Society & Natural Resources, 13 : 421È441, 2000
Copyright Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis
0894-1920/00 $12.00 1 .00
Attachments to Special Places on Public Lands: An
Analysis of Activities, Reason for Attachments, and
Community Connections
BRIAN W. EISENHAUER
Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources
Department of Sociology
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
RICHARD S. KRANNICH
Institute of Social Science Research on Natural Resources
Department of Sociology, and Department of Forest Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
DALE J. BLAHNA
Department of Forest Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
People develop a type of attachment to some places on public lands that constitutes
a unique ““sense of placeÏÏ that involves emotional connections with and intense
caring for these landscapes. T hese emotional attachments to places (locales regard±
ed as ““special placesÏÏ) are important for ecosystem management strategies and
other e†orts to incorporate considerations of social factors into the management of
public lands. Such connections with places can be a source of heightened levels of
concern about management practices. T his inductive analysis of open± ended survey
responses (n 5 434) explores the types of activities people do at special places and
reveals the importance of recreational activities in peopleÏs connections with special
places in southern Utah. T he primary reasons why places on public lands are
regarded as special are because of the environmental features of a place or because
of interactions with signiÐcant others at the locale. T he reasons a place is con±
Received 22 September 1998; accepted 26 October 1999.
Funding for this project was provided by the Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station and the
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (approved AES paper number 7087). Thanks to all those involved
in the design of the survey Public L and Use in Southern Utah : A Study of L ocal Community Interests, and
those who did the legwork to collect the data. Special appreciation goes to Mark Sullivan and Liz
Schulte for providing an excellent presentation of the Ðndings in their theses, which were used for the
development of the community proÐles.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the seventh International Symposium on Society
and Resource Management, University of Missouri, Columbia, 27È31 May 1998.
Address correspondence to Brian W. Eisenhauer, Institute for Social Science Research on Natural
Resources, Department of Sociology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-0730, USA.
421
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
422
sidered special do not vary according to the activities done at special places. An
analysis of four communities with di†erent social/cultural orientations to public land
use and management reveals that these orientations are related to the activities
people engage in at places they consider special, but not the reasons places are
regarded as special.
Keywords community, embedding, emotional attachment to place, sense of
place, special places
Public lands are managed utilizing a number of guiding perspectives, each of which
has its own tenets that suggest areas of importance for developing insights that will
lead to more informed understandings of these landscapes. The signiŽcance of social
factors or ‘‘human dimensions’’ in making management decisions and evaluating
their appropriateness continues to grow, due in part to the inuence of ecosystem
management perspectives among public land management agencies (Endter± Wada
et al. 1998). Some of these eŒ
orts to examine the relationships between people and
the environment attempt to comprehend how people generate understandings of
their connections with areas of the natural world. From a symbolic interactionist
perspective, these understandings are social constructions (Berger and Luckmann
1967) derived from experiences and interactions in which particular meanings are
linked with speciŽc places. These meanings and interpretations have often been
referred to as a ‘‘sense of place’’ (Williams and Stewart 1998; Williams et al. 1992;
Tuan 1977; Relph 1976).
Sense of place and the factors that contribute to its development have been
areas of interest in several Želds of study, and these works have contributed to
enhanced appreciation for the complexity of the processes by which such percep±
tions are formed. Greider and Garkovich (1994) posit an interactionist approach for
understanding how people come to deŽne and regard the natural environment by
asserting that such knowledge is socially constructed. In essence, people confer
meaning on the environment in ways that reect their social and cultural experi±
ences. ‘‘The natural environment is transformed into culturally meaningful pheno±
mena and is then viewed from the perspective of these cultural deŽnitions’’ (Greider
and Garkovich 1994, 6). As with this approach and others (Riley 1992; Shamai
1991; Giddens 1984), the conceptual framework applied in the present study deŽnes
the nature of people’s understandings of landscapes in terms of a reciprocal relation±
ship between places in nature and social interactions.
Inherent in the interactionist perspective is the idea that social inuences are
integral in shaping the understandings people have of landscapes. Sense of place
refers to the connections people have with the land, their perceptions of the relation±
ships between themselves and a place, and is a concept that encompasses symbolic
and emotional aspects (Galliano and Loeffler 1995; Tuan 1974). ‘‘What begins as
undiŒ
erentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with
value’’ (Tuan 1977, 6). The process of transforming spaces into places is inuenced
by one’s culture (Stokowski and Antholine 1995; Shamai 1991; Jorgensen 1984), as
the shared meanings that form cultures provide the frameworks for constructing a
sense of place. ‘‘Places are embedding because they . . . have meanings and values
associated with them that are passed along to the individual from, and shared with,
the social group’’ (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995, 382). Therefore, it is hypothesized
that local community cultures inuence sense of place because understandings of the
environment are rooted in the cultural network of beliefs of an individual’s social
group (Greider and Garkovich, 1994).
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
423
A Unique Sense of Place: Emotional Attachments to Special Places
Emotional attachments to place represent a unique sense of place, one that involves
unusually strong sentiments about places and heightened concerns about their man±
agement (Schroeder 1996; Mitchell et al. 1993). Emotional attachments to place are
a type of sense of place that is based on an appreciation for the land that goes
beyond its use value. Sense± of± place theorists (Tuan 1977; Relph 1976) assert that
activity at a locale is necessary for a space to be regarded as a place, and emotional
attachments to places (locales regarded as special places) are grounded in the inti±
mate knowledge of a place one develops through direct presence and activity at a
locale. However, connections with special places incorporate sentiments that go
beyond value judgments based purely on the utility of these areas for activities.
These understandings of landscapes represent unique ties between people and
places, ones in which the connection with the landscape is based on an appreciation
for the place that incorporates emotive elements and intense caring for the locale
(Schroeder 1996; Mitchell et al. 1993). Therefore, emotional attachments to places
are a unique sense of place that must be accounted for in management eŒ
orts, as
this type of sense of place has implications for understanding why unexpectedly high
levels of concern about management practices arise (Schroeder 1996; Williams et al.
1992).
