The Value of Place Meaning: Practical Applications for the Future

For a number of years, recreation researchers have known that an integral component of the recreation experience is the setting in which it takes place. Researchers have collectively amassed a diverse body of research related to the recreation setting, which is often referred to as place meaning research.

Traditionally, the meaning of place has been an area of inquiry for human geographers, environmental psychologists, sociologists, and design professionals (Moore & Graefe, 1994). Although research interest in the meaning of place may have burgeoned in the 1980s for these fields of study (Cuba & Hummon, 1993), it was just catching on in the recreation field.

Initially, recreation researchers were interested in place meaning research because they believed that a better understanding of the importance of the recreation setting might lead to better recreation services management. Throughout the past 20 years, research findings have stimulated an evolution in the theoretical approach to place meaning investigations from a commodity approach to a more comprehensive approach, observing recreation settings as holistic entities. This article outlines the evolution of place meaning research in recreation and offers some implications of this evolution for the provision of leisure/recreation services in the future.

The Evolution of Place Meaning Research

Place meaning studies in the recreation field initially investigated the relationships between the attributes of the recreation setting and recreationists' behaviors (Scheyer, Jacob, & White, 1981), satisfaction levels (McCool, Stankey, & Clark, 1984), and recreation choice behaviors (Scheyer, Knopf, & Williams, 1985). Researchers have theorized that by identifying the key setting attributes used to support recreation activities (Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989), recreation resource management could be improved to better serve participants. Following an activity or experience model of recreation management, these relationships between setting attributes and specific activities/experiences are believed to be focal points on which recreation planners and managers could concentrate their efforts (Moore & Graefe, 1994).

These types of investigations used a commodity perspective of the recreation setting that "perpetuate[d] the notion that recreation settings are theoretically interchangeable, even reproducible ..." (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992, p. 30). Some researchers criticized this approach, claiming that places are unique, not interchangeable, and that the relationship between the meaning of place and the substitutability of place is actually an inverse relationship (Williams, et al., 1992). That is, the more meaning an individual has attached to a specific place, the less likely that individual will be to substitute another place for the first. In response to such criticism, recreation researchers in the early 1990s explored the possibility that the meaning of place arose from more than just the sum of its attributes and that places tend to be experienced as holistic entities (Fishwick & Vining, 1992). In a seminal piece of research in this gestalt view of place meaning, Williams and Carr (1993) conceptualized the meaning of place within Fournier's framework of object meaning, where place meaning is comprised of three distinctive features: the tangibility, the emotionality, and the communality of place.

Tangibility: A Sense of Place

Williams and Carr (1993) contended that place meaning is based on the emotional tie an individual or culture has with a place, stating that this bond may originate from actual experiences at that place or may be more abstract in nature, resulting from symbolic processes over long periods of time. The tangibility of place, or sense of place, is more attune to this symbolic or abstract meaning of place. Shamari (1991) suggested that it might be best to think of sense of place metaphorically, as an umbrella concept that includes several other place-related concepts (e.g., attachment to place, place identity, place dependence, images, and landscapes). He defined it as, "the composite of the complex set of meanings, attributes, symbols, and qualities that a person or group associates with a particular locality or region" (Datel & Dingemen, 1984 in Shamari, 1991).

Many investigations of the sense of place concept are both specific to a particular place and descriptive, thus they cannot be generalized from one place to another (Shamari, 1991). The complexity and perplexity of sense of place is at least partially attributed to the fact that individuals can perceive the same setting and its attributes in different manners and that an individual can hold more than one perception of a specific place. For example, research in the late 1980s indicated that sense of place is not uniformly experienced and that individuals' sense of a place may be different depending on sociocultural and sociodemographic variables (Eyles, 1985; Perkins, 1988). In his exploratory examination of a sense of place scale, Shamari envisioned multiple senses of a place as simply being differing levels of intensity. Conversely, through key informant interviews in his study of four rural Pennsylvania counties, Burr (1995) identified multiple senses of the same place and found evidence that commodity, social, and environmental or landscape senses of place could be associated with one's family and genealogical roots. Likewise, results from Beeson, Stewart, and Stokowski's (1996) examination of individuals' interaction with Gunnison National Forest revealed that a place or setting can have several identities both within and across individuals. These researchers, while conceding the difficulty of defining and empirically measuring sense of place, emphasize its importance to better understand the complex relationships between decision making, behavior, and the management of recreation resources.

