Jee In Yoon
KangJae “Jerry” Lee2
Lincoln R. Larson- 1Department of Coaching, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- 2Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
- 3Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
Introduction: Efforts to understand visitors’ participation in pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) are important for protected area management. Previous research in nature-based recreation settings suggests environmental attitudes may affect PEB, and that these relationships might be mediated by different dimensions of place attachment (place identity and place dependence).
Methods: We used structural equation modeling to test the mediating effect of hikers’ place attachment in the relationship between environmental attitudes and PEBs that occur within (on-site) and outside a protected area (off-site): Mt. Bukhan National Park in South Korea.
Results: Results showed that cognitive (environmental knowledge) and affective (environmental sensitivity) components of environmental attitudes were significant predictors for place attachment. Place identity was linked to off-site PEB, while place dependence was a key antecedent for both off-site and on-site PEBs.
Discussion: Our findings could help researchers and practitioners better understand how place attachment forms and how it can impact outdoor recreationists’ behavior, ultimately helping to promote PEBs and facilitate sustainable management goals.
1 Introduction
Due to continuing anthropogenic threats such as global climate change, rising urbanization, and overcrowding in many outdoor recreation settings, understanding human behavior is an important aspect of park and natural resource management (Orishimo, 2012; Rommel et al., 2015; Bradley et al., 2020). Moreover, many park managers and practitioners are charged with a so-called “dual mandate” (Higham et al., 2016)—they must protect the natural environment while providing positive visitor experiences. For all of these reasons, predicting and -promoting the PEBs of outdoor recreationists is a critical issue in parks and natural resource management.
Many researchers view environmental attitudes as the key to understanding environmental behavior (Heberlein, 2012; Liu et al., 2020). Environmental attitudes are often defined as a person’s positive or negative evaluation of the natural environment (Kaiser et al., 1999). To date, researchers have studied various forms of environmental attitudes, such as environmental concern (Weigel, 1983; Takala, 1991; Fransson and Gärling, 1999), attitude toward nature (Becker et al., 1981; Van der Pligt et al., 1986; Grob, 1995), and environmental values (Karp, 1996; Lee et al., 2014), often merging the concept of environmental attitudes into larger worldviews such as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP; Dunlap et al., 2000). However, most previous studies have considered either cognitive or affective aspects of environmental attitudes separately, and not both simultaneously (Manfredo et al., 1992; Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020). For example, environmental knowledge (Simmons and Widmar, 1990; Maurer and Bogner, 2020), a cognitive component, and environmental sensitivity (Perterson, 1982; Canosa et al., 2020), an affective component, could be accounted for concurrently to represent a more comprehensive portrayal of environmental attitudes (Cheng and Wu, 2015; Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020). Studies focused on tourism (Huang and Shih, 2009; Cheng and Wu, 2015) and environmental psychology (Duerden and Witt, 2010; Priadi et al., 2018) have shown that these two components of attitudes may have a significant influence on PEBs. Yet, to date, little research has examined how cognitive and affective aspects of environmental attitudes interact to influence environmental behavior in a nature-based recreation setting (Liu et al., 2020).
Although numerous studies have revealed significant links between pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (Bamberg and Möser, 2007; Kaiser et al., 2007; Ritter et al., 2015), more recent reviews have revealed a complex relationship between these concepts with a strength of association that varies based on contextual factors such as normative influences or perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 2012; Heberlein, 2012). Place attachment is another contextual factor of potential significance, yet few studies have investigated the mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Ramkissoon et al., 2012). Environmental attitudes can affect place attachment (Budruk et al., 2009; Brehm et al., 2013), which can in turn affect PEB (Vaske and Kobrin, 2001; Halpenny, 2010; Larson et al., 2018b; Song and Soopramanien, 2019). But few previous studies have empirically tested this mediation effect in outdoor recreation settings. Cheng and Wu’s (2015) study of visitors to the Penghu Islands in Taiwan is one notable exception. They found that the environmental knowledge and environmental sensitivity of recreationists positively influenced their place attachment, which in turn predicted general and specific PEBs. However, their study did not examine the differential effect of place identity and place dependence, two key dimensions of place attachment, on PEB.
1.1 Multiple dimensions of PEB
Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is a multidimensional construct delineating actions that benefit the natural environment, enhance environmental quality, or minimize harm to the environment (Steg and Vlek, 2009). For instance, Larson et al.’s (2015) study on rural residents of New York, United States, identified various PEB domains such as conservation lifestyle, environmental citizenship, and land stewardship. Furthermore, in the study of Taiwanese island tourists’ intention to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors, Cheng and Wu (2015) considered an environmentally responsible behavior from two dimensions: general behavior that occurs outside the recreational site (off-site) such as reading books about environmental issues related to a particular area, and specific behavior is actions happening inside the site (on-site) such as participating in activities to clean the area. Similarly, Lange and Dewitte (2019) measured PEB in two similar categories, domain-general and domain-specific behaviors, and Larson et al. (2018b) conceptualized PEB in two dimensions, low-effort (mostly on-site) and high-effort (mostly off-site) behavior. In each case, researchers distinguished between behaviors that occur in a park and might have a direct impact on park resources and management priorities, and behaviors that occurred outside of a park that might have a broader impact on global conservation efforts. In our study, we mirrored this approach and operationalized PEB as a two-dimensional construct (on-site and off-site), to examine visitors’ intent to participate in PEBs within the boundaries of the park itself and out in their broader lives.
