Journal of Environmental Psychology (2001) 21, 233^248 0272 - 4944/01/030233 + 16$35.

00/0
# 2001 Academic Press
doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

SENSE OF PLACE AS AN ATTITUDE:

LAKESHORE OWNERS ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR PROPERTIES

BRADLEY S. JORGENSEN1 AND RICHARD C. STEDMAN2

1
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK
2
Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Existing attempts to measure Sense of Place (SOP) are open to a number of di¡erent interpretations, some of
which are well established in attitude research. Attitude theory can provide a basis for conceiving of SOP as
cognitive, a¡ective and conative relationships with human environments. In this study, Sense of Place was
de¢ned as a multidimensional construct comprising: (1) beliefs about the relationship between self and place;
(2) feelings toward the place; and (3) the behavioral exclusivity of the place in relation to alternatives. A 12 -
item SOP scale, consistent with a multidimensional theoretical prescription, was developed and subsequently
tested in the ¢eld with a sample of lakeshore property owners in northern Wisconsin (n = 282). A number of
measurement models based on attitude structure were posed as potential explanations of the scale’s construct
validity. Results suggested that the SOP scale measured a general Sense of Place dimension that gained ex-
pression in property owners’ thoughts, feelings and behavioral commitments for their lakeshore properties.
This general evaluative dimension was more explanatory of observed responses than were the three univariate
dimensions having interpretations consistent with place identity, place attachment, and place dependence.
The dominance of the SOP factor over the narrower dimensions was prevalent in three di¡erent measurement
models that posited both general and speci¢c factors. Future research in this vein could be oriented towards
re£ecting the domains of attitude more closely, rather than being organized around the domains of sense of
place as described in the literature. # 2001 Academic Press

