place attachment and participation in management of neighbourhood green space: a place-based...

266 Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2013

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Place attachment and participation in management of neighbourhood green space: a place-based community management

Bharati Mohapatra* and Abdul Razak Mohamed Department of Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, Tamil Nadu, India Fax: +91 674 2300776 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper explores resident’s sense of attachment to the neighbourhood parks and their attitude for participation in managing them and further examines the influence of attachment on participation in managing the park. To understand these relationships, 300 respondents from six neighbourhoods of the city of Bhubaneswar were interviewed. It is seen that formal interventions although have been successful in shaping public open spaces are not able to sustain the effort on long-term basis. This framework is build upon the foundation that community values and meaning attached to places can help to instil environmental stewardship and motivation to collaborate in the development and management process. The result shows that place attachment can lead to distinctive perspectives on collaborative management and create a truly relevant socially inclusive open space. Moreover, findings demonstrate the social underpinnings of emotional relationships to places and give insight to people–place relationships.

Keywords: place attachment; participation in management; sense of place; neighbourhood park; place-based research.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Mohapatra, B. and Mohamed, A.R. (2013) ‘Place attachment and participation in management of neighbourhood green space: a place-based community management’, Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.266–283.

Biographical notes: Bharati Mohapatra is a PhD Scholar in the School of Planning and Architecture, Anna University and Faculty member in Architecture in the Government Polytechnic, Bhubaneswar. She was awarded gold medal for Master degree in Architecture by the Jadavpur University, Kolkata. Her research interest is in the area of urban planning particularly landscape and environmental development.

Abdul Razak Mohamed is a Professor and Head of the Department of Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, Anna University. He obtained PhD in Urban and Regional Planning from RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

A place-based community management 267

(AusAID Award Winner during 1997–2000). He earned Executive Masters in e-Governance from Ecole Polytechnique, Lausanne, Switzerland. His research interest includes urban sociology, urban planning and governance.

1 Introduction

Recreation appears to be critical in maintaining a community. Recently, there is an increasing talk about the importance of rediscovering a sense of community that we somehow lost when we gave up social habits and stopped frequenting the vital ‘meeting places’ in our neighbourhoods. Parks are such ‘places’ of importance that is a public realm and scenic relief, which enable social and cultural interaction and sustain natural environment. Parks are included in ‘open space’ land use in urban area planning in the Indian context. ‘Urban open spaces’ are not only ‘parks and playing fields’, but also squares and streets; they are not only designated officially, but also defined unofficially; the green space in public use is a specific category: public parks and gardens (Martincigh, 2000). In this paper, neighbourhood parks are ‘urban open spaces’ that are public land and come under the open space land use provisions in the city master plan. Along with other public services, public open space is identified as an essential indicator for a sustainable community that ensures quality of life and viability of local economy.

The declining trend of open space within cities due to developmental activities has called for a more conscientious approach in formulating city development plans and management strategy. Open space is increasingly subjected to stress and damaging influences from overuse or inappropriate use, from development pressure, from social and technological change and from insufficient resources to care for it as it should be. Unless open space is planned and managed effectively, it is unlikely that it will serve its intended function properly.

There is a dichotomy of perception when we talk of land management and planning issues. On one hand, we advocate attaching human dimensions to its development and on the other hand, while making planning decisions, land is viewed as a vital resource to be economically exploited to meet the demands of urbanisation. At this juncture it is pertinent to develop a system of managing public open space that will be able to sustain on community initiatives. The recent urban policy, focus on issues of sustainability, economic competitiveness, place image and culture, reveals an increasing awareness of the multi-dimensional nature of the challenges facing cities, their managers and inhabitants. There is a need to develop systems by involving the local residents that can cater to conflicting issues regarding management of open spaces. Participation of residents in public space maintenance and management can be a way of improving the physical environment and developing some social capital in the neighbourhood. Participation by stakeholders and the general public is now widely promulgated as an essential ingredient of landscape planning and management (Selman, 2004).

The traditional approach to studying and managing recreational settings has mostly focused on the physical attributes and spatial quality of these areas that support specific activities and experiences. But recently, there is growing recognition that people develop attachment to places for various reasons independent of the physical attributes (Williams et al., 1992), which instils a sense of belongingness towards these places. This physical setting becomes a ‘place’ to people when they get to know it better, which imbibes a

268 B. Mohapatra and A.R. Mohamed

‘sense of place’ and emotional bonding among the people and they start to value it. This makes it a vital socio-spatial element of the urban landscape, which needs to be viewed with psychological perspectives for understanding issues related to urban land planning and management. In various researches, this emotional bonding is conceptualised as place attachment and it has been demonstrated that this variable, place attachment, can assist researchers and managers in understanding visitor responses to a variety of issues on public lands (Bricker, 1998; Bricker and Kerstetter, 2000; Moore and Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1992). It is seen that people frequently mobilise to protect places which they consider close to them. People’s relation to places has become more prominent in a wider range of recreation and natural resources management topics.