Sense of Place and Management Actions
In recent years research has been devoted to uncovering the types of connections
that exist between people and speciŽc places on public lands (Brandenburg and
Carroll 1995; Mitchell et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1992). These studies have con±
cluded that combinations of rational use concerns and economic considerations are
not sufficient for understanding public perceptions of management decisions and
actions. Instead, these approaches must be supplemented with considerations of
sense of place and other social phenomena to better comprehend factors that inu±
ence reactions to management actions.
We believe that by putting the human bond with nature in the foreground,
rather than treating it as an interesting but insigniŽcant feature of the back±
ground for resource planning, managers can begin to give the relationship
between people and the land the careful, systematic attention it requires and
deserves. (Williams and Stewart 1998, 22)
Traditionally, public lands have been managed largely in regard to their uses.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), for example, provides a classiŽcation
system that deŽnes demand in terms of settings, activities, and sensory experiences,
and enables identiŽcation of ‘‘the recreation opportunity trade± oŒs associated with
proposed management actions’’ (Buist and Hoots 1982, 85). The focus of this system
is substitutability, a management concept based on the idea that areas with like
attributes can be substituted for one another to provide users with alternative sites
for their activities if management actions prevent access to a previously used locale.
Attachments to places based on criteria other than pure utility are not considered
within the bounds of this conceptual system. Analyses of emotional attachments to
places, places deŽned in this work as ‘‘special places,’’ enhance understandings of a
unique type of sense of place that may be a barrier to the success of management
424
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
strategies based on the notion of substitutability. Better understanding of emotional
bonds with special places may help managers anticipate and explain public reac±
tions to land management actions aŒected by the increased scrutiny that decisions
aŒ
ecting special places receive (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Williams et al. 1992).
Previous works on sense of place have drawn attention to the need to enhance
understandings of the di Œ
erent types of connections people have with places in the
natural world and the variety of inuences on people’s perceptions of places
(Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Mitchell et al. 1993; Pred 1990). This study furthers
this inquiry by examining a unique type of sense of place, an emotional attachment
to a locale regarded as a special place. First, the work explores the types of activities
people engage in at special places on public lands in southern Utah. The activities
done at a place are an integral part of a sense of place, as human activities are one
of the components that must be present to imbue a physical location with the
socially constructed connotations that transform it into place (Tuan 1977; Relph
1976). The study next documents the reasons places are considered special, and
examines the connections between the activities done at special places and the
reasons some locales are regarded as special places. The last segment of the work
explores variations in the reasons places are considered special and the activities
people do at special places across four communities with diŒ
ering social/cultural
orientations to public land use and management. These analyses examine the inu±
ences of embedding (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995) on these aspects of special
places.
Study Design
Most works on special places have recognized the need for depth and richness in
data about connections with special places, and have subsequently incorporated
qualitative research methods (Schroeder 1996; Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Mit±
chell et al. 1993). These studies most frequently analyzed interview data gathered
utilizing chain referral or self± selected sampling techniques. While providing a depth
not possible in survey data, this approach has prevented the incorporation of a large
random sample in studies of special places.
This study provides a diŒ
erent focus for generating information about people’s
connections with special places by analyzing responses to open± ended questions
administered in a random± sample survey of the general populations of four com±
munities in southern Utah. The question was part of a survey about residents’ uses
of public lands in southern Utah, and other parts of the research instrument were
primarily focused on community satisfaction, trust in public agencies, and resource
use. Resource use questions were evenly split between questions about recreation
and questions concerning extractive/commercial use activities. The question on
special places was administered early in the questionnaire so that response biases
would be minimized. The survey questions analyzed in this paper asked respondents
to identify special outdoor places on public lands (after a brief deŽnition of the
concept was presented 1), the activities they participate in at these places, and the
reasons these places have special meaning. The instructions made it clear that
special places are not dependent on recreation or leisure pursuits alone, but could
include scenery, areas of cultural importance, areas of economic importance, or
other attributes. The special place question used an open± ended format to allow a
degree of depth in respondents’ answers, and some of those surveyed gave multiple
responses to the activity identiŽcation question. The survey context provided for
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
425
freedom in responding about emotional attachments to places that some works
have asserted can be compromised by traditional public input eŒ
orts used in natural
resource management (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995).
Survey Methods
Households were randomly selected from a sampling frame of telephone listings in
local directories in two communities (Cedar City, Parowan/Paragonah) where the
address of the household could be determined from the directories. In the other two
communities (Boulder/Escalante, Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville) most residents
have post office boxes, and in these cases property tax assessors’ lists provided the
sampling frame.
Questionnaires were distributed in all four communities using a drop± oŒ/pick±
up method. The adult resident within each selected household who had most recent±
ly celebrated their birthday was the designated survey participant. The survey was
administered to 550 randomly selected residents. An overall response rate of 78.9%
resulted in 434 usable surveys; response rates for the individual communities ranged
between 78% and 83%.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began by coding responses into inductively created ‘‘activity’’ and
‘‘reason’’ typologies in three stages, with each stage narrowing the typologies into
substantive categories. The typologies were created in this way, rather than adopt±
ing ones from previous works, in order to create abstract conceptualizations speciŽ±
cally suited for special place studies that are based on the unique aspects of
emotional attachments and can incorporate the local cultural contexts of study
communities. Replication of this study in other areas is needed to further reŽne
these typologies so they can be more eŒ
ectively applied to future special place
studies and tailored to include local and regional social/cultural variations within
the typologies’ frames.
The data are Žrst tabulated in aggregate to determine the types of activities
respondents partake of at special places. Although human activities are one of the
components that must be present to transform people’s perceptions of space into
perceptions of place (Tuan 1977; Relph 1976), it must be clariŽed that this endeavor
is not intended to suggest there is a substitutability eŒ
ect for special places based on
the activities people engage in at these places. This information reects a snapshot
of the culture of special places in Utah, and provides information about what types
of public land uses may be likely to facilitate emotional attachments to special
places.
The second stage of the aggregate analysis is an analysis of the reasons places
have special meaning, performed to discern whether there are patterns in these
reasons. A cross± tabulation is conducted to explore if the reasons places are regard±
ed as special are dependent upon the types of activities respondents engaged in at
special places.
The Žnal stages of the analysis explore the embedding nature of local social/
cultural contexts in emotional bonds with special places by disaggregating the data
and examining variations across the four study communities. A dummy variable
was created for each class in the activity and reason typologies, and chi± square was
used to test for signiŽcant di Œ
erences across study communities.
