CS

SC

a

ARRAA

KSMIA

1

rlmabbWpra

isa(taToad

0d

Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

ommunity values and attitudes towards land use on the Gnangara Groundwaterystem: A Sense of Place study in Perth, Western Australia

orada Tapsuwan ∗, Zoe Leviston, David TuckerSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 4 March 2010eceived in revised form 1 September 2010ccepted 27 September 2010vailable online 8 December 2010

a b s t r a c t

Climate change is exacerbating an ever increasing demand on Perth’s traditional water sources. One ofthese water sources is the Gnangara Groundwater System (GGS). Land uses above the Groundwater Sys-tem directly affects water infiltration and subsequent aquifer recharge and, as such, need to be carefullyconsidered to ensure future water supply security for Perth. Community acceptance has been demon-strated to be an integral component of effective land use planning. The psychological concept of Sense of

eywords:tructural equation modellingultivariate analysis

nternet surveyustralia

Place (incorporating the notions of identity, attachment and dependence) can be used to predict intentionto accept or reject land use planning decisions. Results from a Sense of Place study indicated that threedistinct constructs emerge, which are the cognitive, emotional and behavioural bonds with places on theGGS. Sense of Place is not limited to only people who live in the GGS area but to all Perth people. Findingsfrom this study defy the traditional assumption that Sense of Place is dependant to some extent on prox-

policof a p

imity to the location. Themanagement boundaries

. Introduction

One of the main challenges to sustainable land planning isesolving disputes among competing stakeholders over the use ofimited natural resources (Frame et al., 2004). Often, local com-

unities are a major stakeholder in this process and can be mostlyffected by the planning decision. Planning decisions that are madeased on engineering and economic efficiency are often influencedy political judgement rather than the desire of the community.hen local communities are not involved in the decision-making

rocess, the outcome is generally a land use plan that does noteflect the needs, concerns and values of the communities (Mootend McClaran, 1996).

Public participation in land planning became increasinglymportant world-wide in the 1960s when there was public dis-atisfaction with government centralisation of decision makingnd mistrust of the scientific bases for administrative decisionsReynolds, 1969; Moote and McClaran, 1996). Since then, legisla-ions have been put in place to ensure that public participation isn integral component of government decision-making processes.

hese include, for example, the US National Environmental Policy Actf 1969, which mandates that citizen input be procured every timenatural resource or public works agency contemplates a major

evelopment project (Van Leuven, 1980) and the Australian Pro-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 9333 6730; fax: +61 8 9333 6211.E-mail address: sorada.tapsuwan@csiro.au (S. Tapsuwan).

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.09.006

y implication is that social boundaries can extend beyond geographical orlace.

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

tection of Public Participation Act 2008, which protects the right ofthe public to participate in social and political activates of a rangeof issues (ACT Parliamentary Counsel, 2009).

Applied social economic studies allow policy decisions to bemade based not only on political and monetary benefits but also oncommunity preferences and social welfare outcomes. It is impor-tant to incorporate community preferences into planning as, whileplanning decisions may be technically sound, they may over-look intangible values that make proposed planning less or moreacceptable to the community as a whole (or to specific groupswithin the community). Lack of consultation with the communityregarding planning decisions also carries the risk of the perceivedmarginalisation of community attitudes, and consequently caninflate controversy and associated political pressures surroundingdecisions. This is especially evident when planning decisions relateto issues that invoke emotional or affective responses (Slovic, 1993;Po et al., 2004).

The level of emotional connection with a place has been shownempirically to have an effect on people’s willingness to protect it(Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Tucker et al., 2006). Walker and Ryan(2008) suggested that there is a strong positive correlation betweenlocal residents’ attachment to the rural landscape and their levelof support for conservation planning. Seabrook et al. (2008) found

that Australian farmers’ decision to retain tree cover on their farmsfor environmental enhancement is influenced by social, economicand cultural factors. In Chicago, residents were more inclined tosupport landscape changes in their community if their sense ofmeaning for their community was acknowledged and legitimized

nd Urb

tcrti

dptFcnsHrCmmshe(t

iGrTbtietnateac

tumcttiafSS(ttm

2

2

awet

S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

hrough a planning process, which further enhanced a sense ofommunity (Stewart et al., 2004). People’s attachment to their sur-ounding residential environment is reflected in their tendencyo give favourable evaluations of their dwelling place, reasons formproving it and their reluctance to leave (Bonaiuto et al., 2003).

Previous research suggests that groups of people with differentemographics, places of residence, activities and interests dis-lay different patterns of Place attachment and regional identityowards the same environmental object (Bonaiuto et al., 2002).or example, older people and people from lower socio-economiclasses develop stronger attachments to their home places oreighbourhoods than do younger people or those in higherocio-economic classes (McAndrew, 1998). Similarly, Hidalgo andernández (2001) found a significant interaction between spatial

ange and age on Place attachment in a study of residents in Santaruz, Spain. In the same study, it was found that women developore attachment to the house, the neighbourhood and the city thanen. Similarly, research on place meaning and mental mapping

uggest that women are more likely than men to speak of theiromes in emotional terms and to use the home as a spatial refer-nce point (Cuba and Hummon, 1993). Conversely, Bonaiuto et al.1999) found gender to have no significant impact on attachmento place.

In Perth, Western Australia, the State Government is investigat-ng various land use and land management practices on the Gnagararoundwater System (GGS) that will allow for increased rainfall

echarge into the aquifer and decreased groundwater extraction.his is to ensure that the precious groundwater resource woulde available for the use of future generations to come. In 2006,he Gnangara Sustainability Strategy was established to design anntegrated land and water management plan that will maximizeconomic, social and environmental benefits. Dramatic changes inhe landscape that will permanently alter the aesthetic qualities,umber of native species, type and number of industries and recre-tion activities is expected. The challenge facing policy makers inhe context of the GGS is how to derive the maximum economic andnvironmental benefit from changing land uses and water man-gement regime with the least amount of negative impact on theommunity.

This paper presents findings from a study, which was under-aken as part of the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy to betternderstand the social implications of future land use and wateranagement policies on community attitude towards landscape

hanges. The purpose of the study is twofold. First, the study aimso determine the value, significance and extent of places of impor-ance on the GGS placed by members of the Perth community. Its hypothesized that there is heterogeneity in community valuesnd views towards different aspects of places on the GGS. Specificocus is on gender, residential location and time spent in Perth.econd, the study aimed to assess the appropriateness of using theense of Place (SOP) construct proposed by Jorgensen and Stedman2001) as a framework for understanding land use preferences. Tohe authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper in Australia to applyhe tripartite SOP construct in the context of multiple land use

anagement and groundwater planning.