Current direction to support resident’s involvement in neighbourhood regeneration has been discussed in various contexts. Existing studies on community participation have examined ways for achieving public engagement and consensus and suggested planning reforms. Kyle et al. (2003) examined relationship between place attachment and people’s response to spending on fees and came out with results that establishes the relevance of the emotional construct in evaluating management decisions. Understanding the attachment that local residents and other park users have to urban open space can be the first step in learning how people form views about development and management intervention.

In view of this, the two concepts, participatory approach and place attachment, are studied to ascertain the influence of attachment on participation and find out how they vary among the people within the city. The objective is to find out how the local values, beliefs and behaviour of different people in the community in terms of attachment to their neighbourhood open space can be linked to their attitude for volunteering environmental activities for maintaining the green space. These findings will be useful in giving new directions to develop adaptable management strategies.

2 Related literature

Place-based knowledge is an essential foundation for instituting an adaptive management regime, and a person’s awareness of place serves as a platform for understanding proposed changes to the environment, thus instilling a motivation for involvement in the policy making process (Cheng et al., 2003). Place-based research has brought useful understanding of leisure settings and what meaning people associate with these places.

People value or identify with a particular physical environment and form a connection with the place. This emotional bond between people and places has been termed place attachment (Shumaker and Taylor, 1983), which has been the focus of recent studies in various contexts. Place attachment is conceptualised in terms of two components: place identity and place dependence (Williams and Roggenbuck, 1989). Place identity is defined by Proshansky (1978) as

“Those dimensions of self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment by means of a complex pattern of conscious and unconscious ideals, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals, and behavioural tendencies and skills relevant to this environment”.

Place dependence, on the other hand, concerns how well a setting serves goal achievement given an existing range of alternatives (Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). Kyle


et al. (2005) have also included a social bonding dimension that has been discussed by several authors in the environmental psychology literature (Hidalgo and Hernández, 2001; Low and Altman, 1992; Mesch and Manor, 1998) in the measure of place attachment. If meaningful social relationships occur and are maintained in specific settings, then it should also be likely that these settings provide the context for these relationships and shared experiences and becomes connected to people. Particular types of residents, like the elderly, are often more attached to their neighbourhood than are others because their sense of identity is linked to these places, which can make residential relocation especially painful (Rubinstein, 1993). So the socio-economic characteristics of the community influence the extent of attachment to their communal spaces and consequently the feelings for any kind of changes in this environment.

These researches have given new direction to the planning process making land managers and recreation providers better understand recreation behaviours. According to Bott et al. (2003), the place attachment concept can work for institutions using critical education, participatory management, citizen empowerment and action research approaches to relate people to places as natural-political landscapes. These findings support the idea that place attachment can play a role in fostering environmental stewardship. However, there is need to expand on this research by bringing out more consequential outcomes of place attachment.

Participation of residents in public space maintenance and management can be a way of improving the physical environment and developing some social capital in the neighbourhood Madanipour (2004). By enabling localised participation, a more effective, context-sensitive mode of planning is said to result (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Carr and Halvorsen, 2001). Some have suggested that people who are attached to a place may be more willing than others to donate their time and money on its behalf (Moore and Graefe, 1994). The sense of attachment manifests in the way the residents care for their physical environment. (Williams et al., 1992) in his research on place attachment of trails concluded that evaluation of public perceptions could be significant in improving management of wilderness areas. Other studies in residential place attachment suggest that familiarity in terms of length of residence and intensity of use of neighbourhood facilities is positively associated with place attachment (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Brown et al., 2003; Lalli, 1992). Therefore, this concept can help in identifying linkages between the physical content (park), social content (people) and response towards management, which will help to establish collaborative approach for development and management of city parks.

2.1 Aim of the study

People and places are considered as inseparable entity that influence any decisions regarding physical planning and management. The need for integrated concepts in environmental planning is the rational behind the conceptual framework, which is devised to understand the social processes that influence decisions regarding urban environment. The integrated framework consists of specific social attributes, extent of attachment and attitude for involvement in the context of neighbourhood green spaces. Firstly, the study attempts to establish interrelationship of socio-economic characteristics of the neighbourhood (social content), emotional bonding (place attachment) and attitude to take care (place management). Secondly, the effect of place attachment on place management is ascertained to establish theoretical linkages.


