In praise of special places: what do they mean for park and recreation professionals? (Research Update).

Imagine red and brown sandstone towers rising out of the desert floor. Imagine the sun setting with black silhouettes of ocotillo cacti vertically slicing the horizon. This describes Juniper Canyon in Texas' Big Bend National Park, which is a special place to me. Although any hiking trail could serve my desire to hike, I continuously choose this trail when in Big Bend. I'm drawn to this place because it's beautiful, serene and colorful. It's special to me because I have fond memories of past times spent there with friends. It's special because it's where the desert, canyon landscape and mountain ecoregions converge. My feelings toward this place developed during several outdoor recreation excursions I had there. I believe that most recreation participants have places special to them, whether these places are wilderness areas, county parks or community centers. Perhaps park and recreation professionals should consider participants' feelings toward such places in the services they provide.

Researchers have explored the role of places in recreation experiences (McCool, Stankey, & Clark, 1984; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002; Kyle, Absher, & Graefe, 2003). This research has evolved from an earlier focus on isolated attributes of recreation settings to a more recent focus on investigating what whole landscapes mean to recreation participants. These research findings can be turned into useful and practical suggestions for park and recreation professionals. The purpose of this research update is to discuss the directions place-based research is taking within the recreation field and to suggest how the findings of place-based research can inform recreation and leisure services.

Place-Based Research Terminology

The terminology used in place-based research can be confusing; the following definitions should help you make sense of the rest of this article. Understanding these terms can help recreation and leisure service providers grasp the different relationships that may develop between recreation participants and settings.

A "place" is a geographic space that has value or meaning. A physical setting becomes a "place" to people when they get to know it better and start to value it. For example, Linville Gorge in western North Carolina became a special "place" to me after I spent a weekend climbing there. Prior to that experience, it was just a geographic area on the map. "Sense of place" describes the general way someone feels about a place (Williams, et al., 1992; Stokowski, 2002). "Place meanings" are the symbols, thoughts and feelings that people talk about when describing what a certain place means to them. Various place meanings combine to create someone's sense of place. For example, when I think about what the mountains in western North Carolina mean to me, I think about the history of the mountains and the subtle beauty of that landscape. These and other place meanings create the "sense of place" I have for the North Carolina mountains.

"Place attachment" describes a bond that develops when an individual values or identifies with a certain place. For example, I value and identify with the mountains in western North Carolina. Therefore, I have a certain level of "place attachment" to these mountains. Researchers have explored two types of place attachment: place dependence and place identity. "Place dependence" develops when an individual values a place because she can use the place for a certain activity For example, "place dependence" describes my use of the Appalachian Trail in western North Carolina for backpacking purposes. "Place identity," on the other hand, develops when an individual values a place because he feels an emotional or symbolic connection with the place. For example, "place identity" describes the special feelings I have for the mountains in western North Carolina.

In the 1980s, recreation researchers began to investigate the relationship between recreation activities and places where individuals recreate. Initial place-based research focused on specific attributes of out door recreation settings (McCool, Stankey, & Clark, 1984). An "attribute" is a certain feature of a landscape, like a river, that an individual uses when undertaking a recreation activity Researchers identified key attributes of recreation places to improve resource-management efforts. The attribute approach assumed that people used certain places for recreation because the place provided necessary geographic characteristics. This view suggested that recreation participants were merely attracted to certain parts of places, not places as whole landscapes. For example, this perspective suggested that a person might be attracted to the mountains in North Carolina because of a certain type of climbing rock, not because she's attracted to the mountain landscape as a whole entity

According to Williams et al. (1992), the attribute approach meant that settings were composed of different commodities that recreation participants consumed. This commodity view implied that people placed a higher value on the recreation activity than on the setting. People don't participate in recreation as a means of experiencing the place, but instead use recreation places as a means to participate in a certain activity, according to the theory Furthermore, the attribute approach suggested that recreation settings were interchangeable. This view implied, for example, that an individual would be equally attracted to two hiking trails that possessed the same geographic features. In reality, recreation settings don't seem interchangeable. People could be attracted to one hiking trail more than another even though both hiking trails have similar terrain.

Place-Attachment Research

More recently, recreation researchers adopted a more holistic perspective of places based on the idea that recreation settings are unique. Instead of breaking places down into attributes, researchers started to explore how recreation participants related to places as whole entities. They adopted the concept of place attachment from environmental psychology to facilitate a more holistic study of people's relationship to recreation settings.