1.2 Components of environmental attitudes: environmental knowledge and sensitivity
Environmental knowledge is a cognitive component of environmental attitudes which refers to an individual’s level of understanding about the environment and human impacts on the environment (Ramsey and Rickson, 1976; Simmons and Widmar, 1990). Several researchers have noted that environmental knowledge is a critical precursor to PEB. For example, Ramdas and Mohamed (2014) discovered that people who possessed elevated environmental knowledge were more likely to purchase green products. Similarly, Flamm (2009) noted a positive relationship between consumers’ environmental knowledge and PEBs. In addition, Lawhon et al. (2017) documented that self-reported environmental knowledge influenced the behavioral intention of engaging in leave-no-trace actions in three U.S. state parks. In their study of Chinese residents, Liu et al. (2020) noted an association between environmental knowledge and PEB, but this relationship was indirect and mediated by a variety of other factors.
Environmental sensitivity is an affective aspect of environmental attitudes that refers to “a set of affective attributes which result in an individual viewing the environment from an empathetic perspective” (Perterson, 1982, p. 5). Although environmental sensitivity is a fundamental element of environmental citizenship and PEB that has been emphasized in the environmental education literature (Hungerford and Volk, 1990; Chawla, 1998), the concept has received less attention. However, in a nature-based tourism context, Cheng and Wu (2015) found that the strongest predictors of PEB were environmental sensitivity and place attachment. Bustam et al.’s (2003) also studied the influence of environmental sensitivity on recreation site preference. Other studies have broadly explored links between related concepts, such as environmental concern and outdoor recreation participation, often yielding mixed results (Berns and Simpson, 2009; Ghazvini et al., 2020). Ultimately, although few researchers have focused explicitly on environmental knowledge and sensitivity and precursors to PEB, existing research suggests that both concepts could significantly influence the PEB of park visitors and other outdoor recreationists.
1.3 Role of place attachment in the attitude-behavior relationship
Place attachment might have a significant impact on PEB within (on-site) and outside of (off-site) the park area (Vaske and Kobrin, 2001; Halpenny, 2010). Place attachment refers to the emotional bond between humans and environment (Low and Altman, 1992). Existing literature supports the idea that place attachment is a multidimensional construct (Kyle et al., 2005; Tumanan and Lansangan, 2012). Two of the most commonly-described and widely recognized dimensions of place attachment are place identity (one’s identity expressed within the physical environment; Proshansky, 1978) and place dependence (the functional utility of a setting in satisfying one’s goal; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981).
Some research has demonstrated links between environmental attitudes and place attachment, especially among outdoor recreation enthusiasts (Brehm et al., 2006; Budruk et al., 2009). Place attachment may be particularly important in nature-based recreation contexts where quality experiences depend on the resource itself (Larson et al., 2018a). Jorgensen and Stedman’s (2006) investigation of predictors of sense of place documented that lakeshore property owners’ perceptions on environmental features (e.g., native vegetation and shoreline development) were the strongest predictors of their place identity, attachment, and dependence. Place attachment can also be associated with recreationists’ perceptions regarding setting conditions (Kyle G. et al., 2004) and the impacts of recreation activities on the environment (White et al., 2008; Eder and Arnberger, 2012). Thus, place attachment can influence the way recreationists think about a natural resource and impacts to that resource, potentially influencing their intent to engage in behaviors that protect the resource.
Many researchers have studied the relationship between place attachment and PEB (Stedman, 2002; Masterson et al., 2017; Larson et al., 2018a). Høyem (2020) found that developing a meaningful connection with natural environment was crucial in terms of increasing PEBs. Similarly, Clayton (2003) found that people who strongly identified with the natural environment demonstrated higher engagement in environmentally sustainable actions than individuals who displayed a weaker identification. Kaiser and Wilson (2000) also showed that attachment to a natural environment significantly predicted general ecological behavior such as ecological garbage removal, water/power conservation, and ecological automobile use when controlling for residential area, length of residence, education, age, and gender. Furthermore, Halpenny (2010) found that place attachment to national parks in Canada positively predicted both place-specific (on-site) and general (off-site) pro-environmental behavioral intentions.
Despite the wealth of research on these topics, few studies have simultaneously considered associations among PEB, cognitive and affective components of environmental attitudes, and multiple dimensions of place attachment in an outdoor recreation setting. To expand this growing body of research, we specifically tested whether the two dimensions of place attachment (i.e., place identity and place dependence) mediated the relationship between the two types of environmental attitudes (i.e., environmental knowledge and environmental sensitivity) and off-site and on-site PEBs in a popular Korean national park. As illustrated in Figure 1, we tested the following hypotheses:
H1: Environmental attitudes (environmental knowledge and environmental sensitivity) will have a positive effect on place attachment (place identity and place dependence).
H1-1: Environmental knowledge will have a positive effect on place identity.
H1-2: Environmental knowledge will have a positive effect on place dependence.
H1-3: Environmental sensitivity will have a positive effect on place identity.
H1-4: Environmental sensitivity will have a positive effect on place dependence.
H2: Place attachment (place identity and place dependence) will a have positive effect on off-site and on-site PEB.
H2-1: Place identity will have a positive effect on off-site PEB.
H2-2: Place identity will have a positive effect on on-site PEB.
H2-3: Place dependence will have a positive effect on off-site PEB.
H2-4: Place dependence will have a positive effect on on-site PEB.
H3: The relationship between environmental attitudes (environmental knowledge and environmental sensitivity) and off-site and on-site pro-environmental behaviors will be mediated by place attachment (place identity and place dependence).
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of relationships among multiple dimensions of environmental attitudes, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior.
2 Methods
2.1 Study context and data collection
National parks are most visited outdoor recreation sites in South Korea and contain natural environmental of national significance (Oh and Kim, 2013). To date, outdoor recreation research has been mainly conducted in the Western countries, often excluding East Asian context (Walker et al., 2001). Bukhansan Dulle-gil, one of the most visited outdoor recreation sites in South Korea, was selected to address this research gap.