Introduction spatial settings (Shamai, 1991). In general, SOP is

There are a plethora of concepts describing the re-
lationship between people and spatial settings, but
Sense of Place (SOP) is perhaps the most general.
Our research uses an attitude framework to assess
whether SOP encompasses place concepts commonly
addressed in environmental psychology: Attach-
ment, Identity, and Dependence. It is useful to con-
sider sense of place as an attitude towards a spatial
setting especially since the constructs noted above
share strong similarities to the a¡ective, cognitive
and conative components of attitude, respectively.
An attitude approach o¡ers place research a num-
ber of bene¢ts: (1) organization of rather disorga-
nized constructs, (2) linkage to established
literature, and (3) established research methods.
Sense of Place has been referred to as an over-
arching concept which subsumes other concepts de-
scribing relationships between human beings and
the meaning attached to a spatial setting by a per-
son or group. Tuan (1979) has provided the most oft-
cited de¢nition, declaring that a place is a center of
meaning or ¢eld of care that emphasizes human
emotions and relationships. Ryden (1993) added that
‘a place . . . is much more than a point in space . . .
but takes in the meanings which people assign to
that landscape through the process of living in it’
(pp. 37^38). Accordingly, SOP is not imbued in the
physical setting itself, but resides in human inter-
pretations of the setting.
For theorists such as Canter (1991) places repre-
sent a con£uence of cognitions, emotions and ac-
tions organized around human agency. In this
respect, Canter recognized that places could be con-
ceptualized as an integrated system comprising
three attitude domains. He further ventured that
developing an understanding of the processes in-
volved in the integration of these domains would
234 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman
enable stronger theoretical coherence between
various threads of environmental psychology
theory (e.g., environmental cognition and environ-
mental evaluation). Similarly, greater coherence
might be obtained across di¡erent place constructs
by considering them within a tripartite framework
comprising cognitive, a¡ective and conative pro-
cesses.
Three place constructs appear in the environmen-
tal psychology literature with some regularity: place
identity, place dependence, and place attachment.
There is a considerable degree of overlap among
these concepts, but they have distinctive character-
istics, also (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995). Place iden-
tity involves ‘those dimensions of self that de¢ne the
individual’s personal identity in relation to the phy-
sical environment by means of a complex pattern of
conscious and unconscious ideas, beliefs, prefer-
ences, feelings, values, goals and behavioral tenden-
cies and skills relevant to this environment’
(Proshansky, 1978, p. 155). As a cognitive structure,
‘place identity’ is a substructure of a more global
self-identi¢cation in the same way that one might
consider gender identity and role-identity
(Proshansky et al., 1983).
Place attachment is described as a positive bond
that develops between groups or individuals and
their environment (Altman & Low, 1992; Williams
et al., 1992). It explicitly contains emotional content.
For example, Riley (1992) emphasized Attachment as
the ‘a¡ective relationship between people and the
landscape that goes beyond cognition, preference,
or judgement’ (p. 13). Others have suggested that at-
tachment ‘involves an interplay of a¡ect and emo-
tions, knowledge and beliefs, and behaviours and
actions in reference to a place’ (Altman & Low,
1992, p. 5).
Finally, place dependence is de¢ned by Stokols
and Shumaker (1981, p. 457) as an ‘occupant’s per-
ceived strength of association between him or her-
self and speci¢c places.’ This strength of
association is not necessarily positive, based on Thi-
baut and Kelly’s (1959) comparison level/comparison
level for alternatives model. This process involves a
comparison of the current outcomes to those that
would be obtained by selecting an alternative
course of action. Each option may be negative; the
chosen option may simply be the best among poor
alternatives. Thus, place dependence concerns how
well a setting serves goal achievement given an ex-
isting range of alternatives (‘how does this setting
compare to others for what I like to do?’). Place de-
pendence appears to di¡er from attachment in two
ways. First, it can be negative to the extent that a
place limits the achievement of valued outcomes.
Second, the ‘strength of connection’ of the social ac-
tor to the setting may be based on speci¢c behavior-
al goals rather than general a¡ect.
Some researchers have claimed that the relation-
ship between place constructs is poorly understood
(Hammitt & Stewart, 1996; Kaltenborn, 1998).
Although particular relationships between place
constructs have been examined (e.g., Moore &
Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1992) the issue has not
been the subject of serious sustained study. Regard-
less, there is hardly universal agreement on the re-
lationships between concepts. For example, in an
attempt to generate debate, Altman and Low (1992,
p. 3) asserted that ‘place attachment subsumes or is
subsumed by a variety of analogous ideas, including
topophilia (Tuan, 1974), place identity (Proshansky
et al., 1983), insideness (Rowles, 1980), genres of
place (Hu¡ord, 1992), sense of place or rootedness
(Chawla, 1992), environmental embeddedness, com-
munity sentiment and identity (Hummon, 1992).’ This
articulation suggests the need for additional study
on the interrelationships between variables. In our
research, we seek to bring clarity to these relation-
ships by testing the hypothesis that they can be re-
presented as speci¢c dimensions of the more
general ‘sense of place’.
The conceptual confusion noted above may in
part be due to the diversity of approaches utilized
in understanding SOP. Lalli (1992) divides SOP the-
ory and research into phenomenological and positi-
vistic approaches. Positivistic research on SOP is
characterized by researcher-de¢ned variables, quan-
titative methods, and traditional hypothesis testing.
In contrast, phenomenological approaches to under-
standing SOP address the intentional interaction
between person and environment: ‘the world of
things, persons, and events as experienced by the
individual’ (p. 286).
Many place theorists (e.g., Relph, Tuan) either ex-
plicitly identify place research as a phenomenologi-
cal endeavor or otherwise do not use empirical
methods to ‘test hypotheses’ in any formal sense.
Nevertheless, these scholars make strong statements
about the general nature of SOP. For example, Relph
(1976) asserts that attachment to place grows
through time and is based strongly on relationships
with people in the setting rather than the physical
environment. Places to which we are most attached
are those where we have had a wide variety of ex-
periences; ‘the identity of a place . . . varies with the
individual, group, or consensus image of that place’
(Relph, 1976, p. 56). Many of these statements sug-
gest testable hypotheses about the nature of place.
 Measuring Sense of Place
However, it is possible that the phenomenological
nature of much sense of place thinking has contrib-
uted to the feeling that concepts should be treated
holistically, that dissecting a multidimensional con-
cept is perilous business and may lead to losing the
essence of the overall concept (Hummon, 1992;
Krueger, 1996).
Approaches to measuring sense of place
Perhaps owing in part to the phenomenological em-
phasis, empirical investigations of SOP utilizing
quantitative methods have been relatively few in
number and have generally lagged behind theory
(Shamai, 1991; Lalli, 1992) despite calls for better
measurement (Krupat, 1983). More recently, exam-
ples, of quantitative measurement of place concepts
have been more numerous, but we suggest that
these attempts have not re£ected theoretical im-
peratives well, speci¢cally the multidimensionality
of the sense of place concept. In the next section of
the paper, we review several empirical studies.
These approaches vary to the extent to which they
are theoretically grounded, and range from unidi-
mensional conceptions to those that explore poten-
tial multidimensionality.
In a relatively early example of quantitative place
research, Burdge and Ludtke (1972) employed an
‘identi¢cation with place’ scale to measure indivi-
duals’ a¡ective attachments to their residential
area. The instrument included 12 items rated on
Likert scales, and demonstrated very high reliability
(Cronbach’s a = 0
99). Respondents rated their level of
agreement with attitudinal statements encompass-
ing Identity (e.g., ‘This area is in my blood, it is
really a part of me’) and Attachment (e.g., ‘I don’t
really feel any strong attachment to this place’).
Burdge and Ludtke reported that strong identi¢ca-
tion with place correlated positively with feelings of
apprehension about both relocating from the area
and having to establish new relationships in an-
other community.
Shamai (1991) provided a scale based on Relph’s
(1976) seven ways of sensing a place. This scale re-
presented four ordered categories ranging from an
absence of a SOP to a profound commitment toward
a place. Respondents were required to identify a po-
sition on the scale that best re£ected their relation-
ship to the place in question. The scale measured
variability in the intensity of feelings and behavior
of people residing in the same place at a particular
point in time. For example, respondents lacking a
sense of place would not be expected to be prepared
235
to sacri¢ce their interests for it. In other words, re-
spondents who were prepared to endure some form
of behavioral cost would also hold developed beliefs
and strong feelings about the place. The scale was
conceived to be unidimensional, which contrasts
with suggestions made by other theorists that em-
phasize the multidimensional nature of SOP.
Cuba and Hummon (1993) focused on the concept
of Place identity, which they de¢ned as an expres-
sion of ‘at homeness’. Three elements of ‘Identity’
were conceived and measured: (1) its existence (‘Do
you feel at home here?’); (2) its a⁄liations (‘Why do
you feel at home here?’); and, (3) its locus (‘Do you
associate feeling at home with living in this particu-
lar house or apartment, with living in this commu-
nity, or with living on the Cape [Cod] in general?’).
This approach to measuring ‘Identity’ accounts for
an absence of the construct for certain individuals
as well as any relationship between the reasons for
feeling at home and the speci¢c place loci. However,
respondents’ intensity of feelings toward a place are
not addressed.
Hay (1998) created a scale measuring the inten-
sity of sense of place for Banks Peninsula, New
Zealand. The summed scale (Cronbach’s a = 0
70)
was based on reported attachment level, motivation
to remain in the setting, ancestry, and insider feel-
ings. The resulting scale addressed only the inten-
sity of sense of place based on these four equally
weighted variables. Hay did not conduct an analysis
of the scale’s dimensionality, but assumed that it
measured a single factor.
McAndrew (1998) sought to measure the concept
of ‘rootedness’ which he equated with an a¡ective
interpretation of place attachment. Rootedness was