Researchers measured the strength of place attachment between recreation participants and settings. Bricker and Kerstetter (2000) investigated how place attachment varied with levels of specialization among whitewater boaters. They found that more specialized whitewater boaters had stronger place attachment. Park and recreation professionals can use this kind of information to identify groups of stakeholders that should be involved in planning and management processes. For instance, whitewater boaters with strong place attachment would probably be likely to donate time, energy, votes and funds to promote management of this resource for their continued use. On a similar note, Kyle, Absher and Graefe (2003) found that recreation users with strong place identity (emotional or symbolic attachment to place) were supportive of recreation fee programs. These researchers concluded that emotional and symbolic values were strong motivators in user behaviors toward a place.

Such findings have important implications for recreation managers. First, understanding the level of place attachment for a certain area can help managers better estimate how the constituents they serve value various recreation settings under their jurisdiction (Moore & Graefe, 1994 p. 29). Second, by identifying users more likely to have strong place attachment, managers can single out volunteers and donors to assist in their management efforts.

Research on Place Meanings

Understanding variables that influence place attachment, such as specialization and other user characteristics, can help land managers and recreation providers understand recreation behaviors. Recently, however, researchers have suggested that recreation participants' sense of place may have additional meanings beyond what the concept of place attachment implies. Thus, researchers have begun to investigate the diverse and complex meanings recreation participants attach to places.

For example, Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) investigated the meanings whitewater boaters assigned to the South Fork of the American River. They found that this river had many different meanings for boaters. Their findings suggested that place meanings extended far beyond the two dimensions of place attachment seen in earlier place-based research. They identified five categories of place meanings, and further recognized several subtypes within each category. One category of meaning they identified was the environmental-landscape dimension. This meaning involved appreciation and respect for the natural landscape of the river. Within the environmental-landscape dimension, several place meaning sub-types were identified. These included repose, peace, beauty, wildness, natural appreciation, reverence, degradation and a need to protect the river. Bricker's and Kerstetter's study suggested that place meanings are diverse and complex.

Places possess different meanings for different groups of people. According to Williams and Patterson (1999), the meanings people assign to natural places fall into the following categories: inherent/aesthetic, instrumental/ goal-directed, cultural/symbolic and individual/expressive. These authors suggested that recreation resource managers have focused on the first two categories of meaning (inherent/aesthetic and instrumental/goal-directed) in their management efforts, but have neglected to adequately address cultural/symbolic meanings and individual/expressive meanings. Furthermore, symbolic and expressive meanings often possess the most emotional depth, are the most intense and create the most heated conflicts. This neglect has the potential to contribute to political conflict and user dissatisfaction.

Scholars further suggest that competing senses of place are sources of political conflict (McAvoy, 2002; Stokowski, 2002; Williams, 2002; Williams & Patterson, 1996). McAvoy (2002) indicated that separate cultures prioritize categories of place meanings differently. For example, white Americans attach the highest priority to individual/expressive meanings, followed by instrumental/goal-directed and then cultural/symbolic meanings. His research has shown that for many American Indians, the order of priority is just the opposite.

Cultural differences in place meanings can lead to conflicts such as the political controversy over Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming (Dustin, Schneider, McAvoy & Frakt, 2002). This conflict consists of a dispute between American Indians and rock climbers over use of a large rock monolith in northeastern Wyoming. Devils Tower is sacred to American Indians. Each June, American Indians celebrate the summer solstice at Devils Tower. Devils Tower is also popular with the rock climbing community, particularly during the summer months. American Indians grew to resent the climbers because their presence impeded the Indians' sacred ceremonies, while climbers begrudged the American Indians because their sacred practices interfered with their sport. This conflict is symbolic of how "recreational conflicts are bound to intensify as an increasingly diverse mix of social, cultural and political interest groups lay claim to what they perceive to be their fair share of the public estate" (Dustin et al., 2002, p. 79). Understanding the depth, diversity and complexity of place meanings can help park and recreation professionals approach these conflicts better.

How Do Place Meanings Influence Recreation Services?

Places are important parts of any recreation experience. People value their relationships to recreation places just as much as they might value relationships with other people or with recreation activities. According to Williams (2002), "We choose leisure places not merely because they are useful for leisure, but to convey the very sense of who we are" (p. $58). Places provide spaces where individuals can create and develop personal and group identities and worldviews.