2.2 Study area

The study was conducted in the context of six neighbourhoods of the city of Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar, the state capital of Orissa, is located on the Eastern coastal region of India. Originally planned for 40,000 people in 1948 with an area of 16.48 km2

and a density of 10–12 families per acre, the city has now grown to about 148 km2 with about one million of population. Today the capital city with distinct land use and well laid out road network presents a sharp contrast to the Old Town which developed organically and exist adjacent to the city. Recording a relatively high urban growth, Bhubaneswar plays an important role in bringing economic as well as social development for the state and the region.

The study areas were selected based on the physical context of the neighbourhood in terms of their geographic location in the city. The city was divided into three zones and six neighbourhoods with recreational green space were selected from these zones for the study (Figure 1). The three zones are:

1 Bhubaneswar Old Town: area urbanised before 1950

2 Bhubaneswar new capital: area urbanised between 1950 and 1980

3 Newly developed areas of Bhubaneswar: area urbanised after 1980.

Figure 1 City Zoning map for the study (see online version for colours)


3 Methods

3.1 Neighbourhood selection

Six different neighbourhoods were selected from the above three zones based on purposive judgement sampling depending on the size, social mix and spatial significance of the open spaces with respect to the neighbourhood. Three neighbourhoods (IRC Village, Saileshree Vihar, Baramunda) were selected from the newly developed areas of Bhubaneswar, two (Sahid Nagar, Unit IX) from the new capital zone and one (Lingaraj Nagar) from the Old Town areas.

3.2 Sample

The area delineated for the study has approximately 200–250 households surrounding the park. In the selected neighbourhoods, systematic sampling technique was used to select households for the survey and obtain a representative sample of respondents from the inhabitants. A total of 300 inhabitants formed the sample size with 50 from each study area. Most of the respondents are Oriya and literate to understand the questions.

3.3 Measurement

Socio-economic data were collected for seven variables: age, sex and education that reflect the personal characteristics, occupation and average household monthly income that show the economic characteristics and duration of stay and ownership status, which reflect the residential characteristics of the respondents. Three subscales, place identity, place dependence and social bonding, measured place attachment, and two sub-scales, management activity and management attitude, measured place management. The place attachment scale and place management scales were based on the existing theoretical studies and research work of Ryan (2005) and Carmona and De Magalhaes (2006). Finally, the scales were constructed keeping in view the objectives and context of the study. The place attachment instrument for this study consists of 13 items, five items each for measuring place identity and place dependence and three items for social bonding (shown in Appendix). The items were rated using a five-point Likert scale, scoring strongly agree = 5, the most positive response and strongly disagree = 1, the most negative response. The place management construct consists of eight items to measure the frequency of involvement in management activities of neighbourhood parks and the attitude for management (shown in Appendix). The response to questions on frequency of participating in management activities is indicated on a five-point scale (very often = 5, often = 4, to some extent = 3, rarely = 2 and never = 1) and the response to attitudinal items are measured on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly disagree = 1). Structured questionnaire that included the measurement instrument was used to conduct the interview for collecting data. Household survey was done where one member of the family was interviewed.


3.4 Analysis

First factor analysis was applied using SPSS® version 11.0 for Windows on the place attachment items and place management items. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was done to identify the underlying dimensional structure of the variables and aggregate the numerous items by reducing them to a few composite sub scales that allow expressions of the same kind of information as the original items. Factor analysis on the 13 items extracted three dimensions that measured the attachment of respondents to neighbourhood open spaces. The dimensions; place identity, place dependence and social bonding reflect the conceptual underpinning of the items included in the place attachment scale. These three subscales are found to be similar to the ones derived by (Kyle et al., 2005).

There has not been adequate research on assessment of community attitude for participating in urban park management activities. So, principal component factor analysis was conducted on the set of 12 items, which extracted two factors. The results of the factor analysis for the place management construct supported the theoretical conceptualisation of the two dimensions of place management: management activities and management attitude. The two dimensions derived for place management confirm the conceptually constructed dimensions based on existing studies of Ryan (2005), Carmona and De Magalhaes (2006).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is conducted to ascertain difference in place attachment and place management among the six neighbourhoods of the city. To examine the relationship of place attachment and place management with the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, analysis was conducted by the application of one-way ANOVA taking the seven socio-economic variables.

To further investigate the amount of variance that the independent variable, place attachment explained in the overall attitude for management, multiple regression analysis was performed. The analysis was done to ascertain the explanatory power of place attachment and find out if it is possible to predict the attitude towards management of neighbourhood park by considering the attachment ratings. The dimensions of place attachment were taken as independent variables for explaining the variance in place management.