assumed to have positive and negative components
that de¢ned the ends of a general bipolar concept.
The positive dimensionölabeled ‘Desire for
Change’öwas measured with six belief statements
with Likert response scales (e.g., ‘Moving from place
to place is exciting and fun’). The negative dimen-
sion was measured with four belief statements and
labeled ‘Home/Family Satisfaction’ and included
items such as ‘I love to reminisce about the places
I played when I was a child’. Due to McAndrew’s
use of an orthogonal rotation in his principal com-
ponents analysis, the two dimensions of rootedness
were not correlated. Cronbach’s alpha for the posi-
tive and negative subscales were 0
79 and 0
70, re-
spectively. The two-component structure of the
rootedness scale was replicated on an independent
sample of undergraduate students. However, the
item loadings were only moderate (particularly for
Home/Family Satisfaction) despite the principal
236 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman
components technique in which item communalities
are set to unity. The reliability coe⁄cients also de-
creased to 0
56 (Desire for Change) and 0
51
(Home/Family). Further, there was a signi¢cant ne-
gative correlation between the two subscales, de-
spite the assumption of independence manifest in
the orthogonal rotation method. McAndrew (1998)
noted that this association was ‘consistent with the
conceptualization of Home/Family Satisfaction and
Desire for Change as opposite ends of the same di-
mension’ (p. 415), suggesting a single place dimen-
sion at the theoretical level despite the
multidimensionality implied in the empirical model.
More consistent with theoretical approaches that
emphasize multidimensionality, Lalli (1992) devel-
oped the Urban Identity Scale and validated it in a
sample of Heidelberg residents. This instrument
comprised ¢ve subscales of urban-related identity:
Evaluation, Familiarity, Attachment, Continuity,
and Commitment. The ¢rst subscale referred to eva-
luative comparisons regarding the uniqueness of the
town relative to other towns (e.g., ‘There are many
things here which are envied by other towns’). Fa-
miliarity was theorized as a well-developed cogni-
tive orientation grounded in everyday experience,
and was measured with items such as ‘When I am-
ble through Heidelberg, I feel very strongly that I
belong here’. The Attachment dimension of urban
identity corresponded with general sense of place
de¢nitions in the literature. Lalli de¢ned Attach-
ment in terms of feelings of belonging, and mea-
sured it with items like ‘I feel really at home at
Heidelberg.’ Continuity was de¢ned by Lalli as the
extent to which the respondent perceives his or her
past experiences as being synonymous with the his-
tory of the town. One item representative of those
included in the Continuity subscale was ‘Lots of
things in the town remind me of my own past.’ Fi-
nally, the Commitment component of urban identity
referred to the perceived signi¢cance of the town in
one’s future and was measured by items that re-
£ected a commitment to a future relationship with
the town (e.g., ‘I would like to stay in Heidelberg
inde¢nitely’).
All ¢ve subscales showed strong correlations with
one another that ranged from 0
38 to 0
82. The high-
est average inter-scale correlation occurred for the
General Attachment dimension (average r = 0
71).
These summary statistics suggest that the ¢ve di-
mensions of the Urban Identity Scale are indicative
of a more simple factorial structure best repre-
sented by Lalli’s concept of Attachment. This inter-
pretation of the data is supported when the subscale
correlations and reliabilities were subjected to con-
¢rmatory factor analysis. The scale loadings on a
general factor ranged from 0
32 (t = 7
69, p50
001)
for Evaluation to 0
87 (t = 15
40, p50
001) for General
Attachment.
Williams et al. (1992) also adopted a multidimen-
sional approach. These authors conceptualized place
attachment as an overarching concept describing an
emotional bond between an individual and a parti-
cular spatial setting. Identity and Dependence were
conceived as subdomains of attachment. Depen-
dence was conceived in terms of how the setting
compares with other alternatives supporting similar
behavioral (recreational) goals. Identity referred to
a form of attachment resulting from the symbolic
importance of the physical environment to self-de¢-
nition. Thus, in addition to being a resource for sa-
tisfying explicitly felt behavioral or experiential
goals, a place may be viewed as an essential part
of one’s self, resulting in strong emotional attach-
ment to place (Williams et al., 1992, p. 32).
In measuring Attachment, Williams et al. (1992)
employed a 13 -item scale requiring respondents to
rate their agreement with statements such as ‘This
place means a lot to me’ and ‘I wouldn’t substitute
any other area for doing the type of things I did
here.’ Responses to the items were aggregated to
form a Place attachment scale. No information was
provided by the authors as to the extent of the cor-
relation between the Dependence and Identity sub-
scales, but presumably it was reasonably large
given the high overall scale reliability (Cronbach’s
a = 0
93) reported in the study.
Following the work of Williams et al. (1992),
Moore and Graefe (1994) tested a model suggesting
that place attachment to a recreational trail setting
is composed both of place dependence (how well
does the place serve instrumental values or goal
achievement) and place identity (a more a¡ect-based
statement about symbolic values of the setting). The
researchers’ principal components analysis pro-
duced two factors that were characterized by high
cross loadings and a between-scale correlation of
0
62, suggesting a considerable degree of overlap be-
tween constructs at the empirical level.
Towards an attitude-based conception
of sense of place
The empirical approaches to measuring SOP de-
tailed above vary considerably in their operation
and in the degree to which they consider the multi-
dimensionality of the concept. We suggest that em-
pirical measures that attempt to incorporate
 Measuring Sense of Place
multiple dimensions of SOP are more consistent
with the theoretical strands of SOP detailed above.
In particular, the studies by Williams et al. (1992)
and Moore and Graefe (1994) explore multidimen-
sionality and incorporate some theoretical impera-
tive of how the di¡erent place concepts (Identity,
Dependence, and Attachment) interrelate.
Although none of the researchers cited above la-
bel them so, place-related constructs can be re-
garded as attitudes. Within this general framework,
Sense of Place is a complex psychosocial structure
that organizes self-referent cognitions, emotions
and behavioral commitments. Sense of Place viewed
in this way is consistent with conceptions of atti-
tude. Attitude theory can therefore provide a theo-
retical framework for organizing the relationships
between place components.
In the following section, we further explore the
multidimensional foundation of SOP with each of
the dimensions representing di¡erent dimensions
or components of attitude. Place attachment is
equated with the a¡ective (or emotional) component
of attitude; place identity as the cognitive domain
whereby a place is part of the social actor’s sense
of self; and, place dependence represents the cona-
tive domain of attitude in which the dependence ex-
pressed for one’s setting is relative to the behaviors
performed there (e.g., Moore & Graefe, 1994). The
question we ask in our research is whether the in-
terrelationship between these components corre-
sponds to conventional models of attitude structure.
Models of attitude structure
An attitude can be de¢ned as a response to an exo-
genous event, object or stimulus (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975). Therefore, spatial settings may themselves
serve as attitude objects. Further, a¡ect, cognition
and behavior are three distinguishable components
of response to an attitude object. A¡ect refers to
emotional responses or activity in the sympathetic
nervous system, as re£ected in heart rate, galvanic
skin response, or verbal self-reports. Beliefs, knowl-
edge structures, percepts, and thoughts are all re-
presentative of the cognitive component of attitude.
The conative component in a tripartite view of atti-
tude includes reports of behavioral intentions and
behavioral commitments, but not actual behavior.
A number of studies have been undertaken to es-
tablish how these di¡erent characteristics of atti-
tude ¢t together. Some attitude theorists assume
that the distinction between the response categories
in which attitude is expressed represent di¡erent
237
theoretical components of attitude (see Smith, 1947;
Katz & Stotland, 1959; Ostrom, 1969; Kothandapani,
1971; Bagozzi, 1978; Bagozzi et al., 1979; Breckler,
1984). Thus, instead of a unidimensional construct
expressed in beliefs, emotions, and behavioral inten-
tions, attitude is conceived as being a multidimen-
sional construct. While these more or less distinct
components may vary along an evaluative conti-
nuum, it is assumed that the evaluations expressed
in each domain can potentially di¡er substantially
for certain attitude objects. For example, a person
may feel favorable toward their lakeshore property,
but consider it peripheral to their identity and a
poor place to perform certain behaviors.
Other conceptions of attitude posit a single di-
mension that is fundamentally evaluative (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Dillon &
Kumar, 1985). This evaluative factor can be ex-
pressed in cognitive, a¡ective and conative re-
sponses, but these three classes are not regarded
as separate components of attitude. Rather, the af-
fective, cognitive and conative realms are regarded
as domains of attitude expression or classes of ob-
served responses to attitude objects. A central as-
sumption of the attitude concept in this respect is
that a common evaluative continuum is re£ected in
the three classes of observed responses posited in
the tripartite model.
A relatively small body of literature has at-
tempted to con¢rm the discriminant validity of
measures constructed to re£ect the di¡erent compo-
nents (e.g., Breckler, 1984; Breckler & Wiggins,
1989). However, the research ¢ndings have failed to
provide convincing and consistent support for one
model over the other (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1985;
Dillon & Kumar, 1985; Widaman, 1985). Debate be-
tween proponents of the single-factor and three-fac-
tor models has centered on whether empirical
discrimination between attitude components results
from method di¡erences or actual di¡erences be-
tween theoretically independent concepts.
The debate regarding attitude structure was ad-
vanced by the introduction of a higher-order model
(Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). This hierarchical
model posited the existence of a general evaluative
dimension responsible for the covariation between
the cognitive, a¡ective, and conative components of
the tripartite conception. The primary factors were
theorized as separate mediating structures between
attitude and the three classes of observed re-
sponses. The three components were de¢ned as
independent constructs that might potentially
comprise a single attitude dimension at a higher
level of abstraction.
238 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman

The following section applies the attitude models

discussed above to SOP, and highlights the interpre-
tative di¡erences following from each conceptuali-
zation. Some additional models are also introduced
as alternative bases upon which to assess the con-
struct validity of SOP measurements.

Sense of place measurement models

Like attitude, SOP is a hypothetical construct that

is not accessible to direct observation, but can be
inferred on the basis of measured responses. When
conceived as an individual’s favorable or unfavorable
attitude toward spatially demarcated object, SOP
can be inferred from responses of a cognitive, a¡ec- FIGURE 1. Tripartite (Three-Factor) Model
tive or conative nature. When each of these classes
of response is regarded as being mediated by a dis-
tinct construct, the place concepts of Identity, At-
tachment, and Dependence are evoked, respectively.
Place identity can be regarded as an individual’s
cognitions, beliefs, perceptions or thoughts that the
self is invested in a particular spatial setting. Place
attachment can be de¢ned in terms of an indivi-
dual’s a¡ective or emotional connection to a spatial
setting, and place dependence can be considered as
the perceived behavioral advantage of a spatial set-
ting relative to other settings.

Three-factor model

Figure 1 displays a diagram of the tripartite model

of SOP. Each component is represented as a distinct
construct, although potentially correlated with one
another. This model assumes that Identity, Attach-
ment and Dependence can di¡er greatly within indi-
viduals. For example, a person may strongly identify
with a setting, and be attached to it (perhaps as a
result of years of association) but feel that it is a
poor place to earn a living or raise children.
Single-factor model
When the three components of SOP correlate per-
fectly with one another, the model shown in
Figure 1 reduces to a single factor model (see Fig-
ure 2). That is, all three components become indis-
tinguishable and hence, their originally distinct
interpretations collapse into one. From a unidimen-
sional attitude view, this single factor would likely
be best expressed in the Attachment items that
more directly deal with a¡ect and express an over-
all evaluation of the object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
FIGURE 2. Unidimensional (One-Factor) Model
Empirically, the single-factor and 3 -factor models
are nested when the former is expressed in a tripar-
tite form where all factor correlations are equal to
one. Nested models can be compared using a likeli-
hood ratio test. In this way, models with fewer con-
straints are compared with models having more
constraints to ascertain whether the additional re-
strictions improve the correspondence between the
model-implied and sample covariance matrices.
Higher-order model
The higher-order interpretation of SOP is displayed
in Figure 3. This model assumes that any correlation
between the primary (or speci¢c) factors is due to a
 Measuring Sense of Place
FIGURE 3. Higher-Order Model
more abstract construct. That is, Identity, Attach-
ment, and Dependence are regarded as structures
that mediate the expression of SOP in observed re-
sponses. However, each component may additionally
re£ect unique beliefs, emotions, and behavioral pre-
ferences that are independent of one’s general eva-
luation of the setting. Thus, observed responses to
the spatial setting re£ect (1) the indirect e¡ects of
SOP through the processes of Attachment, Identity
and Dependence, and (2) the direct e¡ects of indivi-
dual feelings, beliefs and behavioral commitments.
Unfortunately, higher-order models involving only
three primary constructs are empirically just-identi-
¢ed (Bollen, 1989). That is, while estimates for the
parameters in the model can be derived, not enough
information exists to subject the higher-order part
of the model to a goodness-of-¢t test. Therefore, the
chi-square and degrees of freedom of the model
shown in Figure 3 are equal to the tripartite model
in Figure 1.
In order to over-identify the higher-order level
and obtain goodness-of-¢t tests, it is necessary to
make additional assumptions about the model (Bol-
len, 1989). One assumption that follows from atti-
tude theory is the contention that attitude is best
re£ected by evaluative feelings toward an object
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). As an attitude toward a
spatially delimited setting, SOP might be more
highly correlated with place attachment than with
either Identity or Dependence. Thus, equality con-
straints could be placed on the paths linking SOP
with Identity and Dependence.
However, where the higher-order structure of the
model is concerned, the only thing being tested is
the restriction (i.e., the equality constraint) which
is arti¢cially imposed. One caveat arises from this
239
FIGURE 4. G+Group Factor Model
strategy when the model fails to demonstrate an
adequate approximation of the data. Speci¢cally, a
poor ¢t for the model could be due to the inappro-
priateness of the equality constraint, rather than to
the existence of a higher-order factor. One explana-
tion would be that the equivalence hypothesis was
false, and another would be that the hypothesis at
the second-order was false.
G+Group factors model
An alternative to the hierarchical higher-order mod-
el is one in which the general and speci¢c (or
group) factors are regarded as completely indepen-
dent. The group factors are not theorized to mediate
between the general factor and the response classes
as is the case in the higher-order model. That is,
SOP is not implicated in the explanation of Identity,
Attachment or Dependence. However, like the high-
er-order model, all the latent variables in this
G+Group (i.e., general and group factors) model ac-
count for variance in the observed variables, but the
general factor has a wider range of in£uence (with
respect to the response domains) than the group
factors.
All four factors in the G+Group model have
neither a conceptual relationship nor an empirical
relationship with each other. Rather, SOP is as-
sumed to be expressed in a¡ective, cognitive, and
conative responses, and this expression is indepen-
dent of any role played by Identity, Attachment or
Dependence. In fact, Mulaik and Quartetti (1997)
have pointed out that the independence of the fac-
tors is an untestable assumption of the model that
is necessary for its empirical identi¢cation. By se-
parating all four potential sources of variation,
240 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman
their unique in£uences on the measured place be-
liefs can be gauged.
Correlated uniquenesses model
The correlated uniqueness (CU) model provides a
means of testing a ¢fth explanation of SOP. This
model, while similar to the G+Group model, is dis-
tinguished by the correlations between residual
components of the observed item variances. While
the CU model posits a general SOP factor, it in-
cludes the e¡ects of the group factors rather than
the factors themselves. Because the group factors
are not modeled directly, no assumption is made re-
garding their structure. These group factors may be
unidimensional (as in the case of the G+Group and
higher-order models) or they may be multidimen-
sional. To the extent that this model ¢ts better than
the G+Group model, it can be concluded that Iden-
tity, Attachment, and Dependence do not adequately
represent the speci¢c sources of variability in£uen-
cing responses to the scale items.
In summary, attempts to measure SOP are open to
a number of di¡erent interpretations, some of which
are well-established in attitude research. We do not
attempt to present a formal test of attitude struc-
ture, but to develop an easily administered measure
of Sense of Place that is informed by attitude theory.
Each of the ¢ve models of the latent structure of
the SOP scale represents di¡erent interpretations of
the construct. The three factor model suggests that
Attachment, Identity, and Dependence represent un-
ique constructs that are not reducible to each other.
In the single factor model, however, the hypothe-
sised multiple dimensions of SOP are absent and
only a unitary conception of the construct is posed.
FIGURE 5. Correlated Uniquenesses Model
The higher-order model attributes a multidimen-
sional structure to SOP, but subordinates it to a
simpler interpretation (the e¡ects of a general SOP
factor) at a more fundamental level. In contrast, the
general and speci¢c components represented in the
G+Group model are independent of one another.
That is, SOP is regarded as a general evaluative di-
mension largely independent of unitary conceptions
of Identity, Attachment, and Dependence. Finally,
the CU model di¡ers from the G+Group model by
dispensing with the assumption that each group fac-
tor is unidimensional. The speci¢c place dimensions
have a more ambiguous interpretation in the CU
framework since they lie outside this measurement
model.
In both the CU and G+Group models the a¡ec-
tive, cognitive and conative categories of responses
are represented as a function of a general evalua-
tion of a place as well as the relevant attitude com-
ponent. These two models imply that some aspect of
the three response domains may be due to feelings
of attachment, beliefs about identity, and behavioral
assessments that are not synonymous with an over-
all evaluation of a place.
Method
Eight lakes in Vilas County (situated in the North-
ern Highlands Lake District of North Central
Wisconsin) having a mix of privately and publicly
owned shorelines were selected (see Figure 6). These
types of lakes were chosen because of their rele-
vance to a number of research questions of interest
to the Long Term Ecological Research project being
conducted in northern Wisconsin (see Jorgensen, et
al., forthcoming). The eight lakes included in the
study were Big Muskellunge, Diamond, High, Plum,
Razorback, Sparkling, Trout, and Witches.
Vilas county tax records served as a sampling
frame of households located within a mile of the
shoreline of each lake. A total of 743 households
were located within these areas. Each household
was sent a mail questionnaire that was developed
on the basis of ¢eld reports and preliminary trials
with a small sample of individuals from the popula-
tion of households. The questionnaire comprised a
number of sections, beginning with questions about
environmental quality, environmental values and be-
haviours with respect to riparian forest and woody
debris destribution, recreational behaviors, percep-
tions of lakeshore development, attitudes toward
the lakes and properties (including the sense of
place items) and demographic characteristics.
 Measuring Sense of Place 241

