Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach

Full text

Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place
satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling
approach
Haywantee Ramkissoon
a
,
b
,
c
,
*
, Liam David Graham Smith
b
, Betty Weiler
d
a
Department of Management, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne 3805, Australia
b
Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
c
Australia & International Tourism Research Unit, Monash University, Melbourne 3145, Australia
d
School of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia
highlights
<Demonstrates place attachment as a second-order construct.
<Place attachment positively influences low and high effort environmental intentions.
<Place attachment has a positive influence on place satisfaction.
<Place satisfaction positively influences low effort pro-environmental intentions.
<Place satisfaction negatively influences high effort pro-environmental intentions.
article info
Article history:
Received 17 April 2012
Accepted 4 September 2012
Keywords:
Place attachment
Place satisfaction
Low effort and high effort pro-
environmental behavioural intentions
First- and second-order factor
National parks
abstract
Drawing on literature from environmental psychology, the present study examined place attachment as
a second-order factor and investigated its relationships with place satisfaction and visitors’low and high
effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modelling were used to test a model using a sample of 452 visitors at the Dandenong Ranges National
Park, in Australia. Results supported the four-dimensional second-order factor of place attachment and
indicated (a) positive and significant effects of place attachment on both low and high effort pro-
environmental behavioural intentions of park visitors, (b) a significant and positive influence of place
attachment on place satisfaction, (c) a significant and positive effect of place satisfaction on low effort
pro-environmental behavioural intentions, and (d) a negative and significant influence of place satis-
faction on high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions. The main theoretical contribution
relates to the inclusion of the four dimensions of place attachment in a single model. Findings are
discussed with respect to their applied and theoretical relevance.
!2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Natural areas serve as important venues for spending time, and
seeking out new experiences interacting with nature and other
visitors (Negra & Manning, 1997;Snepenger, Snepenger, Dalbey, &
Wessol, 2007). Such natural settings yield restorative effects such
as stress reduction (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009;Hipp & Ogunseitan,
2011) and promote psychological well-being of visitors (Korpela,
Ylen, Tyrvainen, & Silvennoinen, 2009;Parks Forum, 2008). For
these and other reasons, they often become favourite places and
hold special meanings for many people (Ferreira, 2011). As such,
visitors can become dependent on such environments which meet
their desired experiences (Scannell & Gifford, 2010a). This can
result in increased visitation that put severe pressure on environ-
mental resources, requiring researchers, scholars, and practitioners
to find ways to protect natural resources. Environmental behav-
ioural scientists are increasingly seeking to apply principles of
behaviour analysis to management of natural areas in an attempt to
decrease behaviours that are detrimental to the natural environ-
ment and promote pro-environmental ones (Lehman & Geller,
*Corresponding author. Department of Management, Faculty of Business &
Economics, Monash University, Melbourne 3149, Australia. Tel.: þ61 449534097.
E-mail addresses: rumiramkissoon@yahoo.co.uk,Haywantee.Ramkissoon@
monash.edu (H. Ramkissoon), Liam.Simth@monash.edu (L.D. Graham Smith),
betty.weiler@scu.edu.au (B. Weiler).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
0261-5177/$ esee front matter !2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003
Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566

2004). This argument rests on the premise that conservation of
natural resources is likely to happen by influencing visitor behav-
iour and stimulating responsible actions by visitors (Blackstock,
White, McCrum, Scott, & Hunter, 2008). Place attachment is rec-
ognised by some researchers as a potential concept that may be
used to influence behaviour by capitalising on an individual’s
willingness to protect important and meaningful places (Dredge,
2010;Ramkissoon, Weiler, & Smith, 2012;Scannell & Gifford,
2010b;Sobel, submitted for publication), although evidences are
not conclusive.
Place attachment has been defined differently by researchers
and scholars, and the general consensus is that it is a multi-
dimensional construct (Halpenny, 2010;Hidalgo & Hernández,
2001;Scannell & Gifford, 2010a). Dimensions of place attachment
include place identity (Hinds & Sparks, 2008;Prayag & Ryan, 2012;
Stedman, 2002), place affect (Hinds & Sparks, 2008;Kals,
Shumaker, & Montada, 1999), place social bonding (Hammitt,
Backlund, & Bixler, 2006;Ramkissoon et al., 2012), and place
dependence (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000;Prayag & Ryan, 2012).
