritual Landscape of Muranów Experienced by Its Inhabitants. In Architecture. The Mute Transmitter of the Outspoken Emotions. The Integrating Role of the Spiritual Places for 21st Century City Dwellers. Conference Proceedings. Warszawa, 10.
[122] Tartaglia, S. (2006). A Preliminary Study for a New Model of Sense of Community. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 25-36.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20081
[123] Tartaglia, S., & Rollero, C. (2010). Different Levels of Place Identity: From the Concrete Territory to the Social Categories. In J. Valentin, & L. Gamez (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: New Developments. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
[124] Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Neighborhood Naming and as an Index of Attachment to Place. Population and Environment, 7, 103-125.
[125] Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1985). Attachment to Place: Discriminant Validity, and Impacts of Disorder and Diversity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 525-542.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00923265
[126] Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential Environments. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 655-690). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
[127] Trigg, D. (2012). The Memory of Place: A Phenomenology of the Uncanny. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
[128] Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values (p. 260). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc..
[129] Tuan, Y.-F. (1975). Place: An Experiential Perspective. Geographical Review, 65, 151-165.
[130] Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and Identity Processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220.
[131] Van Patten, S. R., & Williams, D. R. (2008). Problems in Place: Using Discursive Social Psychology to Investigate the Meanings of Seasonal Homes. Leisure Sciences, 30, 448-464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400802353190
[132] Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. The Journal of Environment Education, 32, 16-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109598658
[133] Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment. Environmental Behavior, 33, 249-363.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972972
[134] Williams, D. R. (2000). Notes on Measuring Recreational Place Attachment. Unpublished Manuscript.
[135] Williams, D. R., & McIntyre, N. (2001). Where Heart and Home Reside: Changing Constructions of Place and Identity. In K. Luft, & S. MacDonald (Eds.), Trends 2000: Shaping the Future: Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium (pp. 392-403). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
[136] Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. Paper presented at the Session on Outdoor Planning and Management. NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX, 20-22 October 1989.
[137] Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. Forest Science, 49, 830-840.
[138] Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513155
[139] Wilson, G., & Baldassare, M. (1996). Overall “Sense of Community” in a Suburban Region: The Effects of Localism, Privacy, and Urbanization. Environment and Behavior, 28, 27-43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596281002
[140] Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An Explanation of Sense of Community and Fear of Crime in Gated Communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 597-611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972694
[141] Wójcik, A., Bilewicz, M., & Lewicka, M. (2010). Living on the Ashes. Collective Representations of Polish-Jewish History among People living in the Former Warsaw Ghetto Area. Cities, 27, 195-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.01.002
[142] Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2008). Is There a Place for Social Capital in the Psychology of Health and Place? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 154-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.003