Mt. Bukhan Dullegil (see Figure 2) is a hiking trail along the foothills of Mt. Bukhan National Park in the northern part of Seoul, South Korea. In total the trail spans 71.8 km, comprising the Mt. Bukhan section (45.7 km) opened in September 2010 and the Mt. Dobong section (26.1 km) opened in June 2011. The number of visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park is approximately 5.5 million per year (Korean Statistical Information Service, 2020). The park is located near the center of Seoul and is easily accessible by public transport, making it one of the most popular and most heavily impacted national parks in the country (Seo and Ko, 2013). The unique natural environment and popularity of the park makes it an ideal research context to understand the relationship between environmental attitude, place attachment, and PEBs.
Figure 2. The map of Bukhansan National Park Dulle-gil and nearby hiking trails.
Six research assistants conducted intercept surveys at four trails on the study site: Uiryeong Trail, Pine Forest Trail, Old castle (Yetseong) Trail, and Devoted Son (Hyoja) Trail. These four locations represent the park’s main highlights and attract the most visitors throughout the year (see Table 1). The data were collected during the second weekend of October 2018, one of the peak seasons. Research assistants randomly approached potential respondents at the entrance/exit points of the hiking trails. In each encounter with a visitor, the research assistants first explained the purpose of the survey and requested voluntary participation. A total of 550 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to potential respondents, and 432 copies were received by the assistants (response rate: 78.56%). After excluding 29 surveys that contained incomplete/insincere responses, 403 surveys were used in the final analysis.
Table 1. The characteristics of trails at Mt. Bukhan Dullegil, South Korea, where study sampling occurred in 2018.
2.2 Measurement of constructs
The specific questions we used for measuring each construct are reported in Table 2. We measured environmental knowledge using four items from the scale developed by Haron et al. (2005) to assess individuals’ understanding of environmental problems stemming from recreation behavior (e.g., I know that excessive recreational activities will damage the natural environment of the site). We measured environmental sensitivity using four items adapted from Sivek’s (2002) scale. The four items captured general affection toward the natural environment (e.g., I appreciate the natural environment of Mt. Bukhan Dullegil) as well as specific affective responses to the study site (e.g., I care about the natural environment of the site). We measured place attachment with the scale originally developed by Williams and Roggenbuck (1989) and later adopted by outdoor recreation researchers (Kyle G. T. et al., 2004). Four items were used to capture place identity (e.g., I have a special feeling for the trail) and another four items measured place dependence (e.g., It is more important to visit this trail than other similar destinations). We measured PEB with six items used in Smith-Sebasto and D’Costa’s (1995) study of the university students’ PEB. These consisted of four items about off-site PEB that might occur outside park boundaries in people’s broader lives (e.g., I discuss the environmental protection of Mt. Bukhan Dullegil with others) and two items about on-site PEB that might occur at the park itself (e.g., I pick up trash and branches when I see them on the trail). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree - 5 = strongly agree). Additionally, the survey included questions about the respondents’ sociodemographic information such as age, gender, education level, and place of residence. Table 2 lists all of the items and their corresponding dimensions.
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis examining different dimensions of environmental attitudes, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior among visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park, South Korea (n = 403).
2.3 Data analysis
We tested a hypothesized model (Figure 1) using a two-step approach for latent variable modeling commonly employed in environmental psychology research (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Zhang et al., 2018). First, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the theorized factor structure of our hypothesized model for all six constructs (two dimensions each for environmental attitudes, place attachment, and PEB). We assessed internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, aiming for values greater than 0.80 (Hair et al., 2009). Our threshold for acceptable factor loadings was 0.60, exceeding the standard suggested by previous studies (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Brown and Moore, 2012). We also evaluated the composite reliability (CR) of all dimensions and the average variance extracted (AVE), aiming for values above 0.80 and 0.50, respectively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Sahoo, 2019).
Variables in the hypothesized model were assessed for normality by examining skewness and kurtosis. Especially in studies with samples greater than 200 cases, variables with statistically significant skewness or kurtosis typically do not deviate enough from normality to influence the analysis (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000; White, 2008). Thus, if the sample is large enough, it is better to check the shape of the distribution, instead of using formal inference tests. Considering that the “standard errors for skewness and kurtosis decrease with large N, the null hypothesis will likely be rejected with significant cases when there are only minor deviations from normality” (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2000, p. 74). To examine the shape of the variable distributions, we checked the frequency histograms with superimposed normal distribution and expected standard probability plots. By assessing the plots, we concluded that all variables were considered normally distributed and maintained for examination using CFA.
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized structural relationships (H1 and H2) by examining regression coefficients among the constructs of interest for the hikers surveyed on Mt. Bukhan Dullegil. In addition, to test the mediating effect of the two dimensions of place attachment (i.e., place identity and place dependence) on the hypothesized relationship, we used the bootstrap method (Liu et al., 2020) to measure mediating effects (H3). The hypothesized model was assessed using the following goodness-of-fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA under 0.10; MacCallum et al., 1996, Savalei, 2018), comparative fit indices (CFI greater than 0.95; Hu and Bentler, 1998, Savalei, 2018), the goodness of fit index (GFI greater than 0.90; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1986, Sahoo, 2019), and non-normed fit indices (NNFI greater than 0.90; Hu and Bentler, 1998, Hoe, 2008). All analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.7 and Mplus 7.0.
3 Results
3.1 Sociodemographic attributes of respondents
Our sample included a relatively diverse sample of outdoor recreationists. As shown in Table 3, about half of the 403 respondents were female (51.3%). The respondents’ mean age was 47.3 years, ranging from 17.0 to 84.0 (SD = 15.6). Their most frequent categories of monthly income were “below $1,800” (32.0%) and “$1,800 to $2,799” (22.1%). About half of the respondents were college graduates (53.7%). Most of them had visited the trails before (70.3%), while 29.7% were first-time visitors.
Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents at Mt. Bukhan National Park, South Korea (n = 403).
3.2 Measurement model
The measurement model was tested in our first step of analysis. The modification indices from the initial analysis suggested that fit would be improved by covarying error terms for item 2 with 1 and item 9 with 3. After reviewing the original scale for these items, we affirmed the decision to modify the model slightly based on similarities between items. For example, item 2 read “I enjoy natural environments” and item 1 read “I am interested in ecological preservation in Mt. Bukhan N. P.” Both items belonged to the same dimension (environmental sensitivity) and captured the affective aspect of an environmental attitude. Also, item 9 read “Visiting Mt. Bukhan N. P. has a deep meaning for me” and item 3 read “I appreciate the natural environment of Mt. Bukhan N. P.” Both items measured the perceived meaning of Mt. Bukhan N. P. and captured the value of visiting Mt. Bukhan. After allowing covariations between the error terms of those items, the final measurement model showed an acceptable fit (χ2 = 1092.168, df = 204, RMSEA = 0.060, NNFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.958; GFI = 0.894) (see Table 2). All other measurement model metrics were also satisfactory. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for subscales were all greater than 0.80. Factor loadings ranged from 0.690 to 0.924. The composite reliability (CR) of all dimensions ranged from 0.840 to 0.935, showing good reliability across the constructs, and the AVE extracted was above 0.50 (Table 2).
3.3 Structural model
After establishing a valid measurement model, we tested the structural model (see Figure 1). We hypothesized that the two environmental attitude variables (i.e., environmental knowledge and sensitivity) would positively predict both dimensions of place attachment (i.e., place identity and place dependence). We hypothesized that these place attachment dimensions would, in turn, positively influence two types of environmental behaviors (i.e., off-site and on-site PEBs). The final structural model indicated a satisfactory model fit (χ2 = 547.403, df = 195, RMSEA = 0.064, NNFI = 0.980, CFI = 0.983; GFI = 0.914).
Table 4 and Figure 3 show the results of the structural equation model (SEM), including links between environmental attitudes, place attachment, and PEB. First, environmental knowledge positively influenced place identity (H1-1; β = 0.166, t = 2.627, p < 0.01) and place dependence (H1-2; β = 0.236, t = 3.877, p < 0.001). Second, environmental sensitivity positively influenced both place identity (H1-3; β = 0.376, t = 5.845, p < 0.001) and place dependence (H1-4; β = 0.387, t = 6.306, p < 0.001). Environmental knowledge and environmental sensitivity accounted for 23.7% of the variance of place identity and 30.4% of the variance of place dependence. Thus, all components of H1 were supported by the analysis. Third, place identity positively influenced off-site PEB (H2-1; β = 0.216, t = 2.059, p < 0.05) but did not influence on-site PEB (H2-2; β = 0.135, t = 1.143, p > 0.05). Lastly, place dependence positively affected both off-site PEB (H2-3; β = 0.571, t = 5.518, p < 0.001) and on-site PEB (H2-4; β = 0.598, t = 4.786, p < 0.001). Therefore, H2 was partially supported by the analysis. Place attachment dimensions accounted for 59.4% of the variance in off-site PEB and 52.0% of the variance in on-site PEB, demonstrating high levels of predictive power.
Table 4. Beta coefficients for the structural model examining links between environmental attitudes, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior reported by visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park, Korea (n = 403).
Figure 3. Structural equation model results depicting relationships among multiple dimensions of environmental attitudes, place attachment, and pro-environmental behavior for visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park, South Korea (n = 403). The dotted line indicates insignificant relationship. Direct effects: there is no significant direct effects from EK/KS to PI/PD and from PI/PD to Off/On-site PEB. Indirect effects: a + e = 0.083**, b + f = 0.209***, b + g = 0.238***, c + e = 0.037*, d + f = 0.116**, d + g = 0.131**.
We further analyzed the indirect effects to examine whether place attachment was a significant mediator of the relationship between the two types of environmental attitudes and off-site and on-site PEB. Specifically, bootstrapping results provided support for the causal relationships among the variables (see Table 5). None of the confidence intervals for the indirect effects included zero, indicating that there were significant indirect effects for all six paths in the hypothesized model. These analyses empirically demonstrated that environmental knowledge had a positive indirect effect on off-site PEB through place identity (path 1: indirect effect = 0.083, 95% CI = [0.032, 0.163], p < 0.01) and place dependence (path 2: indirect effect =0.209, 95% CI = [0.159, 0.330], p < 0.001). In addition, the indirect effects of environmental knowledge on on-site PEB were positively mediated by place dependence (path 3: indirect effect = 0.238, 95% CI = [0.163 0.325], p < 0.001). Environmental sensitivity also had a positive indirect effect on off-site PEB via place identity (path 4: indirect effect = 0.037, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.076], p < 0.05) and place dependence (path 5: indirect effect =0.116, 95% CI = [0.049, 0.194], p < 0.01). Lastly, the indirect effects of environmental sensitivity on on-site PEB were positively mediated by place dependence (path 6: indirect effect =0.131, 95% CI = [0.052 0.190], p < 0.001). Therefore, H3 was supported by the analysis.
Table 5. Summary of indirect effects of place identity and place dependence on the relationship between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors using bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bounds).
4 Discussion
Results of our study revealed that, for hikers at Mt. Bukhan National Park in South Korea, place attachment—and place dependence, specifically—had a powerful mediating influence on the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, our study showed that both cognitive and affective aspects of environmental attitudes—and particularly affective components—influenced place attachment and indirectly impacted PEB (Figure 2).