426
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
Community IdentiÐcation
This study incorporates a focus on communities to determine if di Œ
erences in local
social/cultural contexts are related to variations in emotional attachments to special
places. The deŽnition of community has long been a topic of academic debate. Some
works have asserted that geographical aspects of communities are of decreasing
importance in modern cultures due to advances in communication and transporta±
tion that enable more selectively deŽned memberships in interactionally based com±
munities (Bender 1978). In contrast, Wilkinson (1991) contends that increased
mobility in modern society may actually increase the importance of geographic ele±
ments of community, as residential locales are more freely chosen than they were in
the past. In addition, geographic boundaries segmenting the natural world are of
special concern for land managers and sense± of± place studies, because geographic
proximity to a locale may aŒ
ect the meanings and bonds associated with places
(Brandenburg and Carroll 1995). In light of these concerns, this study utilizes Wilk±
inson’s (1986, 1991) deŽnition of community to deŽne its conceptual approach. This
perspective provides an operational deŽnition of community ‘‘that combines the
important functional and behavioral components of community . . . with the
concept of community having a geographical basis’’ (Sullivan 1997, 27).
Wilkinson’s concept of community has three deŽning parts. First, there must be
a locality, deŽned as a ‘‘territory where people meet their daily needs together’’
(Wilkinson 1991, 2). It has been asserted that locality is a necessary element for
distinguishing communities from other types of social groups (Hiller 1941). A second
community element is the concept of a local society, which Wilkinson states is ‘‘a
comprehensive network of associations for meeting common needs and expressing
common interests’’ (Wilkinson 1991, 2). Infrastructure, local governments, and other
community organizations and the services they provide are tangible forms of this
concept. The third deŽning aspect of community is the presence of a ‘‘process of
locality± oriented collective actions’’ (Wilkinson 1991, 2), also referred to as a com±
munity Ðeld. This element focuses on the interactional aspects of community through
which residents express their common interests in the local society. The deŽnition of
community applied here incorporates elements of a geographically restricted area,
the social structures and infrastructure that govern and enable its management, and
the interactions of groups of community members that facilitate the pursuit of
common needs and interests.
Communities in the study were identiŽed using mapping exercises conducted
with local public land managers and interviews with key informants. All community
identiŽcation process participants had lived in the study area for at least 6 years.
The procedure for the mapping exercises began by providing a layman’s description
of the deŽnition of community applied in the study (where people interact on a daily
basis, fulŽll their needs, hold similar values, etc.). Twenty± two Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management employees were asked to draw rough circles on a map
indicating areas that correspond with the operational deŽnition given. The resulting
maps were then analyzed to Žnd areas participants identiŽed as communities. This
procedure resulted in an initial identiŽcation of 12 potential communities in and
around the Dixie National Forest.
After the mapping exercise, key informant interviews were conducted with 60
residents in the study region. The purpose of these interviews was to complete com±
munity identiŽcations, verify the validity of the community mapping results, and
identify unique elements of the communities and their relationships with public
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
FIGURE 1 Locations of study communities.
427
428
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
lands. Chain referral methods originating with local politicians and business people
were used to identify key informants for the interviews. EŒ
orts were taken to ensure
the participation of residents with diverse perspectives on public land management
and uses, including newcomers, long± term residents, community officials, business
leaders, environmentalists, and traditional use advocates.
The information from the mapping exercises and interviews was used to
combine adjacent places and towns into 13 community clusters in the region; 4 of
these community clusters were selected for use in the survey portion of the research
project (see Figure 1). The towns of Boulder and Escalante were deŽned as one
community, and the second community cluster included the towns of Tropic, Hen±
rieville, and Cannonville. Cedar City was the third community used in the study,
and the towns of Parowan and Paragonah formed the fourth community. These
four community clusters were selected because of the importance of forest manage±
ment issues in these areas, the consistency with which they were identiŽed during
the mapping exercise, ‘‘the diversity between the communities based on traditional
typological approaches’’ (Sullivan 1997, 107), and their distinctly diŒ
erent social/
cultural orientations toward public land use and management.
The four study communities are located in two counties in southern Utah. This
area of the country is unique for cultural and geographic reasons. While less than
1% of the U.S. population is Mormon, 70% of the residents in Utah are of that faith
(Wardwell 1997). Mormon residents of rural communities in this area have high
degrees of internal social cohesion because of numerical dominance, geographic iso±
lation, social activities often organized around church± related activities, and a strong
belief system (Stinner and Toney 1980). One implication of this setting for this study
is that areas dominated by single cultures may develop heritage narratives, which
are stories about the history of a community that ‘‘provide an overarching frame±
work within which the meaning of contemporary events can be placed’’ (Bridger
1996, 355). In addition, the dramatic landscapes of the canyon, desert, and mountain
country in southern Utah and the presence of vast tracts of federal lands also make
the study area unique. Because of these factors, generalizations from this study
should be made with caution.
Community Descriptions²
Boulder /Escalante (1994 Population: 875)
Boulder/Escalante is primarily a rural agrarian community that is linked to tradi±
tional resource± related activities through occupations such as ranching, farming, and
logging. This community has the strongest primary income± earning uses of public
lands of any community in the study. Income levels in this community cluster are
low relative to others in the study, and the ages of residents are higher. Key infor±
mants attributed these demographics to the outmigration of young people because
of poor job opportunities and economic difficulties associated with ranching and
farming. Public land use orientations in the community favor the traditional devel±
opment of natural resources, including grazing. Survey data indicate that residents
are heavily involved in the noncommercial collection of special forest products
(Žrewood, Christmas trees, hunting and Žshing, etc.), and are moderately involved in
nonconsumptive recreation (mountain biking, camping, horseback riding, etc.) com±
pared with other communities. Boulder/Escalante has the highest percentage of
survey respondents within a study community (34.2%) who earn income through
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
429
participation in commercial activities on public lands such as grazing (25.4%) or
logging (18.0%).