Place meanings translate into the values and behaviors of the constituents that recreation and leisure professionals serve. Understanding the depth and complexity of place meanings can help providers target these values with their services. The majority of place-based research in the recreation field has focused on remote natural places, and this can assist recreation resource managers and land management agencies in managing natural resources. However, these same concepts can be applied to suburban and urban settings.

Park and recreation professionals may want to consider how globalization and an increasingly diverse society will heighten claims over places. We should reflect on how we can manage land and services to serve diverse interests. We should work to understand what places mean to different groups of people beyond the white American culture that currently dominates our society. In addition, park and recreation professionals should consider how to reconcile competing claims on a place. Perhaps the park and recreation profession can initiate a discussion on how political conflicts over places may be transformed into meeting grounds where different groups can come together and work toward a common goal.

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: USE PLACE MEANINGS TO BUILD COMMUNITY

Research on place meanings can inform park and recreation professionals. While recreation managers typically identify recreation-activity user groups such as skateboarders or bingo players, we can also identify user groups on the basis of their preference for places, such as city park users, community center visitors or wilderness enthusiasts. Although some people may be activity specialists, others may be place specialists.

How will considering people's sense of place benefit your community?

* Developing an awareness of the place meanings in your community can help build knowledge of and respect for places and foster environmentally responsible behavior toward such special places.

* Becoming aware of place meanings can help staff in a parks and recreation department identify user groups that can be valuable assets to your agency as volunteers, donors, board members and fee supporters.

* Knowledge of people's sense of place will help staff identify where place meanings overlap. Although overlapping place meanings can lead to political conflict, overlap also provides an opportunity for strengthening your community. This type of situation provides a mechanism to educate stakeholders on the diversity of place meanings and the potential conflicts that could arise out of such diversity, and include different stakeholders in developing a plan to manage the different place meanings and accommodate the diversity within the community. Including stakeholders in the decision-making process can empower them, hold them accountable for the constructive management of these places and generate a more cohesive community that's accepting of differences.

How can park and recreation professionals incorporate place considerations into their management strategies?

* Facilitate a discussion of the various place meanings that different user groups in your community possess. Use this to generate awareness of the diversity within your community.

* Conduct a "place assessment" in your community. Interview user groups and find out what the different places in your community mean to them. Compile this information and use it to inform management efforts and educate stakeholders. See Galliano and Loeffler (1999), accessible at www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_462.pdf, for a description of how they conducted a "place assessment" as part of the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management project.

* Create a map of place meanings in your community. Survey users in your community and enter the meanings they discuss into a GIS file. Overlay the place meanings on a map possessing other land-use information, and present these maps to the public.

* Allow the public to comment on this data to increase their commitment to how places in their community will be managed. See Overdevest et al. (1995) for a step-by-step description of this process. You can find this article in pgs. 98-102 of www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs017.pdf.

References

Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22, 233-257.

Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2002). An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of the American River. Tourism Geographies, 4(4), 396-425.

Dustin, D., Schneider, I., McAvoy, L., & Frakt, A. (2002). Cross-cultural claims on Devils Tower National Monument: A case study. Leisure Sciences, 24, 1-10.

Galliano, S. J., & Loeffler, G. M. (1999). Place assessment: How people define ecosystems (No. PNW-GTR-462). Portland, Oregon: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 25(1), 33-50.

McAvoy, L. (2002). American Indians, Place Meanings and the Old/New West. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 383-396.

McCool, S. E, Stankey, G. H., & Clark, R. N. (1984). Choosing recreation settings: Processes, findings, and research directions. In G.H. Stankey & S.F. McCool (Compilers) Proceedings-Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior(pp. 1-8). Missoula, Montana, March 22-23, 1984.

Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17-31.

Overdevest, C., McNally, M., & Hester, R. (1995). Operationalizing place attachment: Mapping and planning for place values on national forests. In H. Ken Cordell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Social Sciences and Ecosystem Management (pp. 98-102). Helen, GA, December 12-14, 1995.

Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 368-382.

Williams, D. R. (2002). Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 351-367.

Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (1999). Environmental psychology: Mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In H. K. Cordell & J. C. Bergstron (Eds.) Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. (pp. 141-160). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.

Jacquelyn Presley is a graduate student in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. She is working towards a master's degree with a focus in recreation management. Her research interests are outdoor recreation, place attachment and the human dimensions of ecosystem management.