4 Results

4.1 Association of place attachment and the six neighbourhoods

The one-way ANOVA results in Table 1 for different areas with regard to dimensions of place attachment reveal that there is significant difference in the means of dimensions of place attachment among the six neighbourhoods.

The multiple comparison of means shows that place identity with respect to IRC Village Park with lowest score (m = 3.9) is significantly different from that of Bramunda, Saileshree Vihar and Old Town parks. Similarly, place identity of Unit IX Park is significantly different from that of Lingaraj Nagar park in the Old Town areas which has the highest score (m = 4.37).

Post hoc test indicates that place dependence of Saileswari Vihar is the lowest and significantly different from that of Sahid Nagar and Lingaraj Nagar parks.


The result shows that there is a significant difference in social bonding scores of IRC Village Park and the other five neighbourhood parks. So the dimensions of place attachment with respect to the neighbourhood parks vary across the six locations of the city.

Table 1 Association of place attachment and areas (see online version for colours)

Dimensions of place attachment F p

PLACE ATTACHMENT AND AREAS

1.Baramunda 2.Saileshree Vihar 3.IRC Village

4.Sahid Nagar 5.Unit IX 6.Lingaraj Nagar

Areas

654321

Deg

ree

of A

ttach

men

t

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

Place Identity

Place Dependence

Social Bonding

Place identity 9.59 0.00**Place dependence 3.40 0.01**Social bonding 10.14 0.00**

**Significant at p < 0.01.

4.2 Relationship of place attachment and socio-economic characteristics of respondents

People with different socio-economic characteristics live in the neighbourhoods of the city though some commonalities exist among them. The respondents selected for the study ranged in different personal characteristics, economic profile and residential experience. Significant difference of place attachment among the people with different socio-economic characteristics is ascertained to understand the relationship between the social content of the neighbourhood and the emotional connection of the people with its community open space.

The results of ANOVA and the subsequent post hoc comparisons of means provide useful indications of differences in place attachment among people of different socio-economic profile. On comparison with the means of dimensions of place attachment and overall place attachment, it is found that there is no significant difference in place attachment among the respondents of different age groups (Table 2). This implies that people in the neighbourhood are attached to the community park invariable of their age and have a fair degree of attachment (m = 3.47) towards the community open space. It is found that people of all age groups identify with the park more than their place dependence and social attachment, as the mean values for place identity is the highest (m = 4.16) among the three dimensions of place attachment. It is also found that attachment ratings do not vary significantly among the male and female inhabitants of the neighbourhood (see Table 2). With regards to educational background of the inhabitants as shown in Table 3, results revealed strong attachment (m = 3.48) with the community park among all the respondents without any significant difference. Social connection with the park is least (m = 2.40) among the respondents of all educational background. Residents expressed moderate social bonding and high personal identification that is place identity (m = 4.19) with the park.


Results shown in Table 3 indicate that there is significant difference in place identity among the respondents having different occupation at <0.05 level. But there is no significant difference in place dependence, social bonding and overall place attachment among the respondents with different occupation. Students’ attachment to the place for its functional benefits is the highest as their ratings for place dependence (m = 3.85) is more than respondents with other occupation.

It is seen that there is no significant difference in the means of measures of place attachment among the respondents of different income groups except the difference in social bonding with the park between the low income groups and middle income groups, with the low income people expressing lesser social connection with the park (Table 4). The high income group has stronger social connection with the park than the middle income group. The overall place attachment score (m = 3.57) is highest for the high income group.

Table 2 Relationship of place attachment with age and gender

Dimensions of place attachment

Age groups in years Gender

<40 >40

p

Male Female

pMean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Place identity 4.19 (0.44) 4.16 (0.42) 0.52 4.11 (0.43) 4.15 (0.40) 0.39 Place dependence 3.81 (0.61) 3.76 (0.49) 0.67 3.74 (0.59) 3.73 (0.59) 0.88 Social bonding 2.54 (0.85) 2.53 (0.83) 0.98 2.52 (0.80) 2.51 (0.90) 0.90 Overall place attachment

3.47 (0.51) 3.44 (0.37) 0.78 3.42 (0.45) 3.42 (0.47) 0.86

Table 3 Relationship of place attachment with education and profession

Education Occupation


Secondary IntermediateGraduation and above

p

Studying Employed Retired House wife

pMean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Place identity

4.19 (0.39)

4.12 (0.33) 4.12 (0.44) 0.52 3.97 (0.44)

4.17 (0.43) 4.18 (0.48)

4.17 (0.36)

0.02*

Place dependence

3.71 (0.59)

3.83 (0.62) 3.72 (0.58) 0.75 3.85 (0.67)

3.72 (0.54) 3.77 (0.55)

3.69 (0.58)

0.46

Social bonding

2.64 (0.87)

2.40 (0.67) 2.53 (0.87) 0.22 2.61 (0.80)

2.56 (0.84) 2.56 (0.92)

2.44 (0.85)

0.22

Overall place attachment

3.48 (0.47)

3.39 (0.39) 3.42 (0.48) 0.67 3.42 (0.52)

3.45 (0.47) 3.46 (0.46)

3.39 (0.42)

0.36

*Significance level <0.05.