FIGURE 6. A shoreline property in Northern Wisconsin

TABLE 1
Scale items
Factor Item label Item description
Place identity IDENTITY1 Everything about my lake property
is a re£ection of me.
IDENTITY2 My lake property says very little
about who I am.
IDENTITY3 I feel that I can really be myself at my lake property.
IDENTITY4 My lake property re£ects the type of person I am.
Place attachment ATTACH1 I feel relaxed when I’m at my lake property.
ATTACH 2 I feel happiest when I’m at my lake property.
ATTACH3 My lake property is my favorite place to be.
ATTACH4 I really miss my lake property when I’m away
from it for too long.
Place dependence DEPEND1 My lake property is the best place for doing the
things that I enjoy most.
DEPEND2 For doing the things that I enjoy most, no other place
can compare to my lake property.
DEPEND3 My lake property is not a good place to do the things
I most like to do.
DEPEND4 As far as I am concerned, there are better places to
be than at my lake property.

Following Heberlein and Baumgartmer (1978) re- the initial mailing. The response rate after the ¢rst
minder postcards and replacement questionnaires mailing was 40 per cent. With further contact, the
were sent to householders who had not replied to ¢nal response rate was 66 per cent after accounting
242 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman

for undeliverable surveys, refusals to participate, property prices (15%), and non-native plants and an-
and deceased owners. Of these respondents, 71 per imals (17%) were the least reported lake issues.
cent were shoreline property owners whose re- After listwise deletion of missing values and ‘don’t
sponses were retained for further analysis. Property know’ responses (n = 32), data from 282 shoreline
owners who did not have shoreline frontage were ex- property owners remained. A variance-covariance
cluded from the analysis because (1) it could not be matrix was computed with bootstrapping so as to
reasonably assumed that the structure of sense of obtain the best estimates given the relatively small
place was comparable across the two populations, sample size (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996a). The inclu-
and (2) the sampling strategy was not intended to sion of the asymptotic variances^covariances al-
deliver an appropriate sample of nonshoreline own- lowed the model parameters to be estimated
ers. Stedman (2000) explicitly compares sense of without an assumption of multivariate normality.
place constructs between lakeshore property owners This method enabled the calculation of robust chi-
and nonowners. squares (Satorra & Bentler, 1988) and standard er-
The three Sense of Place components were mea- rors (Yuan & Bentler, 1997).
sured with twelve self-report items (see Table 1) Overall, strong, positive beliefs about lakeshore
and 5 -point Likert response scales ranging from properties are prevalent (see Table 2). This sentiment
‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. A ‘don’t know’ is most apparent in the relatively high levels of
option was available to respondents to take into ac- mean agreement for all four Attachment items.
count nonattitudes that might otherwise reduce the Where the Identity items are concerned, however,
reliability and validity of measurement (Schuman & there is less support on average for one’s property
Presser, 1981). These items were modi¢ed from pre- to be implicated in beliefs about identity. These ¢nd-
vious research (Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Sted- ings substantiate the use of the asymptotic var-
man, 1997) and interspersed among items iances-covariances since some item means revealed
concerning the lakes in the region. the presence of non-normal distributions.
Examination of the correlations among scale
items failed to identify a pattern suggesting three
speci¢c attitude domains (see Appendix 1). For ex-
Results ample, the Identity items did not show higher with-
in components correlations than correlations with
Shoreline property owners in the sample were pre- items from the other place domains.
dominantly male (80%), had gross annual household
incomes in excess of $35,000 (78%), a median age of
59 years, and were residents of either Wisconsin
(59%) or Illinois (24%). Nearly one-quarter of the
shoreline owners listed their property as their per- TABLE 2
manent residence. On average, the remaining 75 Item means and standard deviations
per cent visited their properties for 75 days out of Item label Mean* S.D.
the year (42 days in Summer, 18 days in Autumn, 5
IDENTITY1 3
77 0
94
days in Winter and 10 days in Spring). Seventeen per IDENTITY2 2
21 1
00
cent of respondents were members of an environ- IDENTITY3 4
03 0
92
mental group, and 30 per cent were members of a IDENTITY4 3
90 0
86
lake association. Identity Subscale 15
60 2
69
ATTACH1 4
64 0
54
The average size of lake properties in the sample
ATTACH2 3
99 0
80
was between 4 and 20 hectares, approximately. Most ATTACH3 4
06 0
83
shoreline property owners reported having natural ATTACH4 4
09 0
78
vegetation (89%), trees (91%), and a dock (90%) on Attachment Subscale 16
86 2
38
the lakefront. About two-thirds of all properties in DEPEND1 4
11 0
82
DEPEND2 3
98 0
96
the sample tended to have a house insulated against
DEPEND3 1
81 0
99
the winter cold (65%), and a clear view of the lake DEPEND4 2
09 1
00
(69%). Dependence Subscale 16
31 2
81
Property owners nominated water quality (65%), Total Scale 48
77 6
78
habitat preservation (49%), ¢sh stocking (47%), and *Negatively worded items were inversely recoded for in-
shoreline development (45%) as the most important clusion in the summed scales. Higher numbers can be in-
issues for their lakes. Tree logs in the water (8%), terpreted as higher levels of the construct in each case.
 Measuring Sense of Place 243