. A literature review of SOP

.1. What is ‘SOP’?

Sense of Place refers to the emotional and physical bond thatn individual has towards a place. It is shown most clearly in theay the community feels about and uses the landscape (Seddon

t al., 1972). Individuals are shaped by their physical surroundingshrough experiences that they have had there (McAndrew, 1998).

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34 25

Although SOP is a relatively well-established concept in social sci-ence research (Jorgensen and Stedman, 2006), it still remains anelusive concept in ecosystem management (Williams and Stewart,1998). The perceived elusiveness may stem from its openness tomultiple interpretations and its intangible nature. A number ofpapers have tried to define SOP with varying degrees of difference.Cantrill and Senecah (2001) summarized the theoretical definitionsof SOP construct into three main groups. The first group considersSOP as personal and collective meanings that intersect at a partic-ular physical site. The second group sees SOP as the bond betweenindividuals and particular places. The third group believes that SOPis the perception of what is most salient in a specific location, whichmay be reflected in value preferences. With its definition spanningboth the psychological and physical space, SOP offers great poten-tial to bridge the gap between the science of ecosystems and theirmanagement because it offers ecosystem managers a way to under-stand and respond to the emotional and spiritual bonds people formwith certain places (Williams and Stewart, 1998).

2.2. What is a ‘place’?

A ‘place’ can be described in terms of multidimensional phys-ical and psychological attributes, such as the physical size of theenvironmental asset and the symbolic influence it has on an indi-vidual through personal, cultural and social processes (Pretty et al.,2003). Hence, a place does not always have to be a physical location.Place means human and physical environments combined (Shamai,1991). Places of social value are places that provide, for example,“a spiritual or traditional connection between past and present; tiethe past affectionately to the present; provide an essential referencepoint for a community’s identity or sense of itself; or have shapedsome aspect of community behaviour or attitudes”, as explained byJohnston (1992, p. 7).

Tuan (1977) and Greider and Garkovich (1994) suggest thatspace becomes place through the human act of conferring meaningto the environment or endowing it value. By contrast, Stedmand(2003) argued that construction of place meaning is not exclu-sively social and that the physical environment itself contributesto SOP. This argument is supported by others, including Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996), Hidalgo and Hernández (2001) and Uzzellet al. (2002). Twigger-Ross and Uzzell found in their study of Placeidentity in Surrey Docks, England, that the physical quality of a placecan provide positive self-esteem. This is evidenced by respondents’statements, such as “I think generally people who come to visit meand haven’t been before are surprised . . . pleasantly so at the green”.In a study of Place attachment in Spain, Hidalgo and Hernándezascertained social and physical attachment to a place by asking par-ticipants how much they would be sorry if people they lived withmoved out of their homes (social attachment) and if they (the partic-ipants) had to move along with the people they lived with (physicalattachment). Results from their analysis suggest that people feelattached to both the social and physical dimension of a place.In an empirical analysis of place identification, social cohesionand environmental sustainability, Uzzell et al. (2002) found thata strong sense of identification with one’s neighbourhood does notnecessarily translate into pro-sustainable and pro-environmentalbehaviours unless the surrounding environment has sufficient dis-tinctive architectural and environmental properties to differentiateit from other locations.

2.3. The theoretical construct of SOP

Psychological SOP is a theoretical construct which examinesthree components of an individual’s relationship with a location(Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). These components are typi-cally Place identity, Place attachment and Place dependence. The

2 nd Urb

taa(1ieu2aabtpvrppbtcci(pb1

itgtpass

6 S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

heoretical conception of attachment to place describes Placettachment as comprised of person’s identity (Place identity) withplace and a person’s dependence (Place dependence) on a place

Proshansky et al., 1983; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Williams et al.,995; Williams and Roggenbuck, 1989). A competing viewpoint

s that an overall SOP is tripartite and multidimensional withach dimension representing different components of an individ-al’s attitude (see Stedman, 2002; Nanzer, 2004; Tucker et al.,006; Jorgensen and Stedman, 2006). According to Jorgensennd Stedman (2001), these three components can be regardeds attitudes, and therefore organise into cognitive, emotive andehavioural components. Place identity can be conceptualised ashe cognitive component of SOP. It is the relationship betweenersonal dimensions (e.g. ideas, beliefs, preferences, thoughts,alues, goals and behavioural tendencies) and the physical envi-onment (Proshansky, 1978), referring to thoughts about specifichysical settings and how these settings provide meaning andurpose to life (Proshansky et al., 1983). Place dependence is theehavioural component and relates to the strength of the rela-ionship between an individual and the ability of a place to fulfilertain instrumental needs (Stedman, 2002). It is an activity-basedonnection that reflects the importance of the place in provid-ng conditions that support an intended use, such as recreationBrown and Raymond, 2007). Place attachment is the emotive com-onent of SOP and refers to a positive emotional bond that developsetween the individual and their environment (Altman and Low,992).

While there is support for the tripartite model in empirical stud-es, it should be acknowledged that the distinction between thehree components is not always clear. For example, in 2001 Jor-ensen and Stedman developed a strong theoretical case for the

ripartite model but failed to present compelling evidence in sup-ort, finding that the correlations between the components meantsingle general SOP factor was more appropriate. While their 2006

tudy was able to show strong support for the tripartite model, ithould still be acknowledged that the difference between the con-

Fig. 1. The Gnangara Groundwater

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

structs are subtle, can at times be hard to detect and may vary basedon the context.

To fulfil the second research purpose, this study aims to establishwhether Perth’s community attitude towards places of impor-tance on the GGS fall under a tripartite multidimensional constructframework, as proposed by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001).

3. Case study: Land uses on the Gnangara GroundwaterSystem

The GGS is situated in the southwest region of Western Australia(see Fig. 1) and covers an area of approximately 214,896 ha(at approximately 52 km wide and 84 km long), including theentire northern metropolitan of Perth. Land uses include 69,000 haof native woodlands, 22,000 ha of commercial pine plantation,20,600 ha of the Commonwealth Department of Defence and Unal-located Crown Land, 2500 of agricultural and horticultural land,37,174 ha of urban land and 3569 of urban-deferred land (areaearmarked for future urban expansion).