Table 4 Relationship of place attachment with monthly income and residential characteristics


Average monthly income

Duration of stay (years)

Ownership status

Low Middle High

p

<1 1–3 >3

p

Tenancy Owned

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD) p

Place identity 4.17 (0.40)

4.14 (0.38)

4.20 (0.49)

0.64 4.03 (0.34)

4.06 (0.35)

4.15 (0.43)

0.45 4.08 (0.40)

4.19 (0.44)

0.03*

Place dependence 3.64 (0.56)

3.76 (0.56)

3.77 (0.62)

0.84 3.56 (0.66)

3.73 (0.65)

3.76 (0.55)

0.39 3.73 (0.61)

3.75 (0.56)

0.80

Social bonding 2.42 (0.77)

2.49 (0.79)

2.83 (1.03)

0.05* 2.29 (0.60)

2.56 (0.70)

2.53 (0.89)

0.63 2.44 (0.78)

2.61 (0.92)

0.08

Overall place attachment

3.38 (0.42)

3.42 (0.43)

3.57 (0.57)

0.16 3.26 (0.37)

3.41 (0.42)

3.44 (0.47)

0.40 3.37 (0.45)

3.48 (0.47)

0.04*

*Significance level <0.05.

Table 4 shows that in spite of the respondent’s difference in the duration of stay in the neighbourhood, their attachment to the park does not vary significantly although attachment ratings marginally reduces with the period of stay. Most of the respondents expressed higher self-association that is place identity (m = 4.15) regardless of their period of stay in the neighbourhood. People living in own houses in the neighbourhood assigned significantly higher overall attachment scores (m = 3.48) than the tenants. This implies that permanent residents connect themselves more with the neighbourhood park. As a matter of fact their sense of ownership generates a sense of belongingness for their own community facilities.

4.3 Place management and the six neighbourhoods

The ANOVA result in Table 5 indicates that there is a significant difference in the means of dimensions of place management among the six selected neighbourhoods. Post hoctest for multiple comparisons of means shows that management activities score for IRC Village Park is significantly different from Sahid Nagar and Old Town parks. Inhabitants’ involvement in management activities related to the community open space is highest in IRC Village Park (m = 1.32). There is also a significant difference in management attitude score between Baramunda and Saileshree Vihar Park. Respondents willingness to collaborate in park management activities is highest in Baramunda (m = 3.56). It is found that people in all the six locations have a fairly positive attitude for participating in park management activities.

4.4 Relationship of participation in management and socio-economic characteristics

People of different socio-economic background have different opinion and aspirations about community participation. This manifests in some forms of behaviour in public spaces and the approach to their upkeep. Although neighbourhood parks are mostly used by residents of the locality and people of similar socio-economic background live at one place, still family structure and certain personal characteristics influence their response to involvement in community work.


The results of the ANOVA in Table 6 show that attitude for participation in managing the local park does not vary significantly among the people of different age groups in the neighbourhood. It is seen that respondents of all age group are inclined towards taking care of their neighbourhood green space. Highest mean value (m = 3.23) is reported by respondents <40 years. Both male and female respondents have shown positive response for taking care of the local park and value its importance for the health and well-being of the community, although female is significantly (at p < 0.01 level) more involved in the present park maintenance activities. Attitude for participation in management is found to be more with the higher educated respondents, which implies that educated people living in the city are concerned for the care and maintenance of their community park.

Table 5 Association of place management and areas (see online version for colours)

Dimensions of place management F p

PLACE MANAGEMENT AND AREAS

1.Lingaraj Nagar 2.Unit IX 3.Sahid Nagar

4.IRC Village 5.Saileshree Vihar 6.Baramunda

Areas

654321

Con

sent

to P

artic

ipat

e

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

Environment activity

Participate attitude

Management activities 9.59 0.00**Management attitude 3.40 0.01**

**Significant at p < 0.01.

Table 6 Relationship of place management with socio-economic variables

Socio-economic variables

Management activities

Management attitude

Overall management

Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) p

Age (years) >40 1.23 (0.60) 0.30 3.23 (1.25) 0.30 2.40 (0.81) 0.38 <40 1.13 (0.41) 2.99 (1.21) 2.24 (0.81)