The ¢ve measurement models were tested using
LISREL 8
30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996b), and the
overall ¢t statistics are provided in Table 3. Given
¢rst in the table is the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-
square (SBw2) which provides a test of the degree
to which the model-based variance^covariance ma-
trix is consistent with the sample matrix. The Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI, Bentler, 1990) is not based
on chi-square and indicates the extent to which the
model ¢ts better than a baseline independence mod-
el. Next, the SRMSR is the average standardized
¢tted residual and indicates the discrepancy be-
tween the sample variance^covariance matrix and
the ¢tted matrix. Another di¡erent type of ¢t mea-
sureöthe Root Mean Square Error of Approxima-
tion (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990)ötakes into account
the error of approximation in the population as well
as the model degrees of freedom. The last two in-
dices given in Table 3öthe Akaike Information Cri-
terion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) and the Expected Cross
Validation Index (ECVI; Browne & Cudeck, 1989)ö
allow comparisons between non-nested models and
take into account di¡erences in parsimony (i.e.,
number of parameters) (Williams & Holahan, 1994).
Only the G+Group and CU models were asso-
ciated with nonsigni¢cant chi-square statistics, in-
dicating well-¢tting models. The single-factor model
in particular showed the worst level of ¢t out of the
¢ve models. This model was associated with the low-
est CFI, with a value equal to 0
95 which is usually
regarded as a lower bound of good ¢t (Hayduk,
1996). The single-factor model also had the largest
standardized residuals (Hu & Bentler, 1995), and
the largest RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
The information in Table 3 indicates that the sin-
gle-factor model o¡ered the poorest ¢t, while the
multidimensional models resulted in comparably
better explanations of the observed variance. The
single-factor model is empirically nested in the 3 -
factor model (when the factor correlations in the
latter speci¢cation are equal to one), and a chi-
square di¡erence test can be used to discriminate
between them. Consistent with the overall ¢t statis-
tics for the two models, a single-factor explanation
of the sample variance-covariance matrix was re-
jected in preference for the three-factor model
(w2D(3) = 1000
83, p50
001). The correlations between
the place dimensions were 0
68 (Identity and Depen-
dence), 0
83 (Attachment and Dependence), and 0
72
(Identity and Attachment). Given the use of a single
measurement method (i.e., Likert scales) in this
study, these correlations may be in£ated to a degree.
The G+Group and CU models were the least par-
simonious of the ¢ve measurement speci¢cations in
that they have the lowest degrees-of-freedom. Mod-
els with fewer degrees-of-freedom will result in bet-
ter ¢t statistics, all other things equal. However,
when parsimony was taken into account via the
AIC and ECVI, the G+Group and CU models still
o¡ered better levels of ¢t.
The 3 -factor and higher-order models achieved re-
latively moderate degrees of ¢t, although the latter
model was preferred on the basis of its lower AIC
and ECVI. Nevertheless, both of these models of-
fered reasonable approximations to the data, sug-
gesting that the domain speci¢c components of
Identity, Attachment and Dependence were less ex-
planatory in comparison with the general SOP fac-
tor in this particular context.
The speci¢c sources of variability (i.e., those inde-
pendent of a general SOP factor) were represented
in the G+Group and CU models. Recall that the

TABLE 3
Model goodness of ¢ts statistics
Model Overall ¢t statistics
2
SBw (df) CFI{ SRMSR RMSEA (90% CI) ECVI (90% CI) AIC
1-Factor 181
52 (54)*** 0
95 0
07 0
09 0
82 229
52
(0
08; 0
11) (0
68; 0
98)
3 -Factor 80
69 (51)** 0
99 0
05 0
05 0
48 134
69
(0
02; 0
06) (0
41; 0
58)
Higher-order 79
99 (52)** 0
99 0
05 0
04 0
47 131
99
(0
02; 0
06) (0
40; 0
47)
G+Group 57
33 (42) 0
99 0
04 0
04 0
46 129
33
(0
00; 0
06) (0
41; 0
55)
CU 44
65 (36) 1
00 0
03 0
03 0
46 128
65
(0
00; 0
05) (0
43; 0
53)
*p50
05 **p50
01 ***50
001
{CFI are based on the SBw2 values for the target and independence models.
244 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman

latter model does not impose a structure on the
speci¢c variability, whereas each factor is unidimen-
sional in the G+Group model. In both models, the
speci¢c or group factors are assumed to be orthogo-
nal to the general SOP dimension and to one an-
other. The comparable performance of these two
models suggests that the assumption of unidimen-
sional speci¢c sources of variability is a reasonable
one in this case. That is, allowing the structure of
the speci¢c factors to go unde¢ned did not produce
substantial di¡erences in ¢t.
Comparison of the estimates of the general SOP
loadings in the higher-order, G+Group, and CU
models reveals considerable consistency where the
latter two, better ¢tting models, were concerned
(see Table 4). The loadings on the SOP factor in the
CU and G+Group models were virtually identical.
Moreover, the loadings for the group factors in the
G+Group model re£ected the pattern of error covar-
iances observed in the CU model. Of interest was
the relatively larger explanatory role of Identity
and Dependence relative to Attachment. The latter
component accounted for little variability in ob-
served responses compared with the general SOP di-
mension. Consistent with the higher-order model,
Attachment appeared to be a redundant explana-
tory concept in the presence of SOP.
Given the comparable degrees of ¢t associated
with the G+Group and CU models, it can be con-
cluded that the SOP scale re£ects variability among
four orthogonal dimensions in this particular re-
search context. The most explanatory factor was a
general evaluative dimension (i.e., the SOP factor)
summarized by owners’ positive emotion toward
their lakeshore properties. Three less explanatory
and largely unidimensional factors (i.e., Identity, At-
tachment, and Dependence) accounted for residual
variation in responses to the scale items. However,
the three domain speci¢c factors accounted for rela-
tively trivial amounts of variability in the observed
items.
Reliability coe⁄cients (Cronbach’s a) were calcu-
lated for each of the three subscales as well as the
total SOP scale. The scales were constructed by sim-
ply summing the scores of the relevant items. The
standardised reliability coe⁄cients were 0
76, 0
84,
0
74, 0
89 for Identity, Attachment, Dependence and
SOP, respectively. These statistics support the asser-
tion that each scale re£ected an adequate degree of
systematic variance.
Summary and discussion
Attitude theory can provide a basis for conceiving of
SOP as potentially encompassing cognitive, a¡ective
and conative reactions to a spatially based object.
Our research explored the utility of considering
Sense of Place as a multidimensional construct
comprising (1) Identity (beliefs about the relation-
ship between self and place); (2) Attachment (emo-
tional connection to place); and (3) Dependence, or
the degree to which the place in relation to alterna-
tive places is perceived to underpin behaviour.
A 12-item SOP scale, consistent with the multidi-
mensional theoretical prescription described above,
was developed and subsequently tested in the ¢eld
with a sample of lakeshore property owners in
northern Wisconsin. A number of measurement
models were posed as potential explanations of the
scale’s construct validity. These models were gener-
ated on the basis of research on attitude structure,
and put forward as a means to stimulate further