Research on place attachment has been growing in the literature
within several disciplines including environmental psychology,
natural resource management, environmental education, and
tourism (e.g., Halpenny, 2010;Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005;
Ramkissoon et al., 2012;Raymond, Brown, & Robinson, 2011;Vaske
& Kobrin, 2001) and considerable theoretical and methodological
advancements have been made in this area by researchers and
scholars (Kyle et al., 2005).
A number of studies has demonstrated significant associations
between place attachment and pro-environmental behaviours of
individuals (e.g., Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010;Gosling &
Williams, 2010;Halpenny, 2010;Hernández, Martin, Ruiz, &
Hidalgo, 2010;Raymond et al., 2011). Pro-environmental behav-
iour is defined as an action by an individual or group that promotes
or results in the sustainable use of natural resources (Sivek &
Hungerford, 1989/1990). Although existing research suggests
place attachment is a potentially useful concept to promote pro-
environmental behaviours, findings on the relationships between
the two constructs are contradictory and far from conclusive
(Scannell & Gifford, 2010b). This may be due to the fact that the
different dimensions of place attachment and their relationships
with pro-environmental behaviours have been investigated in
various combinations by previous researchers (e.g., Halpenny,
2010;Kyle et al., 2005;Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), with the implica-
tion that only a few studies (e.g., Ramkissoon et al., 2012;
Ramkissoon, Smith, & Weiler, in press) considers place attachment
as a multi-dimensional construct, comprising of place dependence,
place identity, place affect, and place social bonding in a single
study. Some research also suggests that place attachment influ-
ences visitors’satisfaction with a place (Prayag & Ryan, 2012;
Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010), and still other studies find that place
satisfaction is an important determinant of pro-environmental
behaviours (Stedman, 2002;Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002).
However, similar conceptualisation problems of place attachment
can be found in many of these studies which fell short of consid-
ering place attachment as comprising of several dimensions.
Researchers have argued that the influence of each dimension of
place attachment on environmental behaviour is also likely to be
different, depending on the types of place attachment (Scannell &
Gifford, 2010b;Stedman, 2002). Therefore, studies that take into
account all four recognised dimensions of place attachment and the
latter’sinfluence on pro-environmental behaviours in a single
theoretical model are needed. This study addresses this by
considering place attachment as a second-order factor comprising
place dependence, place identity, place affect, and place social
bonding. In the context of the present study, the second-order
model represents the hypothesis that these distinct, but related
constructs can be accounted for by a common underlying higher-
order construct conceptualised as “place attachment”. In contrast
to first-order models with correlated factors, second-order factor
models have the advantage of providing researchers with a more
parsimonious and interpretable model when it is hypothesised that
higher-order factors underlie the data (Chen, Sousa, & West, 2005).
A second-order model can also test whether the hypothesised
higher-order factor (i.e. place attachment) accounts for the pattern
of relations between the first-order factors (the different sub-
constructs of place attachment) (Gustafsson & Balke, 1993;
Rindskopf & Rose, 1988). Chen et al. (2005) argue that a second-
order factor model separates variance due to specific factors from
measurement error, leading to a theoreticallyerror-free estimate of
the specific factors.
Given researchers’assertion that place dependence, place
identity, place affect, and place social bonding represent the
different underlying dimensions of place attachment needs
empirical testing, considering place attachment as a second-order
factor is both theoretically and statistically plausible and justified.
The research uses confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the
dimensionalities of the place attachment construct and structural
equation modelling to test the influence of place attachment on
place satisfaction and pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
The relationships among the theoretical constructs of interest in
this study are presented in Figure 1. The model is tested using data
collected from visitors to the Dandenong Ranges National Park,
Australia.
The study sets out to make some important theoretical contri-
butions to the literature. Researchers (e.g., Devine-Wright &
Clayton, 2010;Scannell & Gifford, 2010b) have stressed on the
need for more research on the relationship between place attach-
ment and pro-environmental behaviours because findings are
unclear and contradictory. Devine-Wright and Clayton (2010, p.
269) have also argued that it is important that researchers and
scholars avoid “an increasing fragmentation of the empirical liter-
ature”and have urged researchers to empirically test “new
conceptual frameworks that can encompass or discriminate
between the various dimensions of self-environment relations”.