Emotionality: Place Attachment

Most recreation researchers investigating the meaning of place agree that place meaning is a personal, emotive process in which individuals, while interacting with a place, become attached to that place (Williams et al., 1992). Throughout the past few years, place meaning research in the recreation field seems to have focused on this emotional attachment to place. Emotional bonds are commonly interpreted as feelings of place attachment (Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989). Pocock and Hudson's (1978) contention that place meaning often results from the assignment of meaning based on prior use, emotional attachment, and symbolism, seems to be supported by recreation research. Place attachment within the recreation research has generally been conceptualized as consisting of two forms: place identity--the emotional attachment to a place as a form of self-identity; and place dependence--the value of a place for its activity-related attributes, a setting for action (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1992; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989).

Place Dependence

Williams and Roggenbuck (1989) described place dependence as a situation where the importance or value of the place is based on the setting's attributes or resource base itself. That is, the individual becomes attached to a place because of its usefulness for satisfying the individual's needs and goals. This has been referred to as a functional or commodity meaning of the place, where the setting serves as a backdrop for enjoying the leisure activity (Williams, et al., 1992; Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995). This form of place attachment was the focus of earlier recreation-setting research that examined the setting attributes and their relationship to recreationists' satisfaction levels, the substitutability of places, and recreation choice behaviors.

Place Identity

Typically, place identity is intertwined with strong emotional feelings. "Often a place evokes such emotions when it is associated with significant historical events, an identifiable reference group, or symbolic ... values, ideas, ideologies, or beliefs ..." (Russell & Snodgrass, 1987, p. 265). Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson (1992) argued that at times the emotive bond with a place can be so intense that this personal attachment to a place can be an essential element in defining who a person is. Thus, "place identity [has been] defined as an interpretation of self that uses environmental meaning to symbolize or situate [personal] identity" (Cuba & Hummon, 1993, p. 546).

Commonality: Social Constructs of Place Meaning

Although the meaning associated with a particular place may be unique to the individual, a destination may at times embody shared meanings as a symbol endowed with cultural significance, a social imageability (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). Stokowski (1991) believed these collectively held meanings to be created through both social interaction and social relationships. Williams and Carr (1993) attribute this to the fact that humans are essentially social beings, not autonomous organisms. An individual seeks out and assigns meanings to the environment, and the creation or formulation of that particular perception is not done in a vacuum--it is an interactive process. Greider and Garkovich (1994) theorized that this is the case for many natural settings; that is, they are symbolically transformed via self-definitions into sociocultural phenomena. Although individuals are able to assign personal meaning to places, the influences of their respective cultures are so natural and subconscious that they are often indistinguishable from the individual's self-definitions. The result is that many of these places become socially and/or culturally constructed through social processes such as social interaction. Stokowski and Antholine (1995) have stated that this social construct of sense of place becomes more obvious at the local level during times of conflict when "... defining place is an exercise in community power, positioning, and suppression" (p. 79).

There is a great need for further investigation of the tangibility, emotionality, and commonality of place meaning, and the research to date suggests that the meaning of place, especially the recreation setting, is an important component of recreation choice and behavior. Perhaps Stokowski (1991) summarized this literature best when she wrote,

   [P]eople seem to have some positive, affective sentiments for certain
   places ... these sentiments are elevated into communal meaning, and
   sometimes behavioral decisions based on the strength of those sentiments
   are enacted (p. 2).