TABLE 4
Comparison of general SOP factor from di¡erent models
Item Higher-order model G+Group model CU model
Primary factors SOPH7O Group factors SOPG+G SOPCU
IDENTITY1 0
26 0
49 0
28 0
54 0
57
IDENTITY2 70
23 70
43 70
37 70
39 70
40
IDENTITY3 0
25 0
46 0
28 0
52 0
52
IDENTITY4 0
34 0
64 0
69 0
61 0
61
ATTACH1 0
05 0
43 70
14 0
53 0
51
ATTACH2 0
10 0
86 0
22 0
86 0
83
ATTACH3 0
10 0
86 0
52 0
85 0
83
ATTACH4 0
08 0
69 0
10 0
73 0
70
DEPEND1 0
17 0
69 70
41 0
68 0
71
DEPEND2 0
16 0
66 70
39 0
65 0
67
DEPEND3 70
11 70
43 0
36 70
38 70
38
DEPEND4 70
14 70
55 0
14 70
60 70
62
 Measuring Sense of Place
thought about conceptions of SOP from a measure-
ment perspective.
Results suggest that the scale measures a general
‘Sense of Place’ dimension that is expressed in prop-
erty owners’ thoughts, emotions, and behavioral be-
liefs regarding their lakeshore properties. Although
there was also clear support for the existence of
three univariate dimensions consistent with place
identity, place attachment, and place dependence,
the general evaluative dimension better explained
observed responses than did the domain-speci¢c
constructs. The dominance of the SOP factor over
the narrower dimensions was prevalent in three dif-
ferent measurement models that posited both gener-
al and speci¢c factors.
The degree of covariation between the primary
constructs was indicative of shared variability with
the general SOP variable that corresponded most
with feelings of Attachment and least with beliefs
about Identity. That is, the concepts of Identity and
Dependence were less synonymous with the SOP
factor than was Attachment. Interestingly, this is
consistent with conceptions of attitude that equate
the a¡ective and evaluative terms (e.g., Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975), further supporting our contention that
SOP can be addressed by researchers using attitude
terminology and theory. However, this outcome may
be due to the fact that all items measuring ‘Attach-
ment’ were positively worded. This approach was
adopted so as to accurately re£ect views in the lit-
erature that emphasis a positive bond between hu-
mans and their environments (e.g., Altman & Low,
1992; Williams, et al., 1992). Subsequent research
might include both positively and negatively worded
items to explore the possibility of two unipolar con-
structs versus a bipolar model.
Some additional caveats should be addressed with
respect to the conclusions drawn above. First,
Breckler (1984) has noted that correlations among
attitude components may be in£ated due to shared
variability arising from common measurement
methods. However, this threat to internal validity
only holds to the extent that the measurement ef-
fects are correlated with the latent variables of
interest.
Second, the presence of measurement error that
was uncorrelated with SOP might explain the un-
ique variability re£ected in the speci¢c place com-
ponents. However, method e¡ects arising from the
singular use of verbal reports in this study are in-
compatible as an explanation for the speci¢c
sources of variability, unless the method variability
corresponded with the three theoretical domains of
Identity, Attachment, and Dependence. There was
245
nothing to suggest the presence of item error covar-
iances (in the CU model), primary factor error cov-
ariances (in the higher-order model), or group factor
correlations (in the G+Group model) that would in-
dicate common method variability. Nevertheless,
mixed-method approaches to measurement should
be explored in future research as a means of con-
trolling method variance. Other approaches have
been expressed with respect to place that o¡er an
alternative avenue for attitude measurement and
an understanding of human-environment relation-
ships (e.g., Canter, 1997).
The utility of our approach ultimately rests on the
validity of the concepts of Dependence, Identity, and
Attachment as attitude components. Of the concepts
illustrated, the most potentially problematic is the
concept of place-dependence as representative of
the conative domain of attitude. In this respect,
our measures are not behavioral intentions, but
rather reports of the degree to which the setting is
perceived to serve as a basis for chosen behaviors.
We suggest that future research in this vein could
be oriented towards re£ecting the domains of atti-
tude more closely, rather than being organized
around the domains of sense of place as described
in the literature. For example, an attitude-based ex-
ploration might include (hypothetically), (1) an over-
all evaluation of the setting; (2) descriptive
cognitions about the setting (what are its perceived
attributes, what characteristics does it have); (3) be-
havioral intentions associated with the place; (4) the
quality of the attitude-object relationship character-
ized by the various dimensions of attitude strength;
and, (5) actual behaviors that might be reciprocally
associated with the attitude. Thus, a sense of place
becomes a true ‘sense’ of place in that it includes de-
scriptive elements about ‘what kind of place is this’
as well as being more explicitly behavior-related.
The particular measurement structure reported
here should not be viewed as a property of the scale,
independent of the context in which the approach
was implemented. It is reasonable to expect that
the structure of the scale may not be consistent
across a range of di¡erent conditions, and correla-
tions with other constructs may vary with SOP com-
ponents. Some attitude objects may be associated
with disparate and con£icting psychological re-
sponses while others may demonstrate consistency
among response domains. The conditions under
which cognitive, a¡ective, and conative domains
might show inconsistency will most likely vary
across populations, settings, and objects, as well as
a range of individual and group level characteris-
tics. In addition, a more heterogeneous population
246 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman
(with respect to age and income, for example) might
demonstrate greater variation within response do-
mains than was observed for the shoreline property
owners living on the type of lakes included in the
present sample.
Finally, the items comprising the scale may re-
quire alterations in other contexts. In this respect,
adherence to the domains of attitude may be rele-
vant despite restrictions in the scale’s applicability
that may arise given the speci¢c content of the
items. For example, the notion that one’s property
in northern Wisconsin is ‘relaxing’ is in-keeping
with the salient discourse among owners for whom
there are ‘restorative qualities’ (Korpela & Hartig,
1996) associated with the place. Thus, while the atti-
tude approach may be shown to have some general
applicability to place research of the type presented
here, researchers may need to contextualize the the-
ory and methods to better re£ect the unique aspects
of their respective substantive domains.
In conclusion, this present investigation provides
an initial endeavour to relate attitude theory and
place research. The SOP scale can provide research-
ers with an easily administered and reliable means
by which to measure attitudes toward spatial set-
tings. This measure can be correlated with attitudes
toward policy scenarios, group-based landscape per-
ceptions, and characteristics of the physical envir-
onment in order to identify consequential
environmental variables for psychological wellbeing.
References
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika,
52, 317^332.
Altman, I. & Low, S. (1992). Place Attachment. NY: Plenum
Press.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the a¡ec-
tive, behavioural, and cognitive components of atti-
tude by analysis of covariance structures.
Multivariate Behavioural Research, 13, 9^31.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Burnkrant, R. E. (1985). Attitude organi-
zation and the attitude-behaviour relationship: A re-
ply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 49, 47^57.
Bagozzi, R. P., Tybout, A. M., Craig, C. S. & Sternthal, B.
(1979). The construct validity of the tripartite classi¢-
cation of attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 16,
88^95.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ¢t indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238^246.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent
Variables. NY: Wiley.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of a¡ect, beha-
viour, and cognition as distinct components of atti-
tude. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47,
1191^1205.
Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental Psy-
chology: A Psycho-Social Introduction. London: Sage.
Breckler, S. J. & Wiggins, E. C. (1989). A¡ect versus eva-
luation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 25, 253^271.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-
validation indices for covariance structures. Multi-
variate Behavioural Research, 24, 445^455.