Tropic /Henrieville /Cannonville (1994 Population: 647)
This community cluster was identiŽed in previous research to be the one most
engaged in ‘‘traditional noncommercial and commercial consumptive activities on
public lands’’ (Sullivan 1997, 139). Although only a small percentage of the popu±
lation is primarily engaged in traditional resource± based occupations, many
residents supplement their income with ranching and other activities on public
lands, while others engage in these types of activities for recreational value. The
community is inuenced by nearby Bryce Canyon National Park, and is in some
ways a gateway community. A substantial proportion of residents are of retirement
age, some of whom are recent in± migrants drawn by amenities associated with the
park. Relative to other communities, a large proportion of the population is
employed in the service sector, which is primarily based on tourism. Attitudes con±
cerning public land management are primarily focused on supporting increases in
traditional resource use and development. Survey data indicate that residents of this
community are the most involved in the noncommercial collection of special forest
products when compared to the other communities. Community residents are also
involved in nonconsumptive recreation (mountain biking, camping, horseback
riding, etc.) at a moderate level relative to the other communities. The community
has a high percentage of survey respondents (27.1%) who earn income from partici±
pation in commercial activities on public lands such as grazing (36.1%) or Žrewood
collection (27.5%).
Cedar City (1994 Population: 15,748)
Cedar City is the most urban community in the study, and has experienced rapid
growth in recent years. Residents of the community have high incomes relative to
the other community clusters, and have few direct economic links with resources on
public lands. Cedar City is the home of a small state university, and as a result the
community has a higher proportion of the population employed in managerial,
technical, and administrative support occupations than other communities in the
study. Forest Service permit data indicate that traditional uses of public lands are
not as prevalent in this community as they are in the other study communities.
Attitudes about public land use indicate that primary concerns are about wildlife
habitat protection and other preservation issues, rather than about developing
public land resources. Use of forest resources is largely for nonconsumptive rec±
reational activities. Survey data indicate that residents of this community are the
least involved in the noncommercial collection of special forest products of any
study community, and nonconsumptive recreation is the most prevalent type of
public land use. Cedar City has the lowest percentage of survey respondents within
a study community (8.8%) who earn income through participation in commercial
activities on public lands such as mining sand and gravel (1.8%) or Žrewood collec±
tion (4.5%).
Parowan /Paragonah (1994 Population: 2565)
This community cluster resembled Cedar City more than the other two com±
munities in the study, as a proportion of the population is commuters and other
430
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
people whose subsistence is not directly linked with land use. In the recent past this
community has attracted individuals who have chosen their place of residence more
on life± style choices based on access to surrounding public lands than on economic
links with natural resources (Schulte 1997). Tourism is also a factor in the economy
of this community, as it is in close proximity to Cedar Breaks National Monument,
the Dixie National Forest, and Brian Head ski resort. As a result, a large portion of
the residences in the community are seasonal, relative to the other communities in
the study. However, there is also a substantial proportion of the population that is
employed in agriculture (25% in Paragonah). The relatively large number of forest
product and activity permits held by residents of this community, however, indicates
that their orientations to public lands are more traditional than the orientations of
residents of Cedar City. Thus, this is a diverse community that includes a mix of
people in traditional rural occupations and activities based on utilitarian links with
the land and those without such links but seeking many of the life± style
opportunities associated with rural residence. Survey data indicate that residents of
this community are moderately involved in the noncommercial collection of special
forest products compared with other study communities. Community residents are
also involved in nonconsumptive recreation at a moderate level. The community has
the second lowest percentage of survey respondents (11.0%) who earn income from
participation in commercial activities on public lands such as grazing (11.9%) or
post and pole cutting (1.8%).
Across all four communities the analysis of survey and permit data indicates
that members of these communities are active in consumptive recreation, noncon±
sumptive recreation, and income± earning uses of public lands. There is a continuum
of public land use types across the study communities, ranging from primarily non±
consumptive recreation (Cedar City), to a mix involving consumptive uses and rec±
reation (Parowan/Paragonah), to primarily consumptive uses (Tropic/
Henrieville/Cannonville), to commodity uses more frequently associated with
primary income earning (Boulder/Escalante). The diŒ
erences in social/cultural
orientations to public land use and management across these communities reect
these use variations.
Results
Activity Participation
Survey responses indicating the activities people partake of at the special places they
identiŽed are summarized and presented in Table 1. The number of activities
(n 5 1156) exceeds the number of reasons and places identiŽed (n 5 930) because
many respondents associated multiple activities with the special places they identi±
Žed. The numerous activities indicate that many of these areas are not places that
are valued for just one speciŽc activity. It is also apparent from the typology that
recreational and leisure activities are especially important in emotional attachments
to special places, as all categories in the typology, with the exception of ‘‘miscella±
neous’’ and ‘‘economic/commodity uses,’’ are recreational activities.
The categories of ‘‘camp/hike/bike/climb’’ (33.5%) and ‘‘hunt/Žsh’’ (22.4%) were
the activities most frequently associated with special places. ‘‘Appreciative activities’’
constituted 10.9% of the activities respondents indicated they do at special places,
and included pursuits such as photography, wildlife or scenery viewing, petroglyph
viewing, and identifying/collecting fossils. The importance of ‘‘cookouts/picnics’’
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
431
TABLE 1 Activities Done at Special Places in the
Southern Utah Region
Activity
Frequency
Percentage
Camp/hike/bike/climb
Hunt/Žsh
Appreciative activities
Cookouts/picnics
Miscellaneous recreational
activities
Economic/commodity uses
Water sports
Family/friend centered
activities
Motorized recreation
Miscellaneous
Totals
387
259
126
119
33.5
22.4
10.9
10.3
69
60
51
6.0
5.2
4.4
44
32
9
1156
3.8
2.8
.8
100.0
(10.3%), and the likely involvement of signiŽcant others in these activities, lends
some support to the hypothesis that activities with family and close friends are
important factors in the development of emotional attachments to special places
(Galliano and Loeffler 1995; Mitchell et al. 1993). ‘‘Miscellaneous recreational activ±
ities,’’ which accounted for 6.0% of all the activities, consisted of responses referring
to pastimes such as simply relaxing or getting away, or speciŽc activities very few
people listed, like sledding and horseback riding.