Affective and cognitive components of environmental attitudes appeared to influence place attachment to different degrees and in different ways. For instance, we found that environmental sensitivity had a stronger effect than environmental knowledge on both place identity and place dependence. In other words, affection (environmental sensitivity) was relatively more important than cognition (environmental knowledge) when considering attachment to an outdoor recreation site. Although limited research has investigated the impact of environmental sensitivity on place attachment, many studies have revealed the importance of emotions and affective connections to place (Duff, 2010; Brehm et al., 2013). For example, Yeh et al. (2012) reported that cultural tourists’ emotional response to their destination contributed to the formation of place attachment. Additionally, Thailand tourists’ emotions were significant determinants of place attachment (Hosany et al., 2017). Furthermore, Kastenholz et al. (2020) revealed how individuals’ positive emotions toward a certain place positively influenced place attachment. Consistent with existing literature, our findings show that an emotional response to the natural environment, recognized as environmental sensitivity, may be more important than environmental knowledge and awareness when it comes to forging connections to places such as Mt. Bukhan Dullegil.
We also found significant associations between place attachment and the two types of PEB we examined: on-site and off-site. However, the mediating effect of place attachment varied in each case. Place identity only significantly affected off-site PEB, while place dependence influenced on-site and off-site PEBs. Previous studies have shown how PEB can be significantly influenced by identification with a place. For example, Carrus et al. (2005) found that local residents’ place identity positively affected the intention to protect two parks on the island of Sardinia and Gravina in Puglia, Italy. Likewise, Bonaiuto et al. (2008) studied local community residents living near the Gennargentu National Park in Italy and reported that the stronger their place identity was, the more readily cooperative they were in environmental protection behaviors. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) found that youth who participated in local natural resource work programs in Colorado and reported stronger place identity with outdoor recreation sites were more likely to engage in PEB. These relationships might be explained by a strong link between the formation of place identity, which often manifests as connection to nature or nature-relatedness in outdoor recreation contexts (Groulx et al., 2016), and broader environmental identities that influence PEBs in other aspects of life (Mackay and Schmitt, 2019). Individuals who identify with a place, and experience those connections, may be more inclined to engage in PEBs across many conservation contexts (Halpenny, 2010; Ramkissoon et al., 2013).
However, as previous suggests (Stedman, 2003), functional dependence on place could be even more important than identity for predicting participation in both off-site and on-site PEB. Although off-site or general environmental behavior (e.g., donations, advocacy) have been heavily emphasized in previous research (Larson et al., 2015), few studies have explicitly examined links between place attachment and on-site stewardship behaviors that directly affect resources in a particular park or outdoor recreation destination (Walker and Chapman, 2003). However, some research suggests that place attachment may have a particularly powerful influence on these site-specific actions (Larson et al., 2018a, 2018b). Our findings suggest that, in this on-site context, place dependence can play a more important role than place identity. There are various studies detailing the role of place dependence in outdoor recreation. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) reported that the place dependence of youth participants in natural resource education programs indirectly affected general (e.g., talking with others about environmental problems) and specific (e.g., joining in community clean-up efforts) environmental behaviors. Kyle G. et al. (2004) found that people with higher place dependence show more interest in the maintenance of quality nature-based recreational settings. Hence, recreationists who are attached to a place because it helps them achieve their recreational goals are more likely to engage in actions that protect that place (Halpenny, 2010; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). For instance, our respondents who considered Mt. Bukhan Dullegil the best hiking trail compared to similar alternatives (i.e., those with high place dependence) were more likely to exhibit both on-site and off-site behaviors that would protect and enhance the condition of the trail and the park as a whole. Consequently, an emphasis on building and maintaining place dependence, whether or through enhanced environmental knowledge or sensitivity or other functional mechanisms, could be a viable approach for managers hoping to encourage PEBs within and beyond the boundaries of outdoor recreation settings.
4.1 Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations. First, this study collected the data from one national park in South Korea that is located in the vicinity of the Seoul metropolitan area. Research suggests that place attachment varies across the recreation opportunity spectrum (Wynveen et al., 2020), and different recreation contexts would likely yield different levels of visitor attitudes and attachment. Additionally, since we operationalized environmental attitude as a two-dimensional construct, investigating other components of environmental attitudes in more diverse outdoor recreation contexts could be helpful to estimate the generalizability of current study findings. Second, to deepen our understanding in the predictors of PEBs, other factors not incorporated in the current study, such as social norms (Farrow et al., 2017), perceived behavioral control (Alshurideh et al., 2019), and cultural and symbolic interpretation/understanding of nature (Cordano et al., 2010), could be included in future models exploring the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Third, future studies that intend to examine the role of place to predict PEBs could differentiate place meanings (see Brehm et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2018a) and place attachment (Raymond et al., 2010), considering both the level of attachment that exists and the diverse mechanism (environmental, social, etc.) through which those attachments develop. Fourth, specific questions about other types of behaviors that might occur within either the on-site context, such as Leave No Trace practices (Lawhon et al., 2017), or off-site practices, such as social environmentalism (Larson et al., 2015), could shed more light on PEB engagement patterns.