There are over 50 wetlands on the GGS, some of which remainwet all year round; some have dried up and have been encroachedby natural vegetation; and some that have been artificially main-tained to prevent them from permanently drying out. Wetlandsprovide social and ecological values in terms of ecological val-ues, wetlands support groundwater dependent ecosystems, suchas Banksia woodlands, Tuart trees, migratory waterfowl and micro-scopic vertebrates (see Sommer et al., 2008; Appleyard and Cook,2009; Wilson, 2009). Beckwith (2006) summarized social valuesof wetlands on the GGS as having aesthetic, Aboriginal heritage,European heritage, birding/nature observation, recreational (e.g.picnic, walking, running and cycling), education and research val-

ues. Tapsuwan et al. (2008), in an extensive literature review ofsocial values on the GGS, indicated that there are social values asso-ciated with not only wetlands but also with the pine plantationand native bushland and conservation areas that warrant furtherevaluation. Knowledge gaps identified by Tapsuwan et al. (2008)

System, Western Australia.

nd Urb

iutp

p2u(ad2dpcsfid1Gi

awaswaovueaetcmTfffr

tduip

S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

nclude emotional bonds that people have to places; intrinsic val-es or non-use values attached to places; values associated withhe emotional connection to nature; and recreational values thatromote community well-being.

Approximately 1.6 M people (76% of the total Western Australiaopulation) currently live in the Perth metropolitan region (WAPC,005). Aided by mining growth in Western Australia, the Perth pop-lation is growing at a rate of approximately 22,500 people per yearor 1.4% per year). The Australian Bureau of Statistics projected thatn additional 12,340 homes will be required each year to accommo-ate population growth over the period from 2006 to 2011 (WAPC,005). With population growth comes an increased demand forrinking water. The GGS is the main source of drinking water sup-ly for Perth, providing around 165 GL a year for residential andommercial use. This is equivalent to 65% of total urban water con-umption each year. Continued drier climate conditions, extractionor public and private purposes and reduced recharge has resultedn groundwater storages in the upper and mid parts of the GGSeclining by about 20 GL per year between the late 1980s and late990s, and by about 45 GL per year since the late 1990s (see Fig. 2).roundwater levels have fallen by up to 5 m in some areas, resulting

n wetlands drying.The main source of contention surrounding groundwater man-

gement on the GGS relates to who should have priority overater use. The main water users are the urban sector (residential

nd commercial), the agricultural sector, the commercial forestryector, parks and recreation areas and the environment (such asetlands). With the declining groundwater level, maintaining the

llocation to one user will necessitate lowering the allocation ofther users. The urban sector has been identified as the highestalue user in terms of the economic benefit derived from everynit of water (Marsden Jacob Associates, 2006). The benefit to thenvironment has yet to be determined due to the complexities ofrriving with a benefit estimation that truly reflects ‘all’ the ben-fits to the environment. Cutting back groundwater allocation tohe horticulture sector could affect the viability of this sector. As aonsequence, fruit and vegetables normally supplied to the Pertharket from this region would have to be obtained from elsewhere.

here are also repercussions of jobs losses in this sector. Apartrom employment, the commercial pine forestry provides timberor furniture production, aesthetic views to passers by and is usedor recreation, including motor recreation, bush walking and horseiding.

Given the relationship between SOP and willingness to pro-ect, it is important to understand the SOP associated with the

istinct geographical features of the GGS, as resistance to landse changes would likely be more prevalent where strong SOP

s found. An assessment of the current social values towardslaces of significance on the GGS was therefore considered as

Fig. 2. Changes in groundwa

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34 27

one of the decision-making inputs of the Gnangara SustainabilityStrategy.

During May/June 2008, four community forums were organ-ised to identify and understand the community’s attitudes andviews towards proposed trade-offs associated with groundwatermanagement. An additional purpose was to ascertain whetherthe community cited SOP constructs as important and multi-dimensional in their decision-making processes. A total of 137representatives from the state and local governments and inter-est groups attended the forums (Sands, 2008). The forums took theform of facilitated workshops, requiring attendees to respond toa series of focused questions. Each participant was given a book-let containing a set of questions outlined in the workshops. A totalof 57 individual booklets and 14 group booklets (booklets com-pleted by a table of participants) were received (some participantsdid not return their individual booklets as they provided all theinformation they wanted to in the group booklet). A thematic anal-ysis was performed upon the content of these booklets (Sands,2008).

A number of themes emerged from the community forums, assummarized in Sands (2008). In general, there was a strong supportfor these natural areas to be offered adequate long-term protec-tion from urbanisation and human influences. Participants reportedthat they most frequently visited those places that were local tothem, particularly in light of fuel prices. There was support to retainthe horticulture industry close to Perth, in particular viticulture inthe Swan Valley. Participants supported the use of recycled waterto augment water levels in wetlands and environmentally sensitiveareas so long as the public health issues and contaminants weremanaged. They were supportive in principle of allowing wetlandsto dry and adapt with the naturally occurring seasonal cycles, butexpressed concerns of acidification threats. However, they werenot supportive of wetlands drying from human activities, such asover-pumping, nor were they supportive of wetlands with highbiodiversity and social values being allowed to dry out. Some par-ticipants felt that higher levels of bushland retention needed to beset, especially in regions of higher population densities where the‘traditional backyard’ is lost’.

Natural areas were considered highly important by participantsand have important social, environmental and cultural values.Some participants expressed the view that, while they did notvisit natural areas often, it was important for them to know theywere there. The economic and social values of agricultural andviticultural areas were also highly rated, and the importance ofmaintaining a rural lifestyle near the city highlighted. While the

high water use and low biodiversity value of the pine plantationswas noted by some participants, many participants valued theplantations for their employment opportunities and local timberservices. Many participants expressed the sentiment that places of

ter storage on the GGS.

2 nd Urb

ew

4

4

apisclvtiti

nwirceutcil

4

totsiwdoib

t

•

•

•

•

•

taiSbt

8 S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

nvironmental significance should be restricted and managed in aay to protect it for future generations.

. Methodology

.1. Scoping survey

Following the community forums and before the main survey,scoping survey was conducted to confirm that the issues and

laces of importance raised in the forums were congruent withssues of concern to the broader public. In addition, the scopingurvey served to identify further issues not elicited as part of theommunity forums. Sands (2008) commented that not all types ofandscapes were discussed during the community forum and thatery few comments of visitation rate were provided. Therefore,o fill in this knowledge gap, additional questions were includedn the scoping survey to elicit demographic details, rate of visita-ion, and reasons for why each place of significance on the GGS wasmportant to the respondents.