‘‘Economic/commodity uses’’ comprised only 5.2% of all the activities
respondents said they do at special places. This result is surprising because it was
thought that residents of communities with traditional ties to the land would
develop emotional attachments to places that involve economic activities (such as
grazing cattle or collecting Žrewood) because they are an important part of these
communities’ cultures. The importance of these activities in the study communities
is evidenced by the permit data described in the community description section of
this paper and in Sullivan (1997). This expectation seemed especially plausible due
to past research showing the importance of familial and generational ties in emo±
tional attachments to places (Galliano and Loeffler 1995; Jorgensen 1984), and the
importance of these types of relationships in enterprises with traditional ties with
the lands. The data instead illustrate the importance of leisure activities in emotion±
al attachments to special places, even in communities with traditional ties to the
land.
The ‘‘water sports’’ classiŽcation was comprised of activities such as swimming,
water skiing, and boating, and accounted for 4.4% of all the activity responses.
Activities categorized as ‘‘family/friend centered activities’’ (3.8%) included family
outings, reunions, and ‘‘hanging out with friends.’’ ‘‘Motorized recreation’’ consisted
of motorcycling and four± wheeling, and 2.8% of all activities at special places
involved these recreational pursuits.
In summary, the most signiŽcant Žnding from the analysis of the activity data is
the primacy of recreational pursuits (94.0%) as activities engaged in at special places
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
432
on public lands and their potential importance in emotional attachments to places.
This is especially important in light of the high levels of community residents’
involvement in nonrecreational activities on public lands as indicated by survey and
permit data (Sullivan 1997).
Reasons for Attachments
The reasons places are considered special are presented in Table 2. Two types of
reasons appear to be especially important. First, ‘‘family/friend related reasons’’ con±
sisted of responses indicating that places were considered special because of inter±
actions at these locales among family or friends, family activities, family traditions
or heritage, family homesteading, or simply because of memories associated with
these people at these places. ‘‘Family/friend related reasons’’ accounted for 36.9% of
all the reasons places are considered to have special meaning. This Žnding supports
previous works’ assertions that social ties and interactions are important elements of
place attachment (Galliano and Loeffler 1995; Mitchell et al. 1993).
The second most frequently cited reason why places have special meaning was
because of the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of place,’’ which accounted
for 34.2% of all responses. Responses comprising this category included statements
expressing sentiments about the mystery or uniqueness of an area ; a place’s scenery,
climate, or geological value; and its environmental setting, pristine state, features, or
the wildlife found at the special place.
‘‘Convenience/ownership’’ of a place was the third most frequent reason a place
was considered special, comprising 9.7% of all responses. Statements coded in this
category included testimony to the familiarity of a place, its accessibility or proxim±
ity to the respondents’ home, or respondents’ ownership or caretaking of the land as
the primary reason for attachments to special places. This Žnding challenges asser±
tions that special places are unique areas deŽned in large part by their variation
from the norm, instead suggesting that everyday considerations can also play a part
in emotional attachments to special places.
TABLE 2 Reasons Locales Are Regarded as Special Places in
the Southern Utah Region
Reason places have
special meaning
Family/friend related
reasons
Environmental features/
characteristics of place
Convenience/ownership
Site for recreational
activities
Personal fulŽllment/relaxation
Economic/consumptive
issues
Miscellaneous
Totals
Frequency
Percentage
343
36.9
318
90
34.2
9.7
64
59
6.9
6.3
42
14
930
4.5
1.5
100.0
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
433
Nearly 7% of respondents indicated that the reason a place has special meaning
was because of its importance as a site for recreational activities (6.9%). Such testi±
monies included references to hunting, Žshing, swimming, or simply recreation as a
broad category. The ‘‘personal fulŽllment/tranquillity’’ (6.3%) category includes
reasons for attachments based in spiritual elements such as meditation, getting away
for relaxation, or Žnding tranquility.
‘‘Economic/consumptive issues’’ account for only 4.5% of the reasons places are
considered to have special meaning. Responses attributing emotional attachments
to places based on these factors indicated reasons based in grazing activities, collect±
ing or cutting wood, being employed in the area, or earning one’s livelihood there.
Although economic/consumptive activities are common on public lands in southern
Utah, the reasons places where these activities occur are regarded as special were
expected to stem from other issues due to the diŒ
erences between utilitarian and
emotional attachments to place. This research expectation is supported by the small
proportion of economic/consumptive reasons underlying emotional attachments to
special places.
Activities and Reasons for Attachments: Relationships
A cross± tabulation of the reasons places have special meaning and the activities
done at these special places is presented in Table 3. In all activities except
‘‘economic/commodity uses,’’ the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of place’’
and ‘‘family and friend related reasons’’ were the two most frequently cited reasons
why places had special meaning. Clearly, the construction of reasons for emotional
bonds with outdoor special places is not governed purely by the type of activity
done at those locales. People have similar reasons for feeling emotional attachments
to places regardless of the speciŽc activities they do at a locale. This relationship
suggests that users engaging in diŒ
erent types of activities may generate similar
meanings of their special place experiences, despite the diversity in their actions.
An example that clariŽes this point is evident in the motorized recreation cate±
gory. Of the people participating in this activity, 56.5% said that the reason they
consider the place where they do this activity special was because of the ‘‘environ±
mental features/characteristics of [ the ] place.’’ Although a few respondents stated
that the features of the place provided special conditions conducive to motor activ±
ities, the vast majority of the responses referred to touring or other appreciative
activities. It is often assumed that motorized recreation does not facilitate the types
of experiences that enable the development of such reasons for considering places
special, but this Žnding suggests that such reasons are prevalent and that it is the
social construction of experiences (such as what constitutes an appreciative one) that
varies between activities, as opposed to the meanings being inherent in an activity
itself.
The category of activities that varies from the norm described earlier is
‘‘economic/commodity uses,’’ where the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of
place’’ is not as important a reason for a place being considered special. ‘‘Economic/
consumptive issues’’ are key reasons for special meaning at these places, but ‘‘family/
friend related reasons’’ are the most frequently cited reasons for considering places
special, further supporting assertions of the importance of bonds with signiŽcant
others in relationships with special places (Jorgensen 1984; Galliano and Loeffler
1995).
Another important Žnding is the frequency with which ‘‘convenience/
ownership’’ reasons underlie attachments to special places in most reason categories.