4.2 Management implications
This study has several implications for nature-based recreation and environmental research and practice. First, our finding that environmental knowledge positively predicted place attachment underscores the importance of education and interpretation in park settings. By providing information about the natural environment through various mediums (websites, flyers, guided tours, etc.) that increase visitors’ knowledge and awareness of key resources and recreation impacts, managers can also increase the affective connection to a recreation site (Hwang et al., 2005; Lawhon et al., 2017). Second, managers should also consider visitors’ emotional and affective responses to the environmental conditions at places such as Mt. Bukhan National Park because environmental sensitivity is associated with both place identity and place dependence. As other studies have shown, efforts to build connection to nature and create emotionally meaningful experiences for visitors to nature-based tourism destinations are likely to foster PEB (Folmer et al., 2013; Cajiao et al., 2022). Third, park managers hoping to achieve stewardship goals should seek ways to cultivate and strengthen visitors’ attachment to place. As place attachment can be fostered through additional time spent in a recreational setting (Smaldone, 2007), it is important to encourage return trips from first-time visitors, providing more opportunities for attachment to develop (Ramkissoon et al., 2018). Moreover, managers might pursue innovative ways of attracting new visitors to parks, such as outdoor educational programs or unique initiatives that draw in new users (e.g., the First Day Hike program on New Year’s Day in U.S. state parks, Wilcer et al., 2018). Collectively, these approaches can be used to facilitate positive visitor experiences while achieving sustainable management goals at popular destinations such as Mt. Bukhan, South Korea, and other heavily visited parks and protected areas worldwide.
5 Conclusion
This study built on previous work examining connections between environmental attitudes and PEBs by exploring different dimensions of PEB (onsite vs. offsite), investigating a potential mediating factor (i.e., place attachment), and collecting data in a novel research context (an Asian national park). Although both cognition (environmental knowledge) and affection (environmental sensitivity) increased outdoor recreationists’ place attachment to the national park, the affective aspect of environmental attitude was the stronger predictor of place attachment. Affective dimensions should therefore be considered in future research on place attachment and PEB. Whereas place identity was linked to off-site PEBs, place dependence was linked to both onsite and offsite PEBs. This finding suggests that, for managers hoping to inspire sustainable recreation behaviors among visitors, functional dependence on a destination may be key. Ultimately, our results indicate that managers hoping to promote PEB and responsible recreation at their sites should focus on fostering affective bonds between outdoor recreationist and the parks they visit.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Kyung Hee University Global Campus Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the survey presents respondents with minimal potential risk (equivalent to a risk of daily lives).
Author contributions
JY: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. LL: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ajzen, I. (2012). Martin Fishbein’s legacy: the reasoned action approach. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 640, 11–27. doi: 10.1177/0002716211423363
Alshurideh, M., Kurdi, B. A., Shaltoni, A. M., and Ghuff, S. S. (2019). Determinants of pro-environmental behaviour in the context of emerging economies. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 11, 257–277. doi: 10.1504/IJSSOC.2019.104563
Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
Bamberg, S., and Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., and Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residential energy use. Environ. Behav. 13, 590–609. doi: 10.1177/0013916581135004
Berns, G. N., and Simpson, S. (2009). Outdoor recreation participation and environmental concern: A research summary. J. Exp. Educ. 32, 79–91. doi: 10.5193/JEE.32.1.79
Bonaiuto, M., Bilotta, E., Bonnes, M., Ceccarelli, M., Martorella, H., and Carrus, G. (2008). Local identity and the role of individual differences in the use of natural resources: the case of water consumption 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 947–967. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00333.x
Bradley, G. L., Babutsidze, Z., Chai, A., and Reser, J. P. (2020). The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. J. Environ. Psychol. 68:101410. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410
Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., and Krannich, R. S. (2006). Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. Am. Behav. Sci. 50, 142–165. doi: 10.1177/0002764206290630
Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., and Stedman, R. C. (2013). Environmental concern: examining the role of place meaning and place attachment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 522–538. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.715726
Brown, T. A., and Moore, M. T. (2012). “Confirmatory factor analysis” in Handbook of structural equation modeling, vol. 361, 379.
Budruk, M., Thomas, H., and Tyrrell, T. (2009). Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 824–839. doi: 10.1080/08941920802628515
Bustam, T., Young, A., and Todd, S.. (2003). Environmental sensitivity and youthful participation in outdoor recreation. In: J. J. Murdy (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2003 northeastern recreation research symposium 270–275 (GTR-NE-217). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/21112 (Accessed November 10, 2022).
Cajiao, D., Leung, Y. F., Larson, L. R., Tejedo, P., and Benayas, J. (2022). Tourists’ motivations, learning, and trip satisfaction facilitate pro-environmental outcomes of the Antarctic tourist experience. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tourism 37:100454. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2021.100454
Canosa, A., Graham, A., and Wilson, E. (2020). Growing up in a tourist destination: developing an environmental sensitivity. Environ. Educ. Res. 26, 1027–1042. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1768224
Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., and Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy. Environ. Behav. 37, 237–257. doi: 10.1177/0013916504269644
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. J. Environ. Educ. 29, 11–21. doi: 10.1080/00958969809599114
Cheng, T. M., and Wu, H. C. (2015). How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tourism 23, 557–576. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2014.965177
Clayton, S. (2003). “Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition” in Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. eds. S. Clayton and S. Opotow (Cambridge: MIT Press), 45–65.
Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R., Pradenas, L., and Parada, V. (2010). Understanding cultural differences in the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior: a comparative analysis of business students in the United States and Chile. J. Environ. Educ. 41, 224–238. doi: 10.1080/00958960903439997
Duerden, M. D., and Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 379–392. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007
Duff, C. (2010). On the role of affect and practice in the production of place. Environ. Plan. D 28, 881–895. doi: 10.1068/d16209
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., and Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Eder, R., and Arnberger, A. (2012). The influence of place attachment and experience use history on perceived depreciative visitor behavior and crowding in an urban national park. Environ. Manag. 50, 566–580. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9912-8
Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., and Ibanez, L. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
Flamm, B. (2009). The impacts of environmental knowledge and attitudes on vehicle ownership and use. Transp. Res. D 14, 272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2009.02.003
Folmer, A., Haartsen, T., and Huigen, P. P. P. (2013). Explaining emotional attachment to a protected area by visitors’ perceived importance of seeing wildlife, behavioral connections with nature, and sociodemographics. Hum. Dimen. Wildl. 18, 435–449. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2013.811618
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800313
Fransson, N., and Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 369–382. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0141
Ghazvini, S. A. M., Timothy, D. J., and Sarmento, J. (2020). Environmental concerns and attitudes of tourists towards national park uses and services. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tourism 31:100296. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2020.100296
Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 209–220. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90004-7
Groulx, M., Lemieux, C., Dawson, J., Stewart, E., and Yudina, O. (2016). Motivations to engage in last chance tourism in the Churchill wildlife management area and Wapusk national park: the role of place identity and nature relatedness. J. Sustain. Tourism 24, 1523–1540. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1134556
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis Pearson, London: Prentice Hall.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: the effect of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 409–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006
Haron, S. A., Paim, L., and Yahaya, N. (2005). Towards sustainable consumption: an examination of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. Int. J. Con. Stud. 29, 426–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00460.x
Higham, J., Vidar Haukeland, J., Hopkins, D., Inge Vistad, O., Lindberg, K., and Daugstad, K. (2016). National parks policy and planning: A comparative analysis of friluftsliv (Norway) and the dual mandate (New Zealand). J. Policy Res. Tourism Leis. Events 8, 146–175. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2016.1145688
Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modelling technique. J. Quantitat. Methods 3:76.
Hosany, S., Prayag, G., Van Der Veen, R., Huang, S., and Deesilatham, S. (2017). Mediating effects of place attachment and satisfaction on the relationship between tourists’ emotions and intention to recommend. J. Travel Res. 56, 1079–1093. doi: 10.1177/0047287516678088
Høyem, J. (2020). Outdoor recreation and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tourism 31:100317. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2020.100317
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 3, 424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Huang, P. S., and Shih, L. H. (2009). Effective environmental management through environmental knowledge management. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6, 35–50. doi: 10.1007/BF03326058
Hungerford, H. R., and Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 21, 8–21. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., and Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks. Tourism Manag. 26, 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.006
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1986). PRELIS: A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jorgensen, B. S., and Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. J. Environ. Manag. 79, 316–327. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.003
Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., and Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: development of an instrument for adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 242–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004
Kaiser, F. G., and Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 952–978. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02505.x
Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., and Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 1–19. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0107
Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 28, 111–133. doi: 10.1177/0013916596281006
Kastenholz, E., Marques, C. P., and Carneiro, M. J. (2020). Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. J. Destination Mark. Manag. 17:100455. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100455
Korean Statistical Information Service. (2020). Number of visitors to Bukhansan National Park. Available at: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=355&tblId=TX_35501_A042 (Accessed February 3, 2023).
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., and Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ. Behav. 37, 153–177. doi: 10.1177/0013916504269654
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., and Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 213–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006
Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., and Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 439–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001
Lange, F., and Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 63, 92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
Larson, L. R., Cooper, C. B., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., and Gagnon, R. J. (2018a). Place-based pathways to proenvironmental behavior: empirical evidence for a conservation–recreation model. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 871–891. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1447714
Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., and Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 112–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
Larson, L. R., Usher, L. E., and Chapmon, T. (2018b). Surfers as environmental stewards: understanding place-protecting behavior at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Leis. Sci. 40, 442–465. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2017.1305306
Lawhon, B., Taff, B. D., Newman, P., Vagias, W. M., and Newton, J. (2017). Understanding and influencing state park visitors’ leave no trace behavioral intent. J. Interpretat. Res. 22, 53–71. doi: 10.1177/109258721702200104
Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Kim, M. S., and Choi, J. G. (2014). Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 67, 2097–2105. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.018
Liu, P., Teng, M., and Han, C. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: the mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 728:138126. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126
Low, S. M., and Altman, I. (1992). “Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry” in Place Attachment. Eds. Low, S. M., and Altman, I. (Springer Science Business Media), New York: Plenum Press. 1–12.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., and Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1, 130–149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Mackay, C. M. L., and Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 65:101323. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
Manfredo, M. J., Yuan, S. M., and McGuire, F. A. (1992). The influence of attitude accessibility on attitude-behavior relationships: implications for recreation research. J. Leis. Res. 24, 157–170. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1992.11969883
Masterson, V. A., Stedman, R. C., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D., et al. (2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 22:49. doi: 10.5751/ES-08872-220149
Maurer, M., and Bogner, F. X. (2020). Modelling environmental literacy with environmental knowledge, values and (reported) behaviour. Stud. Educ. Eval. 65:100863. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100863
Oh, S. amd Kim, J. (2013). An analysis on Korean National Park Forming Process and environmentalism. J. Leisure Recreat. Stud., 37. 75–88.