The scoping survey took the form of an internet based question-aire. A total of 55 people participated in the survey. Participantsere recruited from an internet panel of respondents belong-

ng to an independent survey company. These participants areecruited from the general public, unlike participants from theommunity forums who were mostly representatives from the gov-rnment or interest groups. A random sampling technique wassed to select respondents from suburbs within the GGS. Descrip-ive statistics based on frequency and average ranking of responsesonfirmed that places of importance on the GGS, the reasons for themportance and the types of recreational activities performed wereargely congruent with those elicited in the community forums.

.2. Main survey

The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The first sec-ion provided a background about the GGS’s location, the typesf current land uses, the groundwater system flow and interac-ion with surface water, the main users of groundwater, a timeeries of groundwater table levels and the current issues surround-ng the declining groundwater level. The purpose of this section

as to aid respondents’ understanding of the GGS and the currenteclining groundwater situation. Respondents were also informedf the trade-offs between land use and groundwater recharge. Thisnformation was intended to draw attention to the inter-linkagesetween land use and groundwater.

The second section of the questionnaire consisted of SOP ques-ions relating to the following locations on the GGS:

Urban wetlands and surrounding recreational parks: This includesHerdsman Lake, Lake Monger, Lake Joondalup and Perry LakesReserve.Peri-urban wetlands: This includes Lake Gnangara and JandabupLake.Agricultural/horticultural areas: This includes Wanneroo horticul-tural farms and the Swan Valley.Bushland for recreation: This includes Whiteman Park andYanchep National Park.Commercial forestry land: This includes Gnangara Pine Plantation.

The preceding locations were chosen for two reasons. Firstly,hey were identified by participants from the community forums

nd respondents of the scoping survey as localities that are signif-cant on the GGS. Secondly, they were identified by the Gnangaraustainability Strategy Task Force as places that may be impactedy the government’s land use and land management strategies inhe future.

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

Respondents were presented with a set of 16 statements out-lining the range of ‘meanings’ associated with each of these places.Respondents were then asked to rate whether they agreed or dis-agreed with each statement on a five point scale ranging from‘strongly disagree’ (1) through to ‘strongly agree’ (5). They were alsogiven an option to say ‘I don’t know this place’. These statementswere adapted from Jorgensen and Stedman’s (2006) study, whichindicated good support for a tripartite SOP model. This study foundthe three distinct scales to be reliable of having Cronbach alphas0.7 and above. Response ratings from the 16 statements were usedas observed variables in the SOP analysis to determine three latentvariables: Place identity, Place attachment and Place dependence.

In addition to the Sense of Place questions, respondents wereasked to rank the importance of each location in relation to oneanother. Respondents were further asked to rate each location inde-pendently on a Likert scale ranging from ‘not at all important’ (1)through to ‘extremely important’ (5).

The third section included questions to ascertain, specifically,the activities that people may do in and around the pine plantation,such as motor recreation, and the proportion of the sampled pop-ulation undertaking these activities. This is to determine whetherthe pines have public use benefits.

The fourth section comprised socio-economic questions relatingto age, gender, income, education and the household unit. Respon-dents were also asked to provide their postcode and how long theyhad been living in Perth.

4.3. Survey procedure

The SOP survey was carried out in September 2008. The tar-get population was households in the Perth metropolitan area.Internet survey was used as the mode of questionnaire distribu-tion because of its cost-effectiveness. Additionally, response returntime is faster than telephone and mail-out surveys and all responsesare automatically saved in a data-base file, which may help reducenon-sampling bias from manually inputting data incorrectly. Toensure best coverage of the population, a panel of respondents wassought through an independent survey company and proportionalstratified sampling by suburb was used to select respondents toensure coverage of the population. Respondents were sent an invi-tation email with a short summary of the survey objectives and ahyperlink to the online version of the questionnaire if they choseto participate.

4.4. Analysis

To analyse the relationship between the community and theirattachments to places of significance on the GGS and to test thetripartite model, structural equation modelling (SEM) was per-formed to test and estimate causal relationships between variables.Structural equation modelling is a statistical analysis that takes aconfirmatory approach to the examination of a structural theory ofa given phenomenon (Byrne, 2006). It represents a causal processthat generates observations on multiple variables (Bentler, 1988, ascited in Byrne, 2006). The term SEM conveys the fact that the causalprocess is represented by a series of structural regression equations.These series of equations are derived from theory and each pur-ports to describe a particular aspect of the problem (Greene, 2003).As long as the number of equations is equal to or greater than thenumber of variables, the structural equation model is identified; inother words, the variables can be estimated.

In the behavioural sciences, researchers are often interested intheoretical constructs that are not directly observable through tra-ditional methods (such as single-item questions). These constructsare called latent variables or factors (Byrne, 2006). Latent vari-ables or factors consist of multiple observed variables that can be

S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 24–34 29

Table 1Places of importance by percentage and number of visits.

Place Percentage ofrespondents (%)

Average noof visits

Corr Coeff Sig

Swan Valley 57 6.6 −0.0658 0.1816Whiteman Park 45 1.7 −0.2727 0.0000Lake Monger 38 3.0 −0.1958 0.0001Yanchep National Park 33 0.9 −0.0653 0.1848Herdsman Lake 32 2.5 −0.1889 0.0001Perry Lakes 17 1.7 −0.2241 0.0000Gnangara Pine Plantation 15 1.8 −0.0076 0.8779Lake Joondalup 12 3.1 −0.1443 0.0033Lake Gnangara 9 0.3 −0.0512 0.2991Wanneroo horticultural farms 5 0.6 −0.1027 0.0370

N uencyc antly d

omve

pdaiple

Teas

5

p

5

wrproronn

5

wooahimal

Jandabup Lake 2

ote: Corr Coeff is the correlation coefficient between respondent’s visitation freqorrelation coefficient. Using a two-tailed test, the correlation coefficient is signific

btained through multi-item questionnaires. Various theoreticalodels can be tested using SEM by ascertaining how well sets of

ariables define constructs and how these constructs are related toach other (Hair et al., 2005).