Since the mid-1990s, place meaning, with its tangibility (sense of place), emotionality (place dependence/place identity), and the commonality (social imageability), has been utilized in past recreation research to investigate many issues the recreation professional will continue to face in the future including:

* User conflicts (Hawkins, 1996; Hawkins & Backman, 1997; Hoger & Chavez, 1998, Williams et al., 1992)

* Public involvement in recreation resource management (Kaltenborn, 1997; Kruger, 1996; Moore & Graefe, 1994)

* Recreation resource planning and management (Menning & Field, 1997; Norton & Hannon, 1997; Riden, 1995; Stokowski & Antholine, 1995)

* Environmental issues and management (Freye & Virden, 1998).

* Tourism development (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990; Bricker, Kersetter, & Walsh, 1996; Erickson & Roberts, 1997; Squire, 1994; Walsh, Jamrozy, & Burr, 1998)

The theoretical approach of these types of studies indicates yet another step in the evolution of place meaning research--an evolution that parallels the progression found in recreation management theory.

The Changing Marketplace of Leisure Services

Recreation service providers will likely face a fragmented, rapidly changing, technologically dependent marketplace in the future (Godbey, 1997; Kelly & Freysinger, 2000; Kraus, 2000). Godbey believes that recreation professionals will need to be more efficient, more agile, and more innovative as they customize their services, information, and products. According to Godbey, a significant factor initiating this change will be that service providers will face more demanding customers who have more leisure and recreation options to meet their higher expectations. He recommends that service providers become more agile, creating and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships by treating clients fairly. He also suggests that recreation providers offer diverse, customized services/products in order to create close, long-term, and mutually beneficial interactive customer relationships.

Godbey's suggestion is a significant change from the traditional approach of providing activities and/or experiences based on the attributes of the recreation setting to an approach that delivers benefit opportunities for clients. To implement such a change, recreation service providers will need to first consider how clientele perceive their services. Managers of both indoor and outdoor facilities may need to redefine who they are and what they do in an effort to communicate benefit opportunities to the public. A better understanding of the advances made in recent years in place meaning research could empower recreation practitioners to be more efficient and effective in the promotion of the benefit opportunities associated with their leisure/recreation services.

Implications

Taken as a whole, place meaning research suggests that recreation resource providers and managers should consider not only the attributes of their recreation setting, but also the emotional and symbolic value individuals attach to these settings (Williams et al., 1992). This may be especially true for recreation professionals who are attempting to create a more responsive delivery system, as in the case of those interested in the benefit-based management of recreation services. This approach to recreation resource management is a cutting-edge response to the changing world of recreation and leisure opportunity provision (Dustin, McAvoy, & Goodale, 1999).

The benefit-based approach to recreation management is intended to allow management to target the amenity resource-based opportunities that will benefit the participants (Godbey, 1997). Once management has identified these benefit opportunities, it must then communicate these benefits to both individuals and the general public. A shift to benefit-based recreation services/products dictates that recreation providers reconsider how clients perceive them, their missions, and their services. Place meaning research focused on the tangibility, emotionality, and commonality of place meaning may provide recreation professionals with a unique framework from which to address how they are being perceived.

The benefit-based management of recreation services and resources has been touted as a viable means to achieve greater public acceptance of recreation as an essential public service (Allen, Hurtes, & Stevens, 1999), which may in turn lead to greater public understanding and support (Kraus, 2000). In essence, recreation service providers are encouraged to cultivate a more vibrant social image for recreation services and facilities; that is, they are being asked to demonstrate a stronger relationship between communal or societal benefits and recreation participation (Allen, Hurtes, & Stevens, 1999) in hopes that such efforts will lead to a social understanding of the value of recreation services and ultimately elevate the recreation profession to its rightful place in society.