Kyle et al. (2005) noted that although existing measures of place
attachment appear to be reliable and valid, further research that
confirms the factor structure of place attachment is warranted.
These researchers called for more studies on place attachment
using latent structural equation modelling approaches to confirm
the dimensionalities of place attachment. Considering place
attachment as a second-order factor model is likely to provide
a better theoretical and statistical understanding of its relationship
with pro-environmental behaviour. Scholars have also been calling
for further studies on place attachment (Dredge, 2010;Tsai, 2011;
Yuksel et al., 2010) and place satisfaction in nature-based settings
(O’Neill, Riscinto-Kozub, & Van Hyfte, 2010). This study aims to
address these gaps in the literature. It seeks to confirm the factor
structure of the place attachment construct by providing empirical
evidence that the four dimensions of place attachment (place
identity, place dependence, place social bonding, and place affect)
are an accurate representation of place attachment when consid-
ered simultaneously in a single model.
The study seeks to provide important practical implications to
managers of nature-based settings. Recognition of the deleterious
impacts caused by growing visitation has led to an increasing call to
promote environmentally sustainable practices in such settings
(Stockdale & Barker, 2009). If not well managed, increased visita-
tion can put at risk the park’s resources. Place attachment is seen as
a potentially important antecedent to awareness of the value of
conserving natural resources, pro-environmental attitudes and
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 553

pro-environmental behaviours in nature-based settings (Lee, 2011;
Raymond et al., 2011;Scannell & Gifford, 2010b). Evidence shows
that sustainability practices in national parks and other natural
areas can be improved by fostering place attachment (e.g.,
Halpenny, 2010) and by encouraging environmentally responsible
practices among visitors (e.g., Ballantyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2009).
2. Place attachment: a multi-dimensional construct
A plethora of terms describing the relationship between people
and spatial settings exists in the literature. These include sense of
place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001), place attachment (Altman &
Low, 1992;Guiliani & Feldman, 1993), community attachment
(Perkins & Long, 2002), neighbourhood attachment (Brown,
Perkins, & Brown, 2003;Lewicka, 2010), and connectedness to
nature (Gosling & Williams, 2010) among others. An extant review
of the literature reveals place attachment as the most popular term
used. Place attachment refers to the bonding people share with
places (Raymond et al., 2011;Scannell & Gifford, 2010a,b) and
emerges as people get to know a place and endow it with value
(Milligan, 1998;Tuan, 1980). The concept is widely understood to
have originated from attachment theory (Bowlby,1969,1975,1980).
Operationalisations of the place attachment construct, however,
have been very diverse across several disciplines, posing a chal-
lenge to researchers. It has often been conceptualised as place
dependence (Stokols & Shumacker, 1981), place identity (Vaske &
Kobrin, 2001;Walker & Chapman, 2003), place social bonding
(Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004), and more recently, place affect
(Halpenny, 2010).
2.1. Place dependence
In a tourism and leisure context, place dependence is described
as visitors’functional attachment to a specific place and their
awareness of the uniqueness of a setting, which contributes to
meeting their visitation goals (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, &
Watson, 1992). This functional attachment reflects the impor-
tance of a resource in providing required services for desired
recreational activities (Stokols & Shumacker, 1981) and is embodied
in the physical characteristics of a setting (e.g., hiking trails, rock
climbing routes, etc.) (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001).
2.2. Place identity
Place identity (Prohansky, 1978) refers to the connection
between a place and one’spersonal identity and contains both
cognitive and affective elements. Natural settings offer individuals
the opportunity to develop a sense of identity with a place (Budruk,
Thomas, & Tyrell, 2009;Halpenny, 2010) due to its uniqueness or
distinctiveness from other places (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). A
number of researchers has operationalised place attachment using
just the two sub-constructs of place dependence and place identity
(e.g., Prayag & Ryan, 2012;Vaske & Kobrin, 2001;Walker &
Chapman, 2003).
2.3. Place affect
Some other researchers conceptualise place attachment as
including place affect (Kals et al., 1999;Ramkissoon et al., 2012).