Perterson, N. (1982). Developmental variables affecting environmental sensitivity in professional environmental educators. Master’s thesis Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Priadi, A., Fatria, E., Nadiroh,, Sarkawi, D., and Oktaviani, A. (2018). Environmental citizenship behavior the effect of environmental sensitivity, knowledge of ecology, personal investment in environmental issue, locus of control towards students’ environmental citizenship behavior. E3S Web Conf. 74:08002. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/20187408002
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environ. Behav. 10, 147–169. doi: 10.1177/0013916578102002
Quoquab, F., and Mohammad, J. (2020). Cognitive, affective and conative domains of sustainable consumption: scale development and validation using confirmatory composite analysis. Sustain. For. 12:7784. doi: 10.3390/su12187784
Ramdas, M., and Mohamed, B. (2014). Impacts of tourism on environmental attributes, environmental literacy and willingness to pay: A conceptual and theoretical review. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 144, 378–391. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.307
Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F., and Uysal, M. (2018). Social involvement and park citizenship as moderators for quality-of-life in a national park. J. Sustain. Tourism 26, 341–361. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1354866
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., and Weiler, B. (2013). Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. J. Sustain. Tourism 21, 434–457. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2012.708042
Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., and Smith, L. D. G. (2012). Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks: the development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tourism 20, 257–276. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2011.602194
Ramsey, C. E., and Rickson, R. E. (1976). Environmental knowledge and attitudes. J. Environ. Educ. 8, 10–18. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1976.9941552
Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., and Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 422–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002
Ritter, Á. M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G. L. R., Pereira, G. M., and Almeida, F. (2015). Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 507–520. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066
Rommel, J., Buttmann, V., Liebig, G., Schönwetter, S., and Svart-Gröger, V. (2015). Motivation crowding theory and pro-environmental behavior: experimental evidence. Econ. Lett.. 129:42–44 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.01.025
Sahoo, M. (2019). “Structural equation modeling: threshold criteria for assessing model fit” in Methodological issues in management research: Advances, challenges, and the way ahead. Eds. Subudhi, R. N., and Mishra, S. Emerald Publishing Limited, 269–276.
Savalei, V. (2018). On the computation of the RMSEA and CFI from the mean-and-variance corrected test statistic with nonnormal data in SEM. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53, 419–429. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2018.1455142
Seo, D. I., and Ko, Y. J. (2013). An analysis on the universal design application to the Bukhansan National Park sign facilities: focusing on Bukhansan Dullegil barrier-free trail. Arch. Des. Res. 26, 483–505. doi: 10.15187/adr.2013.02.26.1.483
Simmons, D., and Widmar, R. (1990). Motivations and barriers to recycling: toward a strategy for public education. J. Environ. Educ. 22, 13–18. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1990.9943041
Sivek, D. J. (2002). Environmental sensitivity among Wisconsin high school students. Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 155–170. doi: 10.1080/13504620220128220
Smaldone, D. (2007). “The role of time in place attachment” in Proceedings of the 2006 northeastern recreation research symposium 47–56 (NRS-P-14). eds. R. Burns and K. Rbinson (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station)
Smith-Sebasto, N. J., and D’Costa, A. (1995). Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 27, 14–20. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1995.9941967
Song, Z., and Soopramanien, D. (2019). Types of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents in Beijing. Cities 84, 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.07.012
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. Behav. 34, 561–581. doi: 10.1177/0013916502034005001
Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: the contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16, 671–685. doi: 10.1080/08941920309189
Steg, L., and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stokols, D., and Shumaker, S. A. (1981). “People in places: A transactional view of settings” in Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. ed. J. H. Harvey (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 441–488. Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. 4. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Takala, M. (1991). Environmental awareness and human activity. Int. J. Psychol. 26, 585–597. doi: 10.1080/00207599108247146
Tumanan, M. A. R., and Lansangan, J. R. G. (2012). More than just a cuppa coffee: A multi-dimensional approach towards analyzing the factors that define place attachment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31, 529–534. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.012
Van der Pligt, J., Eiser, J. R., and Spears, R. (1986). Attitudes toward nuclear energy: familiarity and salience. Environ. Behav. 18, 75–93. doi: 10.1177/0013916586181004
Vaske, J. J., and Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 32, 16–21. doi: 10.1080/00958960109598658
Walker, G. J., and Chapman, R. (2003). Thinking like a park: the effects of sense of place, perspective-taking, and empathy on pro-environmental intentions. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 21, 71–86.
Walker, G. J., Deng, J., and Dieser, R. B. (2001). Ethnicity, acculturation, self-construal, and motivations for outdoor recreation. Leis. Sci. 23, 263–283. doi: 10.1080/01490400152809115
Weigel, R. H. (1983). Environmental attitudes and the prediction of behavior. Environ. Psychol. Dir. Perspect. 3, 286–287. doi: 10.1016/s0272-4944(83)80010-3
White, D. D. (2008). A structural model of leisure constraints negotiation in outdoor recreation. Leis. Sci. 30, 342–359. doi: 10.1080/01490400802165131
White, D. D., Virden, R. J., and Van Riper, C. J. (2008). Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environ. Manag. 42, 647–657. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9143-1
Wilcer, S. R., Larson, L. R., Hallo, J. C., and Baldwin, E. (2018). First day hikes: participation, impacts, and implications for the future. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 36, 213–226. doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8403
Williams, D. R., and Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results. Paper presentation. NRPS 1989: symposium on leisure research, San Antonio, Texas, United States, October 20–22.
Wynveen, C. J., Schneider, I. E., Arnberger, A., Cottrell, S., and von Ruschkowski, E. (2020). Integrating place attachment into management frameworks: exploring place attachment across the recreation opportunity spectrum. Environ. Manag. 66, 248–262. doi: 10.1007/s00267-020-01292-7
Yeh, S. S., Chen, C., and Liu, Y. C. (2012). “Nostalgic emotion, experiential value, destination image, and place attachment of cultural tourists” in Advances in hospitality and leisure. ed. J. S. Chen, vol. 8 (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 167–187.
Keywords: place attachment, environmental behavior, environmental attitude, sense of place, environmental stewardship
Citation: Yoon JI, Lee KJ and Larson LR (2024) Place attachment mediates links between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors among visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park, South Korea. Front. Psychol. 15:1338650. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1338650
Edited by:
Shixian Luo, Southwest Jiaotong University, ChinaReviewed by:
Lina Fusaro, Institute of BioEconomy, ItalyLiyuan Qian, Southwest Jiaotong University, China
Copyright © 2024 Yoon, Lee and Larson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jee In Yoon, jiyoon@khu.ac.kr