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of as-
sessing model ¢t. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long, (Eds),
Testing Structural Equation Models. London: Sage.
Burdge, R. J. & Ludtke, R. L. (1972). Social separation
among displaced rural families: The case of £ood con-
trol reservoirs. In W. R. Burch, Jr., N. H. Cheek, Jr., &
L. Taylor, (Eds), Social Behaviour, Natural Resources,
and the Environment. NY: Harper & Row.
Canter, D. (1991). Understanding, assessing and acting in
places: Is an integrative framework possible? In T.
Garling & G. Evans, (Eds), Environmental Cognition
and Action: An Integrated Approach. NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In G. T. Moore & R.
W. Marans, (Eds), Advances in Environment, Behaviour
and Design, Volume 4: Towards the Integration of Theo-
ry, Methods, Research and Utilisation. NY: Plenum.
Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I.
Altman & S. M. Low, (Eds), Place Attachment. NY:
Plenum Press.
Cuba, L. & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A place to call home:
Identi¢cation with dwelling, community and region.
Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111^131.
Dillon, W. R. & Kumar, A. (1985). Attitude organization
and the attitude^behaviour relationship: A critique
of Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s reanalysis of Fishbein
and Ajzen. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
49, 33^46.
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Atti-
tudes. TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Re-
search. London: Addison-Wesley.
Hammit, W. E. & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Sense of place: A
call for construct clarity and management. Paper pre-
sented at the Sixth International Symposium on Society
& Resource Management, May 18^23, State College, PA.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 5^29.
Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL: Issues, Debates, and Strate-
gies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Heberlein, T. A. & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors a¡ect-
ing response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quanti-
tative analysis of the published literature. American
Sociological Review,, 43, 447^462.
Hu, Li Tzu & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model ¢t. In
R. H. Hoyle, (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Con-
cepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, California, pp.
76^99.
Hu¡ord, M. (1992). Thresholds to an alternate realm: Map-
ping the chaseworld in New Jersey’s Pine Barrens. In
I. Altman & S. M. Low, (Eds), Place Attachment. NY:
Plenum Press.
Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sen-
timent and sense of place. In I. Altman & S. M. Low,
(Eds), Place Attachment. NY: Plenum Press.
 Measuring Sense of Place
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1996a). PRELSI 2: User’s
Reference Guide. IL: SSI.
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1996b). LISREL 8: User’s
Reference Guide. IL: SSI.
Jorgensen, B. S., Nowacek, D., Stedman, R. C., Brasier, K.
& Long, D. (forthcoming). People in a forested Lake
District. In J. Magnuson & T. Kratz (Eds), Lakes in
the Landscape, NY: Oxford University Press.
Katz, D. & Stotland, E. (1959). A preliminary statement to
a theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Kock,
(Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. III. NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Korpela, K. & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of fa-
vorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,
221^233.
Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and
intention to act as three components of attitude and
their contribution to prediction of contraceptive beha-
viour. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 319,
321^33.
Krupat, E. (1983). A place for place identity. Journal of En-
vironmental Psychology, 3, 343^344.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measure-
ment, and empirical ¢ndings. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 12, 285^303.
Lindstrom, B. (1997). A sense of place: Housing selection
on Chicago’s north shore. Sociological Quarterly, 38,
19^39.
McAndrew, F. T. (1998). The measurement of ‘rootedness’
and the prediction of attachment to home-towns in
college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
18, 409^417.
Moore, R. L. & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to re-
creation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leisure
Sciences, 16, 17^31.
Mulaik, S. A. & Quartetti, D. A. (1997). First order or
higher order general factor? Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 4, 193^211.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the a¡ec-
tive, behavioural, and cognitive components of atti-
tude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12^
30.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Envir-
onment & Behaviour, 10, 147^169.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. & Kamino¡, R. (1983).
Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57^83.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Riley, R. B. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape.
In I. Altman & S. M. Low, (Eds), Place Attachment.
NY: Plenum Press, pp. 13^35.
Rosenberg, M. J. & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, a¡ec-
tive, and behavioural components of attitudes. In M.
J. Rosenberg et al. (Eds), Attitude Organization and
Change. CT: Yale.
247
Rowles, G. D. (1980). Growing old ‘inside’: Aging and at-
tachment to place in an Appalachain community. In
N. Datan & A. Lahmann, (Eds), Transitions in Aging.
NY: Academic Press.
Ryden, K. C. (1993). Mapping the Invisible Landscape: Folk-
lore, Writing, and the Sense of Place. IA: University of
lowa Press.
Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for
chi-square in covariance structure analysis. Proceed-
ings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section of
the American Statistics Association, pp. 308^313.
Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers
in Attitude Surveys. NY: Academic Press.
Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measure-
ment. Geoforum, 22, 347^358.
Smith, M. Brewster (1947). The personal setting of public
opinions: A study of attitudes toward Russia. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 11, 507^523.
Stedman, R. C. (2000). ‘Up North’: Measuring Sense of
Place in Wisconsin’s Lake Country. Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Department of Rural Sociology, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Stedman, R. C. (1997). Where the north begins: Cognitive
maps, sense of place and place attachment. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociologi-
cal Society. Toronto, Ontario, August 13^17.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and mod-
i¢cation: An interval estimation approach. Multivari-
ate Behavioural Research, 25, 173^180.
Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A
transactional view of settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cog-
nition, Social Behaviour, and the Environment. NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Space and place: Humanistic perspec-
tive. In S. Gale & G. Olson, (Eds), Philosophy in
Geography. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Land-
scape, 24, 3^8.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariances
structure models for multitrait-multimethod data.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1^26.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. &
Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity meta-
phor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment
to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29^46.
Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring
place attachment: Some preliminary results. Paper
presented at the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Re-
search, San Antonio, Texas, October 20^22.
Williams, L. J. & Holahan, P. J. (1994). Parsimony-based ¢t
indices for multiple-indicator models: Do they work?
Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 161^189.
Yuan, K. H. & Bentler, P. M. (1997). Improving parameter
tests in covariance structure analysis. Computational
Statistics & Data Analysis, 26, 177^198.
248 B. S. Jorgensen and R. C. Stedman

APPENDIX

Pearson product moment correlation matrix

I1 I2 I3 I4 A1 A2 A3 A4 D1 D2 D3 D4
l1 1
00
l2 70
36 1
00
l3 0
29 70
35 1
00
l4 0
53 70
49 0
51 1
00
A1 0
28 70
23 0
30 0
29 1
00
A2 0
42 70
29 0
45 0
53 0
42 1
00
A3 0
42 70
29 0
47 0
52 0
38 0
85 1
00
A4 0
42 70
35 0
41 0
52 0
37 0
65 0
67 1
00
D1 0
51 70
33 0
37 0
41 0
39 0
58 0
57 0
46 1
00
D2 0
42 70
27 0
30 0
31 0
33 0
58 0
59 0
45 0
62 1
00
D3 70
15 0
15 70
21 70
19 70
23 70
33 70
32 70
28 70
40 70
38 1
00
D4 70
35 0
27 70
31 70
40 70
27 70
54 70
54 70
42 70
45 70
41 0
40 1
00