Because recreation participants' experiences are more likely to seek a setting with attributes that initially meet their needs and interests, the first step in establishing this collectively held image of recreation is to strengthen the tangibility of services and/or facilities. In order for the general populace to benefit from recreation programs and facilities, it must first have some sense of what providers (or places) have to offer. Without this knowledge, potential recreation patrons may never even consider participating in services or visiting recreation settings because they are unaware of the benefits of doing so. This tangibility has also been identified as a key component in the process of creating an important and meaningful experience (Molnar & Rutledge, 1992). Regardless of whether one manages outdoor resources or indoor facilities, the place/service must have a strong enough character to produce an impression that the customers can identify and label. In an increasingly more competitive marketplace, recreation service providers must create strong images to capture the clients' attention, as the sense one holds of a place or experience can influence his/her expectations and perceptions of that place and/or experience (Fishwick & Vining, 1992). Therefore, these images must readily convey the ample opportunities that will encourage individuals to participate in the service or recreation experiences offered.

Place meaning research suggests that the more attached one becomes to a place, a product, or a service the less likely he or she is to substitute it for another. It indicates that only through multiple, direct experiences at a particular place/facility or with a service, an individual will form a strong sense of attachment and loyalty to that place or service. Therefore, recreation resource managers should develop and market services and products that nurture an attachment to their facilities and services, encouraging the development of dependency and identity. When an attachment is formed between the customer and a particular service or experience, it is more likely that a long-term relationship can be created between the client and the provider--the kind proposed by Godbey (1997) as being necessary in the future marketplace.

Communicating Benefit Opportunities

Recreation professionals implementing a benefit-based management approach to meet the needs of more demanding customers who have more recreation options might consider the implications of redefining their recreation settings and/or services in terms of conclusions found in place meaning research. Effectively communicating benefit opportunities to the public should include efforts to create:

* A commonly held view (social image-ability) of the benefits of recreation experiences,

* A tangible sense of benefits associated with the experience of a specific recreation setting or service, and

* Attachments between the customers and the specific service and/or experience being provided.

References

Allen, L. R., Hurtes, D. K., & Stevens, B. (1999). Making an impact. Parks & Recreation, 34(11), 68-77.

Ashworth, G. J. & Voogd, H. (1990). Can places be sold for tourism? In G. J. Ashworth and B. Goodall (Eds.) Marketing Tourism Places. London: Routledge. pp. 1-16.

Beeson, J. E., Stewart, W. P. & Stokowski, P. A. (1996). Environmental settings and social interaction: The construction of place identity. Book of Abstracts for The Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. May 18-23, 1996.

Bricker, K., Kerstetter, D. & Welsh, J. (1996). An exploratory analysis of place-identity and its relationship to sociodemographic and tourism behavior variables. Book of Abstracts for The Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. May 18-23.

Burr, S. W. (1995b). The rural action class's perceptions of rural tourism in relation to their sense of place--an exploratory study. Proceedings of the 1995 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, April 9-11, 1995. Saratoga Springs, New York: State Parks Management and Research Institute. pp. 167-172.

Cuba, L. & Hummon, D. M. (1993). Constructing a sense of home: Place affiliation and migration across the life cycle. Sociological Forum, 8(4), 547-572.

Dustin, D. L., McAvoy, L. H. & Goodale, T. L. (1999). The benefits equation. Parks & Recreation, 34(1), 32-37.

Erickson, B. & Roberts, M. (1997). Marketing local identity. Journal of Urban Design, 2(1), 35-60.

Eyles, J. (1985). Senses of Place. Cheshire, England: Silverbrook Press.

Fishwick, L. & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phenomenology of recreation place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 57-63.

Freye, K. B. & Virden, R. J. (1998). A conservation with Navajo about the meaning of place attachment. Book of Abstracts for The Seventh International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO. May 27-31.

Gibbons, S. & Ruddell, E. J. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171-183.

Godbey, G. (1997). Leisure and Leisure Services in the 21st Century. State College, PA: Venture.

Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59, 1-24.

Hawkins, G. (1996). Meaning and management: Excavating subtleties often overlooked in conventional recreation research. Book of Abstracts for The Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. May 18-23.

Hawkins, G. & Backman, K. (1997). Sensing displacement: Sense of place as a possible concept in nature-based Vacationer and Sightseer conflict. Abstracts from the 1997 Symposium on Leisure Research. Salt Lake City, Utah, October 29-November 2, 1997. National Recreation and Park Association.