Structural equation modelling allows the estimation of multi-le and interrelated dependence relationships; is able to representirectly unobservable or hypothetical constructs (or ‘latent’ vari-bles) in these relationships; and accounts for measurement errorn the estimation process (Hair et al., 1998). The structural modelroduced by SEM specifies the causal relationships among the

atent variables, describes the causal effects, and assigns thexplained and unexplained variance of each latent variable.

While there are some known limitations of SEM (see e.g.omarken and Waller, 2005), as the current study required thestimation of a model with latent constructs (Place identity, Placettachment and Place dependence), SEM was deemed the mostuitable methodology to employ.

. Results

Descriptive statistics were performed in SPSS 18.0 and SEM waserformed using AMOS 16.0.

.1. Descriptive statistics

A total of 414 individuals living in the Perth metropolitan regionere surveyed, comprising 43% female respondents and 57% male

espondents. The nature of the recruitment process via an inde-endent internet panel company makes accounting of responseate problematic as the survey is ‘cut off’ once the target numberf respondents is reached. Consequently, there may be potentialespondents who intended to participate but were not given thepportunity. Nonetheless, the drop-out rate, which reflects theumber of people who chose commence the questionnaire but didot complete was relatively low (at 28%).

.2. Demographics

On average, respondents had been living in Perth for 29 years,ith a minimum living time in Perth of 6 months and a maximum

f 86 years. Over 73% of respondents were living in the suburbsf the GGS while the remaining respondents were living in otherreas. Educational attainment among participants was moderately

igh with around 37% of respondents possessing university qual-

fications and 35% possessing trade or technical qualifications Theost common age category (41% of respondents) was between 40

nd 55 years, while 4% of respondents aged less than 24 years andess than 2% of respondents aged over 75 years. The most common

0.1 −0.2644 0.0000

and the importance ranking of that location. Sig is the significance level of theifferent from zero (indicating significant relationship) if Sig < 0.025.

annual income category (23% of respondents) was between $50,000and $75,000 a year. Sample statistics compared to the AustralianBureau of Statistics (2006) census suggested some degree of consis-tency; for example, 30% of the Perth population possessed graduatedegrees, 14.6% possessed advanced diplomas and diplomas and 31%possessed technical certificates. The most common working agecategory in the census was between 40 and 55 years and the medianannual income per individual was $26,676.

5.3. Place of significance, visitation rate and recreationalactivities

Respondents were asked to select five out of 11 locations onthe GGS that they have visited lately or felt strongly about. Theywere also asked to state their number of visits in the last 2 years toeach location. These questions were to help identify which loca-tions were the places of importance on the GGS. A correlationcoefficient with p-value <0.025 confirms that there is statisticallysignificant correlation between respondents’ visitation frequencyand the importance ranking for Whiteman Park, Lake Monger,Herdsman Lake, Perry Lakes Reserve, Lake Joondalup and JandabupLake (see Table 1 for statistics). Two of the three most frequentlyvisited locations are urban wetlands with recreational parks. Thetwo least visited locations are peri-urban wetlands.

The Swan Valley was the most frequently visited location on theGGS (6.6 trips per person per year) due to its popular vineyards andwine tasting tours. On the other hand, the Wanneroo horticulturalfarms were infrequently visited, with around 0.6 trips per personin the past 2 years, despite some farms offering tourist activitiessuch as strawberry picking. This indicates that horticultural farmshave minimal recreational value compared to viticulture farms.

Approximately 50% of respondents stated that they undertookactivities in and around the pines. The most popular activity wasenjoying the view as they drove by, indicating passive recreation.The second most popular activities were bush walking and pic-nicking, where approximately 11% of respondents undertook theseactivities (see Table 2). Only 8% of respondents stated that they per-form motor recreation activities in the pines and 4 respondents saidthey enjoyed pine view from their houses.

5.4. Place meaning statements

Table 3 provides the means and standard deviations of the 16statements outlining the range of ‘meanings’ associated with the

GGS for the entire sample. To address the research question ofheterogeneity in community values and views towards differentaspects of places on the GGS, a t-test of mean difference betweengroups was performed where the statistically significant level is atp < 0.05.

30 S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

Table 2Ranking of votes on activities performed in and around the Gnangara Pine Plantation.

Rank Activity in and around theGnangara Pine Plantation

% of respondents No. of votes

1 Enjoy the view from driving by 18 742 Bush walking 11 453 Picnicking 8 344 Motor recreation 5 215 Dirt bike riding 3 126 Bird watching 2 87 Horse riding 1 5

fstftpr

d(cwoide(

mhhti

ftta

Table 4Tripartite model goodness of fit statistics.

Fit statistics Obtained value Recommended value

Satorra–Bentlerchi-squared (df)

13.8 (11), p-value = 0.244 p-value > 0.05

TI

8 Enjoy the view from my house 1 49 Other, please specify 1 3Total 50 206

Statements that were rated significantly different by males andemales were, “The GGS provides recreational experiences that areecond to none” (DEPEND2); “The GGS is the best place for doinghe things that I enjoy most” (DEPEND3); “The GGS is a good placeor families to get together” (DEPEND5); “The GGS is a good placeo get away from everyday stress” (ATTACH3) and “The GGS is alace that I feel a strong connection with” (ATTACH5); with femalesating these items significantly higher than males (see Fig. 3).

The average response for respondents living in the GGS areaiffered significantly from respondents living outside the GGS areasee Fig. 4) for the statement “The GGS is a place that I feel a strongonnection with” (ATTACH5). This is somewhat intuitive as oneould expect to feel a strong connection (or bond) with a place that

ne is more familiar with. Other statements that were rated signif-cantly different by those living in the GGS area from those thatid not were “The GGS is the best place for doing the things that Injoy most” (DEPEND3); “The GGS is vital for the lifestyle I enjoy”DEPEND4) and “The GGS is a place I care a lot about” (ATTACH6).

In terms of years lived in Perth (see Fig. 5), ratings of state-ents that were significantly different between respondents that

ad lived in Perth for longer than 20 years and respondents thatad not were “The GGS is a Perth icon” (IDENT3); “The GGS is his-orically important to Perth people” (IDENT4) and “The GGS is anmportant part of my childhood memories” (IDENT5).

Despite the fact that a number of place meaning statements dif-ered by gender, residential location and time lived in Perth, whenhe statements were formed into constructs, namely, Place iden-ity, Place attachment and Place dependence, the effect of gendernd residential location drops out for all three constructs. Similarly,

able 3tem labels, description, means and standard deviations of the overall sample.