434
9.3
5.7
8.6
2.5
24.5
16.3
È
14.3
6.1
183
2.2
5.5
14.7
9.3
27.9
40.4
Hunt/
Ðsh
23
È
4.3
4.3
13.0
56.5
21.7
Motorized
recreation
85
1.1
7.1
È
14.1
51.8
25.9
Appreciative
activities
49
32.7
È
4.0
8.2
10.2
44.9
Economic
commodity
uses
33
3.0
È
6.1
12.1
15.2
63.6
Family
friend
centered
activities
35
È
8.6
11.4
8.6
40.0
31.4
Water
sports
92
2.2
3.3
4.2
9.8
34.8
45.7
Cookouts/
picnics
Note. Values in tables are percentages. Miscellaneous categories of both activities and reasons have been removed from the cross-tabulation because of the small size of their
classes.
279
39.1
38.8
Family/friend
related
reasons
Environmental
features
characteristics of place
Convenience/
ownership
Site for
recreational
activities
Personal
fulÐllment/
relaxation
Economic/
consumptive
issues
Frequencies
(n 5 828)
49
34.8
Misc.
recreational
activities
Reasons places
have special
meaning
Camp/
hike/
bike/
climb
TABLE 3 Reasons Places Are Considered Special, by Activities Done at Special Places in the Southern Utah Region
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
435
As with the aggregate data, this indicates that access to and familiarity with a locale
often plays an important role in the reasons places have special meaning. Contrary
to the notion that special places are by deŽnition unique geographic locales, some
are areas where frequent or regular activities are possible.
Community Connections
The Žnal stages of the analysis explore the embedding (Brandenburg and Carroll
1995) nature of sociocultural inuences on emotional attachments to special places
by examining variances in special place activities and reasons across four com±
munities with diŒ
erent social/cultural orientations toward public land use and man±
agement. The concept of embedding suggests that the activities and reasons will
vary across these culturally diverse communities.
The special place activity comparisons for each community are presented in
Table 4 ; participation in categories of activities diŒ
ers signiŽcantly (p , .05) across
communities for Žve of the nine activity types. Variations were not signiŽcant in the
‘‘cookouts/picnics,’’ ‘‘miscellaneous recreational activities,’’ ‘‘motorized recreation,’’
TABLE 4 Types of Activities Done at Special Places, by Study Communities in the
Southern Utah Region
Activity
Misc.
recreational
activities
Camp/hike
bike/climb
Hunt/Žsh
Motorized
recreation
Appreciative
activities
Economic/
commodity
uses
Family/
friend
centered
activities
Water
sports
Cookouts/
picnics
Miscellaneous
Frequencies
(n 5 1156)
Boulder/
Escalante
Tropic/
Henrieville
Cannonville
Cedar
City
Parowan
Paragonah
Chi±
square
SigniŽcance
7.4
6.0
3.6
7.7
5.399
.145
33.3
30.8
39.6
27.5
9.534
.023
20.7
3.6
24.3
3.0
17.8
2.7
30.2
1.1
11.552
2.670
.009
.445
10.7
10.2
10.9
12.6
.760
.859
5.8
9.0
2.7
1.6
18.759
.000
2.3
6.6
3.3
2.2
10.554
.014
4.5
.6
6.9
6.6
18.631
.000
11.0
9.3
11.5
8.8
1.489
.685
0.6
309
0.3
334
0.9
331
1.6
182
2.914
.405
Note. Percentages are presented for clarity in interpreting the data; chi-square statistics were calculated using cell frequencies.
436
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
or ‘‘appreciative activities’’ categories. However, the variations across communities
in most of the remaining categories reect locally diŒerent orientations to public
land use and management (Schulte 1997; Sullivan 1997).
‘‘Camp/hike/bike/climb’’ activities are highest in Cedar City (39.6%), the com±
munity whose members share the most urban orientations and tend to favor man±
agement practices fostering preservation and recreation. In contrast, these
recreational uses of landscapes are lowest in Parowan/Paragonah (27.5%). Although
Parowan/Paragonah residents were identiŽed as holding values similar to the Cedar
City community residents toward preservation and development issues, public land
use patterns diŒ
er across the two communities. While Cedar City is described as
having a large recreation focus, the number of forest product and activity permits
held by the residents of Parowan/Paragonah indicates that their orientations
toward public lands are more traditional (Sullivan 1997). The population of
Parowan/Paragonah is a mix of commuter and traditional life± styles, but many
commuters are apparently attracted to the area because of an appreciation for tradi±
tional land use practices and rural life± styles. This social/cultural orientation is
reected in the di Œ
erences between the two communities in the degree to which they
associated ‘‘camp/hike/bike/climb’’ with the special places they identiŽed.
Interestingly, Parowan/Paragonah also had the lowest percentage of
‘‘economic/commodity’’ uses of special places. This may be a reection of life± styles
that are not intimately connected through income earning with ‘‘economic/
commodity uses’’ to the degree that they become activities factoring in emotional
attachments to special places. In contrast, the prevalence of these activities in the
Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville community relative to other communities reects its
status as the community most engaged in ‘‘traditional noncommercial and com±
mercial consumptive activities on public lands’’ (Sullivan 1997, 139).
Parowan/Paragonah was highest in the proportion of special places where
hunting and Žshing are pursued (30.2%). These activities may again reect residents’
pursuit of a traditional rural life± style and its amenities. In contrast, Cedar City was
the community with the lowest involvement in these activities at special places
(17.8%), reecting residents’ urban life± style and support for protection and preser±
vation activities on public lands.
The Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville community was most involved in ‘‘family/
friend centered activities’’ (6.6%) at special places, while the three other communities
were relatively consistent in the degree to which these activities were associated with
special places. An opposite relationship held true for ‘‘water sports,’’ where the
Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville community was least involved in these activities at
special places (0.6%). The variation in water± based activities is attributable to access
issues in the communities, as the Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville community is not
near any water sport areas. Overall, the variations in the ‘‘water sports’’ and
‘‘family/friend centered activities’’ are not clearly linked to the variations in social/
cultural orientations across the study communities. However, the other categories of
activities that varied signiŽcantly do suggest a relationship between local social/
cultural orientations toward public lands and the activities that people in these
communities pursue at special places. These Žndings support the contention that
special places may be embedding and that the activities done at these locales reect
some of the dominant values in local communities.