Gender Male 1.06 (0.25) 0.00** 3.28 (1.17) 0.29 2.36 (0.71) 0.85 Female 1.23 (0.62) 3.14 (1.17) 2.34 (0.81)

Education Secondary 1.24 (0.58) 0.39 3.47 (1.06) 0.04* 2.54 (0.73) 0.03* Intermediate 1.08 (0.26) 2.99 (1.09) 2.19 (0.67) Graduation and above

1.13 (0.47) 3.24 (1.20) 2.36 (0.77)

Profession Studying 1.07 (0.23) 0.29 3.37 (1.05) 0.06 2.41 (0.64) 0.31 Employed 1.07 (0.23) 3.39 (1.17) 2.44 (0.74) Retired 1.15 (0.49) 3.19 (1.22) 2.34 (0.82) Housewife 1.21 (0.60) 2.93 (1.19) 2.21 (0.82)


Table 6 Relationship of place management with socio-economic variables (continued)

Socio-economic variables


Management attitude

Overall management

Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) p Mean (SD) p

Average monthly income

Low 1.08 (0.28) 0.02* 3.20 (1.17) 0.70 2.31 (0.71) 0.60 Middle 1.11 (0.40) 3.23 (1.15) 2.35 (0.72) High 1.37 (0.80) 3.31 (1.21) 2.50 (0.91)

Duration of stay (years)

<1 1.00 (0.00) 0.07 3.03 (1.24) 0.82 2.18 (0.72) 0.51 1–3 1.02 (0.10) 3.17 (1.07) 2.27 (0.63) >3 1.17 (0.52) 3.25 (1.18) 2.39 (0.78)

Ownership status

Tenancy 1.09 (0.44) 0.08 3.14 (1.41) 0.17 2.29 (0.72) 0.09 Owned 1.19 (0.48) 3.33 (1.20) 2.44 (0.80)

*Significance level <0.05. **Significance level <001.

People of all occupation have given positive response for managing the local open space. Results (see Table 6) indicate that high income category of respondents has the highest involvement in management activities which is significantly different from the low income group, that is reported to have least participation in such activities. But people across all income groups have a considerably positive attitude for managing their neighbourhood park and there is no significant difference among them. This may be due to the fact that low income people have less opportunity to get involved even if they have a positive attitude for environmental care.

While considering residential experience it is found out there is no significant difference in attitude for associating in environmental activities among the residents living in the neighbourhood for lesser than three years. But the results indicate highest involvement in park maintenance activities among the residents living for more than three years in the neighbourhood and it is significantly different from the people with lesser period of stay. Owners are more associated with the current development activities of the park, while both have similar attitude for taking care it. Mean scores reveal that respondent’s current involvement in managing the park is quite low (m < 2.0) invariable of their socio-economic characteristics. But attitude to get involved is fairly positive among the respondents as indicated by the mean score, which is more than 3.0 for most of the respondents.

4.5 Influence of place attachment on attitude for participation in management

Place attachment may manifest itself in taking environmental action to protect a place including becoming involved in efforts for its development by giving suggestions, attending public meetings or even getting involved in the decision-making process. Regression analysis for examining the effects of place attachment on people’s interest in contributing time and effort for development of neighbourhood parks indicated that attachment dimensions significantly influence people’s attitude for participating in the park management activities.


The result shows that when people’s attachment with the park increases, their concern for care and protection of the park increases. Respondent’s sense of place identity and social bonding with the park are found to be significant predictors of their attitude for managing the community open space (see Table 7). Taking dimensions of place attachment as predictors of attitude for park management, the model is significant at p < 0.01 level. 19.5% of variance in the attitude is explained by the model. Table 7 Effect of place attachment on place management

Dimensions of place attachment (predictor variables) B Beta p Value R2 value Adjusted R2 F value

Place identity (A1) 0.20 0.11 0.04* 0.203 0.195 25.15**Place dependence (A2) 0.09 0.07 0.24 Social bonding (A3) 0.35 0.39 0.00** Constant 0.30 0.46

*Significance level <0.05. **Significance level <0.01.

The regression equation:

0.20 1 0.09 2 0.35 3 0.30Y A A A

5 Discussion

The results of this study showed that the people have a strong attachment for neighbourhood parks. This attachment can be a powerful force for the preservation and restoration of urban parks. The study revealed that people’s attachment with the park varies across different neighbourhoods of the city. People of IRC Village have the highest attachment to their park followed by Baramunda area. These two neighbourhoods have residential welfare associations (RWAs) which are closely associated with the development of the park. People’s attachment to the park with respect to place identity, place dependence and social bonding differ in the six areas of the city. In Lingaraj Nagar, people strongly identify themselves with the community open space than the other areas, as this is an old residential neighbourhood where people have many years of domicile. IRC Village Park is quite small and newly developed, so people identify very less with it. Similarly development of place identity with respect to the Unit IX Park is less as compared to the other four parks as it is within government residential quarters where all the people are not permanent residents. Attachment with the park for functional fulfilment (dependence) is the least in Saileshree Vihar as it is less visited for recreational benefits in comparison to Sahid Nagar, Lingaraj Nagar and Baramunda parks where the residents are more connected with the park for their functional value. Although IRC Village Park scores low in place identity and place dependence, social bonding with the park is the highest. As the residents were involved in the development of the park through the RWA their social connection with it is more than the other five parks.