Factor Item label Item description

Place identity IDENT The cognitive component whicIDENT1 Important to the State’s revenuIDENT2 Beneficial to the natural enviroIDENT3 Is a Perth iconIDENT4 Historically important to PerthIDENT5 An important part of my childh

Place attachment ATTACH The affective or emotional comATTACH1 One of the most beautiful partATTACH2 Aesthetically pleasingATTACH3 A good place to get away fromATTACH4 An inspirational placeATTACH5 A place that I feel a strong connATTACH6 A place I care a lot about

Place dependence DEPEND The behavioural component ofto his or her behaviour perform

DEPEND1 Provides employmentDEPEND2 Provides recreational experienDEPEND3 The best place for doing the thDEPEND4 Vital for the lifestyle I enjoyDEPEND5 A good place for families to get

CFI 0.992 ≥0.9GFI 0.983 ≥0.9RMSEA 0.047 ≤0.05

the mean difference in the average response to Place attachmentand Place dependence were not significantly different betweenrespondents that had lived in Perth for longer than 20 years andrespondents that have not. The exception is a significant differencein the average response for Place identity, where respondents thathad lived in Perth for longer than 20 years show a stronger Senseof Place identity than respondents that have not.

5.5. Structural equation modelling

After listwise deletion of missing values and ‘no knowledge’responses, a total of 294 cases remained. A tripartite (three-factor)model and a unidimensional (one-factor) model were comparedin AMOS 16.0. The tripartite model represents Place identity, Placeattachment and Place dependence latent variables as three distinctconstructs that are correlated with each other. The unidimensionalmodel assumes that Place identity, Place attachment and Placedependence are perfectly correlated and thus can be collapsedinto one latent variable (see Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001, fordetailed discussion of the conceptual relationship design betweenthe observed and the latent variables for the tripartite and the uni-dimensional models).

Results from the analysis confirmed the significance of the tri-partite model and lack of significance of the unidimensional model.Goodness-of-fit statistics for the tripartite model are presented inTable 4. Statistical significance of the tripartite model supportsthe theory that Place identity, Place attachment and Place depen-dence are unique constructs that cannot be reduced into a singleconstruct. In other words, respondents distinguished between the

three different components of their attitudes towards the places onthe GGS into emotional, cognitive (or sense of self) and behaviouralcomponents.

Observed variables that were considered unreliable (analysedusing Cronbach’s Alpha reliability statistics) or did not contribute

Mean Standard deviation

h reflects the individual’s sense of selfe 3.37 1.13nment 4.13 0.86

4.07 0.87people 3.94 0.89ood memories 2.68 1.38

ponent of attitudes of Perth 4.04 0.84

3.85 0.85everyday stress 3.93 0.88

3.51 1.02ection with 3.19 1.17

3.76 0.97

attitude in which an individual’s dependence to his or her surrounding is relativeed at that place

3.63 0.99ces that are second to none 3.80 0.88ings that I enjoy most 3.40 1.00

3.35 1.04together 4.03 0.85

S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 24–34 31

1

2

3

4

5

IDENT1

IDENT2

IDENT3

IDENT4

IDENT5

TACH1

TACH2

TTACH3

TACH4

TACH5

TACH6

PEND1

PEND2

PEND3

PEND4

PEND5

Female Male

Strongly agree

Agree

Neitheragree nor disagrees

Disagree

Strongly disagree

eani

srmatD

AT AT A

Fig. 3. Responses to statements of m

ignificantly (statistically) to the model’s predictive power wereemoved from the analysis. Regression weights for the tripartite

odel are presented in Table 5. Observed variables were significant

t the p < 0.01 level. Variables that were significant in the tripar-ite model were IDENT3, IDENT4, ATTACH2, ATTACH4, ATTACH5,EPEND2 and DEPEND5.

Variable description IDENT1 Important to the state's revenue; IDENT2 Beneficial to the naHistorically important to Perth people; IDENT5 An important part of mDEPEND1 Provides employment; DEPEND2 Provides recreational exfor doing the things that I enjoy most; DEPEND4 Vital for the lifestyleATTACH1 One of the most beautiful parts of Perth; ATTACH2 Aestheveryday stress; ATTACH4 An inspirational place; ATTACH5 A placcare a lot about

1

2

3

4

5

Gnangara subur

Strongly agree

Agree

Neitheragree nor disagrees

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Fig. 4. Responses to statements of meaning abo

AT AT ATDE DE DE DE DE

ng about the GGS based on gender.

The arrows in Table 5 depict the paths (direction of the relation-ship) in the tripartite model. The regression weights represent the

strength of the relationship between the observed variables and thelatent variables. The standardised regression weights vary from−1to +1, where −1 indicates a strong negative relationship betweenthe latent variable and the observed variable, and 1 indicates a

tural environment; IDENT3 Is a Perth icon; IDENT4y childhood memories periences that are second to none; DEPEND3 The best place I enjoy; DEPEND5 A good place for families to get togetheretically pleasing; ATTACH3 A good place to get away from e that I feel a strong connection with; ATTACH6 A place I

bs Non-Gnagara suburbs

ut the GGS based on residential location.

32 S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

1

2

3

4

5

IDENT1

IDENT2

IDENT3

IDENT4

IDENT5

ATTACH1

ATTACH2

ATTACH3

ACH4

ACH5

ACH6

END1

END2

END3

END4

END5

Live in Perth>20 years Live in Perth <=20 years

Strongly agree

Agree

Neitheragree nor disagrees

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Fig. 5. Responses to statements of meaning abo

Table 5Regression weights from the tripartite model.

Item label Estimates Standard error

IDENT3 ← IDENTITY 0.862* 0.079IDENT4 ← IDENTITY 0.817ATTACH2 ← ATTACHMENT 0.846* 0.093ATTACH4 ← ATTACHMENT 0.834* 0.110ATTACH5 ← ATTACHMENT 0.614DEPEND2 ← DEPENDENCE 0.789* 0.077DEPEND5 ← DEPENDENCE 0.771ATTACHMENT ← IDENTITY 0.640ATTACHMENT ← DEPENDENCE 0.920

sam(

bwran

6

tSt

lodmsata

DEPENDENCE ← IDENTITY 0.800n = 294

* Significant at the 1% level.

trong positive relationship. The interpretation can be expresseds follows: DEPEND2 is one of the two significant attitudinal state-ents intended to measure Place dependence and it has a strong

0.80) positive relationship with Place dependence.The relationships between the latent variables are represented

y the estimates of the correlation, which are relatively strong,ith all three correlations greater than 0.8. This indicates that the

espondents’ attitudes towards Place identity, Place dependencend Place attachment are interlinked and influence one another sig-ificantly but are still distinguishable as three separate constructs.