Table 5 identiŽes the reasons locales are considered special places within each of
the four study communities. Only two categories of reasons vary signiŽcantly, indi±
cating that the reasons underlying emotional attachments to places are more stable
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
437
TABLE 5 Reasons Locales Are Regarded as Special Places, by Study
Communities in the Southern Utah Region
Reasons
places
have
special
meaning
Site for
recreational
activities
Environmental
features/
characteristics
of place
Family/friend
related reasons
Personal
fulŽllment/
relaxation
Economic/
consumptive
issues
Convenience/
ownership
Miscellaneous
Frequencies
(n 5 930)
Boulder/
Escalante
Tropic/
Henrieville/
Cannonville
Cedar
City
Parowan/
Paragonah
Chi±
square
SigniŽcance
7.5
5.8
8.7
5.3
2.499
.475
38.6
28.6
33.0
39.5
8.323
.040
34.6
39.1
37.4
35.5
1.321
.724
5.5
6.5
7.8
5.3
1.452
.693
4.7
7.8
2.2
1.3
14.018
.003
6.7
10.9
9.1
13.2
5.264
.153
2.4
254
1.4
294
1.7
230
3.707
.295
152
±
Note. Percentages are presented for clarity in interpreting the data ; chi-square statistics were calculated using cell frequencies.
across communities than are the activities done at special places. However, the dif±
ferences across communities in the reasons why places are thought of as special may
also be attributable, at least in part, to community± level social/cultural variations.
One signiŽcant diŒerence is evident in the proportion of places considered special
because of the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of place.’’ In Tropic/
Henrieville/Cannonville this reason accounted for only 28.6% of the responses, com±
pared with 33.0% in Cedar City, 38.6% in Boulder/Escalante, and 39.5% in
Parowan/Paragonah. Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville has been identiŽed as the
community most involved in traditional consumptive activities on public lands, with
high levels of support for land management emphasizing resource use and develop±
ment. Less frequent references to the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of
place’’ as a primary reason for special place attachments by members of that com±
munity may be a reection of these attitudes. However, it should be noted that even
within this community the ‘‘environmental features/characteristics of place’’ consti±
tuted the second most common reason places were considered to be special.
The other category of special place reasons that varied signiŽcantly across com±
munities was ‘‘economic/consumptive issues.’’ The explanation for this result
mirrors the Žndings regarding the variations in the ‘‘environmental features/
438
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
characteristics of place.’’ Residents of Tropic/Henrieville/Cannonville are heavily
engaged in traditional noncommercial and commercial consumptive activities on
public lands, and these social/cultural orientations toward public land use and man±
agement are reected in the reasons residents consider places to be special.
In conclusion, social/cultural inuences may inuence the reasons places are
considered to be special, but these inuences are not the sole or primary factors
involved in emotional attachments to place. Overall, the reasons places are con±
sidered special are largely consistent across communities that exhibit di Œ
ering
social/cultural orientations toward public lands.
Discussion
Sense of place is a holistic concept that has received increased attention in the last
decade in ecosystem management actions and other eŒ
orts to incorporate social
aspects in public land management (Williams and Stewart 1998; Williams et al.
1992). Emotional attachments to place represent a unique kind of sense of place that
has important implications for managers of public lands and social scientists con±
cerned with natural resource issues (Schroeder 1996; Brandenburg and Carroll
1995; Mitchell et al. 1993). Attachments to special places are bonds with a locale
based on a sense of place that involves sentiments extending beyond the use value of
the land. Concerns about management actions are heightened when such bonds
with places are present, and these unique place attachments are important consider±
ations for social science researchers seeking to comprehend the wide variety of con±
nections people have with areas of the natural world.
The use of survey data in this research enabled a diŒ
erent type of analysis than
had been undertaken in previous place attachment studies. The aggregated data
from the four study communities indicate that recreational activities are by far the
most prevalent type of use associated with special places, despite the fact that survey
and primary data sources show that residents of these communities frequently
engage in commodity and commercial activities on public lands. Activities are an
integral part of the development of a sense of place (Tuan 1977; Relph 1976), and
these results suggests that emotional attachments to special places are most often
based on leisure time pursuits. But as previous research has shown, special places
are not substitutable based solely on the nature of these activities. The analysis of
the reasons places are considered special indicated that the ‘‘environmental features/
characteristics of [ a ] place’’ and ‘‘family/friend related reasons’’ are the primary
reasons underlying emotional attachments with special places. In addition, the
‘‘convenience/ownership’’ of a place is also an important reason why places are
regarded as special. ClariŽcation of these factors can help managers anticipate
public reactions to management decisions. SpeciŽc environmental features, a history
of signiŽcant social interactions, and convenience factors associated with activities
at a place suggest that users of a locale may have a sense of place that is important
for managers to recognize and address.
The analysis also indicates that the reasons places are considered special are
largely independent of the activities people do there. Appreciating the environ±
mental features of a place can occur in a variety of ways and involve vastly di Œ
erent
activities and experiences, depending on the orientations and deŽnitions of the
public lands user.
The Žnal stages of the analysis explored the embedding nature of special places
by analyzing how the activities done at special places and the reasons places are
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
439
considered special varied across the four study communities. Activities varied across
the communities in ways that are related to community social/cultural diŒ
erences,
but the reasons places are considered special varied less across the communities.
These Žndings suggest that local social/cultural diŒ
erences in orientations toward
public land use and management do inuence some key aspects of emotional attach±
ments to special places on public lands, but that these social forces are by no means
deterministic. Instead, a combination of personal experiences at places, broad, non±
locally based cultural inuences, and the embedding nature of local community
orientations to public lands are probably involved in the development of such
bonds. The community is therefore an appropriate level of analysis for identifying
stakeholders’ attachments to public lands and for understanding some of the impor±
tant inuences on emotional attachments to special places.
Conclusion
The study of emotional attachments to special places as a unique type of sense of
place elucidates the complexity of issues involved in incorporating social factors into
public land management practices. Special place attachment constitutes a unique
relationship between people and the natural world that deserves further attention in
social science eŒ
orts to understand the relationships between people and the
environment. Consideration of social factors in eŒ
orts to manage public lands and
understand the environment can enable management practices that move ‘‘beyond
the commodity metaphor’’ (Williams et al. 1992, 29) and beyond mechanistic
approaches to land management based purely on the use value of places. An exami±
nation of the reasons places are regarded as special reveals that such approaches do
not take into account all the factors involved in the bonds people have with places
on public lands, and suggests that, in regard to special places, policies based on
substitutability will not be acceptable to users because of the nature of their connec±
tions with places regarded as special.