Furthermore, it showed that attachment to neighbourhood parks is a psychological construct that is influenced by the socio-economic background of the inhabitants of the locality. Sense of ownership is an influential criterion for invoking attachment with


community facilities. But the result partially supported the hypothesis that attachment is related to people’s socio-economic characteristics, as attachment did not vary with respect to all the social indicators.

It is found that attitude for managing the park does not differ with respect to different neighbourhoods. Residents of the neighbourhoods are not much involved in the management of the parks although they have a positive attitude for protecting and developing it. This implies that people of the city are willing to participate in the management of their community park irrespective of geographic locations.

The results also indicated relationship between socio-economic profile of residents and their concern for community environmental care and development. Urban residents with higher socio-economic status were found to be more motivated to get involved in the management of neighbourhood green space. Similar to the variations of attachment, attitude for involvement in recreational green area management did not vary with respect to all the social variables. The very reason for living in the neighbourhood instils a certain extent of emotional bonding with the community place within it and concern for its quality and maintenance invariable of social differences.

The study further showed that place attachment exhibited a moderate and significant positive effect on attitude for involvement in managing the community park. People’s interest in collaborating for park management can be predicted by their emotional attachment to the park.

6 Conclusion

This conceptual framework linking social descriptors, place attachment, participation in management is brought out in view of the fact that approach to traditional public space management is changing. Whether or not this change is desirable or welcome is still a question to be answered. However, what the experience of public space management in different places around the world seems to suggest is that those changes are the unavoidable result of changes in urban governance and public services provision, as well as in the nature of public space and strive for sustainable strategies for city management. Cities in India have adopted approaches centred on state action, private sector effort or in direct user participation (in few places) for environmental improvement of public open spaces. The adoption of solutions to public space management problems based on any of these models is also influenced by the nature of public space issues faced in each locality, political contexts and local social and economic factors.

This study has several implications for urban green space planners and managers concerned with developing natural areas involving urban residents. Firstly, this study found that urban residents have a strong attachment to neighbourhood parks, and this attachment is a multifaceted and far-reaching component of people’s relationship to place. Level of place attachment varies in different localities of the city with more attachment to parks in locality having RWA and low attachment to the park in neighbourhoods having low park usage. Parks which are visited frequently for recreational benefits have high attachment ratings for place dependence. Inhabitants’ level of attachment to neighbourhood park is an influential component in building up interest to participate in managing it in most of the areas. Social bonding with the neighbourhood park is most prominent in exerting positive effect on attitude for park management in most of the areas.


Park planners can take into account this attachment between people and their parks as a positive force for promoting protection of urban green spaces. It is important to understand that people view natural areas through their own different experiences, which, in turn, creates attachments to these places for different reasons. The study points out that people across different socio-economic characteristics have a general degree of attachment to place. These findings have implications in planning to recognise that urban green spaces are valued across the society and social stratification for the provision of open space does not account for while formulating policies. This information can be used when it comes to setting priorities in land-use planning, making decisions about protection of natural and cultural resources or interpreting conflicting ideas about the meaning of a particular place. It is essential that these diverse viewpoints are incorporated to develop user inclusive design and management strategies for urban parks that will sustain on public collaboration so that both amenity values and recreation opportunities are protected. The developers and planners can develop a plan that balances the various attitudes held by users and work out management strategies considering these attachments as a positive force for promoting effective community participation in the management of the parks. Park development and management decisions for attached, involved or committed users will require intense consideration of what it is about the activity that arouses feelings of personal relevance. While strategising for community participation in management and implementing processes, special consideration of the type and intensity of their attachment to the local park is necessary, that is beyond the difference in their individual socio-economic characteristics.

The findings suggest that devolution of responsibility for the management of neighbourhood open spaces to people is workable through user-based organisations, including associations of users of public spaces, interest groups organised around public space issues and RWAs. Capacity building and forming ‘action group’ of educated people can ensure effective participation as the study indicates that educated people are more inclined to participate in community environmental activities. The study supports the concept that facilitating a connection between people and their local natural areas is vital for protecting and managing open spaces in the urban environments (Ryan, 2005). So understanding people’s place experience in urban open spaces is necessary to derive appropriate management strategies for sustainable urban environment.

References Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (1999) ‘Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in

natural resource conservation’, World Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.629–649. Ahlbrandt, R.S. (1984) Neighborhoods, People, and Community. New York, NY: Plenum. Bott, S., Cantrill, J.G. and Eugene Myers, Jr., O. (2003) ‘Place and the promise of conservation

psychology’, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.100–112. Bricker, K. (1998) ‘Place and preference: a study of white water recreationists on the South Fork of

the American river’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Bricker, K. and Kerstetter, D. (2000) ‘Level of specialization and place attachment: an exploratory study of whitewater recreationists’, Leisure Sciences, No. 22, pp.233–257.

Brown, B., Perkins, D.D. and Brown, G. (2003) ‘Place attachment in revitalizing neighborhoods: individual and block level analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.259–271.


Carmona, M. and De Magalhaes, C. (2006) ‘Public space management: present and potential’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.75–99.

Carr, D.S. and Halvorsen, K. (2001) ‘An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners’, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 14, pp.107–126.

Cheng, A.S., Kruger, L.E. and Daniels, S.E. (2003) ‘Place as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda’, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 16, pp.87–104.

Hidalgo, M.C. and Hernández, B. (2001) ‘Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, pp.273–281.

Jorgensen, B.S. and Stedman, R.C. (2001) ‘Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, pp.233–248.

Kyle, G.T., Absher, J.D. and Graefe, A.R. (2003) ‘Themoderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences’, Leisure Sciences,Vol. 25, pp.1–18.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A. and Robert, M. (2005) ‘Testing the dimensionality of place in recreational settings’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.153–177.

Lalli, M. (1992) ‘Urban-related identity: theory, measurement, and empirical findings’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 12, pp.285–303.

Low, S.M. and Altman, I. (1992) ‘Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry’, in I. Altman and S.M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment. New York, NY: Plenum, pp.1–12.

Madanipour, A. (2004) ‘Marginal public spaces in European cities’, Journal of Urban Design,Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.267–286.

Martincigh, L. (2000) ‘Urban open spaces: Spazi Urbani Aperti’, European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research. COSTC11 Research Group.

Mesch, G.S. and Manor, O. (1998) ‘Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 30, pp.504–519.

Moore, R.L. and Graefe, A.R. (1994) ‘Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users’, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 16, pp.17–31.

Proshansky, H.M. (1978) ‘The city and self-identity’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 10, pp.147–169.

Rubinstein, N. (1993) ‘There’s no place like home: home as trauma: lessons of the unspoken’, in R. Feldman, G. Hardie and D. Saile (Eds.), Power by design, The Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Oklahoma City, OK: EDRA Press, pp.267–272.

Ryan, R.L. (2005) ‘Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 37, pp.3–42.

Selman, P. (2004) ‘Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.365–392.

Shumaker, S.A. and Taylor, R.B. (1983) ‘Towards a clarification of people–place relationships: a model of attachment to place’, in N.R. Feimar and E.S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives. New York, NY: Praeger, pp.219–251.

Williams, D.R. and Roggenbuck, J.W. (1989) ‘Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results’, in L.H. McAvoy and D. Howard (Eds.), Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, p.32.

Williams, D.R., Patterson, M.E., Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1992) ‘Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place’, Leisure Sciences, No. 14, pp.29–46.


Appendix

Items for measuring place attachment

Place identity

This park feels like home to me.

1 I would miss the park if I moved to another locality.

2 Presence of this park makes me happy.

3 I enjoy being familiar with the plants and places in the park.

4 I like to tell people that I stay close to the park.

5 I feel no commitment to this park.

Place dependence

1 I get satisfaction out of visiting this park.

2 This park offers me the type of recreation I want to do.

3 I do not get bored by visiting the park very often.

Social bonding

1 I have good memories about the park.

2 I have connection with different events in the park.

3 I have special connection with the people who come here.

4 I will (do) bring my children to this place.

Items for measuring participation in place management


How often do you get involved in the following management activities related to the park?

1 Attending RWA meetings.

2 Maintenance of vegetation.

3 Maintenance of other features such as fence, gate, playing amenities and seating spaces in the park.

4 Cleaning of litter.


Management attitude

I am interested for the management of the following aspects of the park:

1 Management of vegetation (removing dead or dying trees, mowing grass next to paths and pruning shrubs along paths).

2 Maintenance of landscape features.

3 Regulating use of the open space.

4 Facility management such as water, toilet and litter.

place attachment and participation in management of neighbourhood green space: a place-based...

Documents