. Discussion and conclusion

Findings from this study provide moderate support for popula-ion heterogeneity and general support for the tripartite model ofOP. The results present interesting implications for policy forma-ion and future research.

An analysis of place meaning suggest that the number of yearsived in Perth has a significant influence on people’s Place identity,r a person’s sense of self, more so than Place attachment and Placeependence. Due to its size, Australia is endowed with environ-

ental assets. However, some of these environmental assets are a

ignificant distance (thousands of kilometres) away from the urbanrea. The GGS is one of the few significant environment landmarkshat still exist within close proximity to Perth, allowing people of allges to appreciate and enjoy. Given that Place identity strengthens

ATTATT

ATTDEP

DEPDEP

DEPDEP

ut the GGS based on time spent in Perth.

with age, future land use changes that could alter the environmen-tal characteristics of the GGS may potentially jeopardize youngerpeople’s ability to form Place identity with the city they live in.

On the other hand, Place identity is not significantly differentbetween those who live in the GGS area and those who do not. Thisindicates that the cognitive, emotional (including sense of self) andbehavioural bonds with places on the GGS are not limited to onlypeople who live in the GGS area but to all Perth people. In otherwords, Perth people identify at a whole-of-city level rather than ata more localised level. Sense of Place is most often examined forpeople living, or recreating in close proximity to the site of interest(see e.g. Pretty et al., 2003; Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). Therehas been an assumption that SOP is dependant to some extent onproximity to the location, which the current results defy. In Perth,places on the GGS, such as the Swan Valley and Whiteman Park,are frequently visited and highly valued by people all over Perth.As such, it is important for policy makers to be conscious of thefact that SOP is not restricted to communities who live in the areaand social values can extend beyond management boundaries ofa place. As such, when estimating the societal welfare impact oflanduse changes, either socially or economically, the magnitudeof the impact (for example, in dollar terms) maybe greater thanoriginal anticipation.

Results from SEM confirm the significance of the tripartitemodel. This supports the theory and hypothesis that Place iden-tity, Place attachment and Place dependence are unique constructsthat cannot be reduced into a single factor. In other words, atti-tudes towards places on the GGS fall into an emotional component,a cognitive or sense of self-component and a behavioural com-ponent. This is also consistent with an Australian study by Prettyet al. (2003) of adolescents and adults in two rural Australian townsthat SOP constructs, which include Place attachment, sense of com-munity and Place dependence, are associated with each other butstill distinctive in terms of their relative importance in predicantpeople’s identity with place. Future research should be mindful ofwhether a single construct of SOP or a tripartite model is more

appropriate for the context.

Sustainable land and water use policy decisions for the GGSshould not be made solely on ecological or economic grounds, asthere will be inevitable societal consequences. In order to preventsocial backlash, it is important to have better understanding of

nd Urb

ciipeo

pwnntpgismpp

A

eTattw

R

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

F

GG

H

S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

ommunity preferences towards places of significance on the GGS,rrespective of whether there exists ecological or economic signif-cance, as there may exist significant social preferences for suchlaces. Averse social impact of land and water use decisions maynd up outweighing the benefits gained from enhancing ecologicalr economic requirements.

Finally, it is recommended that focus should be given to theolicy impacts of the long-term land and water use changes as tohether such changes will deprive the community of both use andon-use enjoyments from these places. Sections of the commu-ity that are directly affected by the changes may be willing to payo prevent such changes or willing to accept some form of com-ensation to forego future use. Due to the slow moving nature ofroundwater and the temporal delay in assessing the groundwatermpact of land use changes, it is recommended that an integratedocial, economic, environmental and hydrological model that spansore than one (human) generation is required in order to better

redict and understand the consequences of current groundwaterolicies on future generations to come.

cknowledgements

This work was funded by the Gnangara Sustainability Strat-gy (GSS) and the CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship.he GSS is a Western Australian State government initiative whichims to provide a framework for a whole-of-government approacho address land use and water planning issues associated withhe Gnangara Groundwater System. For more information go toww.gnangara.water.wa.gov.au.

eferences

CT Parliamentary Counsel, 2009. Protection of the public participationact 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-48/current/pdf/2008-48.pdf (accessed July 2010).

ppleyard, S., Cook, T., 2009. Reassessing the management of groundwater use fromsandy aquifers: acidification and base cation depletion exacerbated by droughtand groundwater withdrawal on the Gnangara Mound, Western Australia.Hydrogeol. J. 17, 579–588, doi:10.1007/s10040-008-0410-2.

ltman, I., Low, S.M., 1992. Place Attachment (Human Behavior and Environment).Plenum Press, New York.

ustralian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. 2006 census tables by location: Perth, WA.Retrieved from: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au (accessed July 2010).

eckwith, J.A., 2006. In situ social values of groundwater dependent fea-tures on the Gnangara Mound. Retrieved from: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/70023.pdf (accessed June 2008).

onaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., Ercolani, A.P., 1999. Multidi-mensional perception of residential environmental quality and neighbourhoodattachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 19, 331–352.

onaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., Bonnes, M., 2002. Local identity processesand environmental attitudes in land use changes: the case of natural protectedareas. J. Econ. Psychol. 23, 631–653.

onaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M., 2003. Indexes of perceived residential envi-ronment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: aconfirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape Urban Plann. 65, 41–52,doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00236-0.

rown, G., Raymond, C., 2007. The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 27, 89–111,doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002.

yrne, B.M., 2006. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applica-tions and Programming, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.

antrill, J.G., Senecah, S.L., 2001. Using the ‘Sense of Self-in-Place’ construct in thecontext of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environ. Sci.Policy 4, 185–203, doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00023-5.

uba, L., Hummon, D.M., 1993. A place to call home: identification withdwelling, community and region. Sociol. Q. 34, 111–131, doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00133.x.

rame, T.M., Gunton, T., Day, J.C., 2004. The role of collaboration in environmentalmanagement: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia.

J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 47, 59–82, doi:10.1080/0964056042000189808.

reene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice Hall, NJ.reider, T., Garkovich, L., 1994. Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the

environment. Rural Sociol. 59, 1–21, doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x.air, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.

Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River.

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34 33

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2005. Multivariate DataAnalysis. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Hidalgo, M.C., Hernández, B., 2001. Place attachment: conceptual and empiricalquestions. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 273–281, doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0221.

Johnston, C., 1992. What is Social Value? Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra.

Jorgensen, B.S., Stedman, R.C., 2001. Sense of Place as an attitude: lakeshoreowners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 233–248,doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226.

Jorgensen, B.S., Stedman, R.C., 2006. A comparative analysis of predictors of Senseof Place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification withlakeshore properties. J. Environ. Manage. 79, 216–327.

Marsden Jacob Associates, 2006. Identification of economic values associated withthe groundwater of the Gnangara Mound. A Report for the Department of Water.Marsden Jacob Associates Pty Ltd., Victoria.

McAndrew, F.T., 1998. The measurement of ‘rootedness’ and the prediction of attach-ment to home-towns in college students. J. Environ. Psychol. 18, 409–417,doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0078.

Moote, M.A., McClaran, M.P., 1996. Viewpoint: implication of participatory democ-racy for public land planning. J. Range Manage. 50, 473–481.

Nanzer, B., 2004. Measuring Sense of Place: a scale for Michigan. Adm. Theory Praxis26 (3), 362–382.

Po, M., Kaercher, J.D., Nancarrow, B.E., 2004. Literature review of factors influenc-ing public perception of water reuse. Australian Water Conservation and ReuseResearch Program. CSIRO Land and Water, Western Australia.

Pretty, G.H., Chipuer, H.M., Bramston, P., 2003. Sense of Place amongst adolescentsand adults in two rural Australian towns: the discriminating features of Placeattachment, Sense of community and Place dependence in relation to Placeidentity. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 273–287, doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00079-8.

Proshansky, H.M., 1978. The city and self-identity. Environ. Behav. 10, 147–169,doi:10.1177/0013916578102002.

Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K., Kaminoff, R., 1983. Place-identity: physical worldsocialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 3, 57–83, doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8.

Reynolds, J.P., 1969. Public participation in planning. Town Plann. Rev. 40, 131–148.

Sands, L., 2008. Gnangara sustainability strategy community forums May to June2008 analysis report. Report to the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy. Depart-ment of Water, Western Australia.

Seabrook, L., McAlpine, C., Fensham, R., 2008. What influences farmers to keeptrees?: a case study from the Brigalow Belt, Queensland, Australia. LandscapeUrban Plann. 84, 266–281, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.08.006.

Seddon, G., Duany, A., Tredennick, M., 1972. Sense of Place: A Response to an Environ-ment, the Swan Coastal Plain Western Australia. University of Western AustraliaPress, Western Australia.

Shamai, S., 1991. Sense of Place: an empirical measurement. Geoforum 22, 347–358,doi:10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K.

Slovic, P., 1993. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal. 20, 353–362,doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x.

Sommer, B., Horwitz, P., Hewitt, P., 2008. Assessment of wetland invertebrateand fish biodiversity for the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy (GSS). Retrievedfrom: http://portal.water.wa.gov.au/portal/page/portal/gss/Content/reports/Assessment%20of%20wetland%20invertebrate%20and%20fish%20biodiversity.pdf (accessed August 2010).

Stedman, R.C., 2002. Towards a social psychology of place: predicting behaviorfrom place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. Behav. 34, 561–581,doi:10.1177/0013916502034005001.

Stedmand, R.C., 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: the contribution ofthe physical environment to Sense of Place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16, 671–685,doi:10.1080/08941920309189.

Stewart, W.P., Liebert, D., Larkin, K.W., 2004. Community identities asvisions for landscape change. Landscape Urban Plann. 69, 315–334,doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.005.

Tapsuwan, S., Ranjan, R., McFarlane, D., Elmahdi, A., 2008. Economic and socialvalues of land and water uses on the Gnangara Groundwater System (Draftfor Comments). CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report, WesternAustralia.

Tomarken, A.J., Waller, N.G., 2005. Structural equation modeling: strengths,limitations and misconceptions. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 1, 31–65,doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144239.

Tuan, Y.-F., 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Tucker, D., Johnston, C., Leviston, Z., Jorgensen, B.S., Nancarrow, B.E., 2006. Senseof Place: towards a methodology to value externalities associated with urbanwater systems (The Hawkesbury-Nepean Case Study). CSIRO Water for a HealthyCountry Flagship Report, Western Australia.

Twigger-Ross, C., Uzzell, D., 1996. Place and identity processes. J. Environ. Psychol.16, 205–220, doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0017.

Uzzell, D., Pol, E., Badenas, D., 2002. Place identification, social cohe-

sion, and environmental sustainability. Environ. Behav. 34, 26–53,doi:10.1177/0013916502034001003.

Van Leuven, J.K., 1980. Measuring values through public participation. Public Relat.Rev. 6, 51–56.

Vaske, J.J., Kobrin, K.C., 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsiblebehavior. J. Environ. Educ. 32, 16–21.

3 nd Urb

W

W

W

4 S. Tapsuwan et al. / Landscape a

alker, A.J., Ryan, R.L., 2008. Place attachment and landscape preservation inrural New England: a main case study. Landscape Urban Plann. 86, 141–152,doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.001.

APC, 2005. Population report no. 6: Western Australia tomorrow, population pro-

jections for planning regions 2004 to 2031 and local government areas 2004 to2021. Western Australia Planning Commission, Western Australia.

illiams, D.R., Anderson, B.S., McDonald, C.D., Patterson, M.E., 1995. Measuringplace attachment: more preliminary results. Paper Presented at the Symposiumon Outdoor Recreation Planning and Management, National Recreation and ParkAssociation Leisure Research Symposium, San Antonio, TX.

an Planning 100 (2011) 24–34

Williams, D.R., Roggenbuck, J.W., 1989. Measuring place attachment: more prelimi-nary results. Paper Presented at the Symposium on Outdoor Recreation Planningand Management, National Recreation and Park Association Leisure Research,San Antonio, TX.

Williams, D.R., Stewart, S.I., 1998. Sense of Place: an elusive concept that is findinga home in ecosystem management. J. Forest. 96, 18–23.

Wilson, B.A., 2009. Introduction and approach. In: Wilson, B.A., Valentine,L.E. (Eds.), Biodiversity Values and Threatening Processes of the GnangaraGroundwater System. Department of Environment and Conservation, WesternAustralia.