The approach adopted in this study clariŽes some of the factors involved in
attachments to special places, and provides a method for gathering information
about people’s perceptions of the relationships they have with places on public
lands. Such knowledge can provide planners with useful information about the cul±
tures of local communities, the types of activities involved in emotional attachments
to special places, the reasons locales are regarded as special, and the physical loca±
tions of special places if mapping is undertaken. This information can then be
applied to eŒ
orts to anticipate public responses to management actions. The
research methods used can be time± consuming, but when implemented at limited
geographic scales, the returns on these eŒorts are potentially invaluable for incor±
porating social factors in public lands management.
The generalizability of these Žndings is limited by the unique cultural and physi±
cal setting in southern Utah. Future research in other settings is needed to improve
knowledge of emotional attachments to special places and enhance the practical
value of this information. The social constructionist perspective on the development
of sense of place inherently asserts that place attachments are processive rather than
static, and as such, these unique connections between people and places on public
lands should be monitored periodically. Such research can provide cumulatively
reŽned knowledge of how these understandings of places change over time and are
inuenced by various cultural, demographic, and economic changes. The generation
of these insights will enhance understanding of emotional attachments to natural
440
B. W . Eisenhauer et al.
places and can be used to better incorporate considerations of social factors in
public lands management.
Notes
1. The questionnaire item read: People often develop strong feelings about
certain outdoor places that have special meaning and importance to them. Sometimes
these are areas where a person has spent time doing enjoyable activities. For others,
such places have special meaning because of the scenery, historical or cultural impor±
tance, economic importance, or any number of other personal reasons.
‘‘Please take a minute to think about two or three areas or places located on
public lands in the Southern Utah region that have special personal meaning and
importance to you. For each of the places you think of, please tell us the name and
location of the place, the things you do when you visit that area, and the reasons that
this place has special meaning for you.’’
2. The information in the community descriptions is based on data from the
survey Public L and Use in Southern Utah : A Study of L ocal Community Interests,
and is from Sullivan (1997), unless otherwise noted.
References
Bender, T. 1978. Community and social change in America. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers Uni±
versity Press.
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1967. T he social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995. Your place or mine?: The eŒect of place cre±
ation on environmental values and landscape meaning. Society Nat. Resources 8:381È
398.
Bridger, J. C. 1996. Community imagery and the built environment. Sociol. Q. 37(3):353È374.
Buist, L. J., and T. A. Hoots. 1982. Recreation opportunity spectrum approach to resource
planning. J. Forest. 80(2):84È86.
Endter± Wada, J., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, and M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for under±
standing social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 8(3):891È904.
Galliano, S. J., and G. M. Loeffler. 1995. Place assessment: How people deÐne ecosystems.
Walla Walla, WA: Social Science Assessment Team, USDA Forest Service.
Giddens, A. 1984. T he constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Greider, T. and L. Garkovich. 1994. Landscapes : The social construction of nature and the
environment. Rural Sociol. 59(1):1È24.
Hiller, E. T. 1941. The community as a social group. Am. Sociol. Rev. 6(2):189È202.
Jorgensen, J. G. 1984. Land is cultural, so is a commodity : The locus of di Œerences among
Indians, cowboys, sod± busters, and environmentalists. J. Ethnic Stud. 12(3):1È21.
Mitchell, M. Y., J. E. Force, M. S. Carroll, and W. J. McLaughlin. 1993. Forest places of the
heart: Incorporating special places into public management. J. Forest. 91(2):32È37.
Pred, A. 1990. Making histories and constructing human geographies. Boulder, CO : Westview.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London : Pion.
Riley, R. B. 1992. Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In Place attachment, eds. I. Altman
and S. M. Low, 13È35. New York : Plenum Press.
Schroeder, H. W. 1996. Voices from Michigan’s Black River: Obtaining Information on
‘‘Special Places’’ for Natural Resource Planning. St Paul, MN : U.S. Department of Agri±
culture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
Attachments to Special Places on Public L ands
441
Schulte, E. 1997. A Comparative Analysis of Newcomers and Long Term Residents In
Southern Utah and Their Respective Linkages to Natural Resources on Surrounding
Public Lands. Master’s thesis, Utah State University.
Shamai, S. 1991. Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum 22:347È358.
Stinner, W. F., and M. B. Toney. 1980. MigrantÈnative diŒerences in social background and
community satisfaction in nonmetropolitan Utah communities. In New directions in
urbanÈrural migration: T he population turnaround in rural America, eds. D. L. Brown and
J. M. Wardwell. 313È331. New York : Academic Press.
Stokowski, P. A., and W. Antholine. 1995. Applications of a Sociological Approach to ‘‘Sense
of Place.’’ Abstract from the 1995 Leisure Research Symposium : , http//
www.indiana.edu/ , lrs/lrs95/pstokowski95.html .
Sullivan, M. 1997. Monitoring Forest Resource Dependence in Southern Utah : Applications
to Ecosystem Management. Master’s thesis, Utah State University.
Tuan, Y. F. 1974. T opophilia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and place. London : Arnold.
Wardwell, J. M. 1997. Migration research in the West, 1982È1992. In Population change in the
rural W est: 1975È1990, eds. J. M. Wardwell and J. H. Copp, 1È52. Lanham, MD : Uni±
versity Press of America.
Wilkinson, K. P. 1986. In search of the community in the changing countryside. Rural Sociol.
51:1È17.
Wilkinson, K. P. 1991. T he community in rural America. Westport, CT : Greenwood Press.
Williams, D., and S. Stewart. 1998. Sense of place: An elusive concept that is Žnding a home
in ecosystem management. J. Forest. 2:18È23.
Williams, D., M. Patterson, J. Roggenbuck, and A. Watson. 1992. Beyond the commodity
metaphor : Examining emotional and symbolic attachments to place. L eisure Sci. 14:29È
46.