Hoger, J. L. & Chavez, D. J. (1998). Conflict and management tactics on the trail. Research Update: Parks & Recreation, 33(9), 41-56.

Kaltenborn, B.P. (1997). Nature of place attachment: A study among recreation homeowners in southern Norway. Leisure Sciences, 19, 175-189.

Kelly, J.R. & Freysinger, V.J. (2000). 21st Century Leisure: Current Issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kraus, R. (2000). Leisure in a Changing America: Trends and Issues for the 21st Century. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kruger, L. (1996). Making sense of place: Understanding and developing relationships between people and place while building community capacity through participatory placemaking strategies. Book of Abstracts for The Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. May 18-23.

Menning, N. L. & Field, D. R. (1997). Social construction of leisure settings and recreation places: A theoretical perspective. Abstracts from the 1997 Symposium on Leisure Research. Salt Lake City, Utah, October 29-November 2, 1997. National Recreation and Park Association.

Molnar, D. J. & Rutledge, A. J. (1992). The aesthetic considerations. Anatomy of a Park: The Essentials of Recreation Area Planning and Design (pp. 35-48). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

McCool, S. F., 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.

Norton, B.G. & Hannon, B. (1997). Environmental values: A place-based approach. Environmental Ethics. 19(3), 227-246.

Perkins, H. C. (1988) Bulldozers in the southern part of heaven: Defending place against rapid growth. Environment and Planning A, 2, pp. 285-308, 435-456.

Pocock, D. & Hudson, R. (1978). Images of the Urban Environment. London: Macmillan.

Riden, C. M. (1995). Community Attachment, Sense of Place, and Attitudes Towards Tourism: A Study of Residents in the Mt. Rogers Area of Southwest Virginia. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 246-280). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schreyer, R., Jacob, G. & White, R. (1981) Environmental meaning as a determinant of spatial behavior in recreation. In Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conferences, 4, 294-300.

Schreyer, R., Knopf, R. C., & Williams, D. R. (1983). Reconceptualizing the motive/environment link in recreation choice behavior. In G. H. Stankey & S. F. McCool (Compilers) Proceedings--Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior (pp. 9-17) Missoula, Montana, March 22-23, 1984.

Shamari, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347-358.

Squire, S. J. (1994). Accounting for cultural meanings: The interface between geography and tourism studies re-examined. Progress in Human Geography, 18, 1-16

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J.H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment (pp. 441-488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stokowski, P. A. (1991). "Sense of place" as a social construct. Paper presented at the 1991 National Recreation and Parks Association Research Symposium, Baltimore, MD.

Stokowski, P. A. & Antholine, W. (1995). Applications of a sociological approach to "sense of place." In V. J. Freysinger, P. Stokowski, & W. Hendricks (Eds.) Abstracts of the Papers and Presentations at the 1995 Leisure Research Symposium (p. 79). October 5-8, 1995, San Antonio, TX: Miami University, Texas A&M University, and National Recreation and Park Association Resource Development Division.

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum.

Walsh, J. A., Jamrozy, U., & Burr, S. W. (1998) Sense of place as a component of sustainable tourism marketing. Book of Abstracts for The Seventh International Symposium on Society and Resource Management: Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO. May 27-31.

Williams, D. R., & Carr, D. S. (1993). The sociocultural meanings of outdoor recreation places. In A. W. Ewert, D. J. Chavez, & A. W. Magill (Eds.) Culture, Conflict, and Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface (pp. 205-219). Boulder, CO: Westview.

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.

Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. Paper presented at the Symposium on Outdoor Recreation Planning and Management, NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research. San Antonio, TX. October 22-27, 1989.

Jeffrey A. Walsh, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance at Southwest Texas State University.

Research Update is edited by Dr. Irma O'Dell of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and Kim L. Siegenthaler, Ph.D. of Appalachian State University.

COPYRIGHT 2000 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group