While it is widely acknowledged in the environmental psychology
and leisure/recreation literature that places are grounded in envi-
ronmental and social experiences (Felonneau, 2004;Moore &
Graefe, 1994), they also note an affective link that individuals
develop (Rolero & De Picolli, 2010) by building their sentiments
about the place (Tuan, 1977). In a tourism/leisure context, affective
connection with natural locations generates a sense of psycholog-
ical well-being for visitors (Kaplan & Talbot, 1983;Korpela et al.,
2009). Natural settings tend to further increase positive emotions
in individuals about the setting (Hartig, Book, Garvill, Olsson, &
Garling, 1996;Ulrich, 1979). Individuals with greater experience
with natural environments may express stronger emotional
attachment with those environments than those with lesser
experience (Hinds & Sparks, 2008).
2.4. Place social bonding
Another sub-dimension of place attachment is place social
bonding. A place can be valued by an individual because it
Place
Dependence
Place
Identity
Place Affect
Place Social
Bonding
Place
Attachment
Place
Satisfaction
Pro-
environmental
Behavioural
Intentions
H3 H4
H2
H1
Fig. 1. Proposed model.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566554

facilitates interpersonal relationships (Hammitt, 2000;Scannell &
Gifford, 2010a,b) and fosters “group belonging”(Hammitt, Kyle, &
Oh, 2009). In these spatial contexts, individuals develop
communal bonds with other people through peopleeplace inter-
action (Hammitt et al., 2006;Scannell & Gifford, 2010b). Kyle et al.
(2004) and Ramkissoon et al. (2012) argue that natural settings set
the context for social experiences which, if maintained in these
settings, are likely to lead to higher levels of attachment (Kyle et al.,
2005). Place social bonding was found to be a strong predictor of
place attachment in the study by Tumanan and Lansangan (2012).
Social bonds, in fact, can be the primary source of meaning in some
contexts (Kyle et al., 2005).
Taken together, the multivalent nature of place illustrates
cultivation of place attachment through dependence, identity,
affect, and the socially-shared experiences associated with the
place. The above review suggest that place attachment is a multi-
dimensional construct comprising of place dependence, place
identity, place social bonding, and place affect. Each sub-construct
is conceptually different from the others and reflects the various
underlying dimensions of place attachment (Brocato, 2006;Kyle
et al., 2005;Low & Altman, 1992;Ramkissoon et al., 2012). Yet,
only few studies have considered all four sub-constructs of place
attachment in a single theoretical model (e.g., Ramkissoon et al.,
2012,in press). For example, Halpenny (2010) operationalised
place attachment as place affect, place dependence, and place
identity, but did not consider place social bonding as a sub-
construct of place attachment. Kyle et al. (2005) tested the
dimensionality of place attachment by considering the construct as
a second-order factor. Their data supported a correlated three-
factor model of place attachment, consisting of place identity,
place dependence, and place social bonding. Although this study is
very useful to researchers and scholars, it did not consider place
affect as an important sub-construct of place attachment. Vaske
and Kobrin (2001) conceptualised place attachment as place
dependence and place identity but not social bonding and place
affect as important sub-dimensions of place attachment. Research
that considers all four sub-dimensions of place attachment and
investigates whether they represent an accurate representation of
the latter is needed. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Place attachment is a second-order factor,
comprised of the sub-dimensions of place dependence, identity,
affect, and social bonding.
3. Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour
Within the literature on place attachment and pro-
environmental behaviours, a number of studies has demonstrated
significant associations between these two constructs in different
contexts and situations (e.g., Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010;
Gosling & Williams, 2010;Halpenny, 2010;Hernández et al., 2010;
Raymond et al., 2011). While some studies have suggested that
higher levels of place attachment are associated with lower
intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Uzzell et al.,
2002), other researchers have found that the opposite is also
possible (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Place attachment has been found
to be significantly associated with environmental volunteering
(Gooch, 2003). Walker and Chapman (2003) found that place
attachment was a strong predictor of park visitors’intentions to
pick up other people’s litter in the park. A similar finding was re-
ported by Halpenny (2010) who noted that place attachment was
positively associated with pro-environmental behavioural inten-
tions of park visitors. Kelly and Hosking (2008) found place
attachment was positively linked to behaviours such as volun-
teering and environmental conservation in Western Australia.
Further, place attachment, conceptualised as community attach-
ment (Brehm, Eisenhauer, & Krannich, 2006) and connectedness to
nature was found to be a significant predictor of pro-environmental
behavioural intentions in other studies (e.g., Gosling & Williams,
2010;Kals et al., 1999;Mayer & Frantz, 2004). However, despite
the significant attention devoted to the two constructs of place
attachment and pro-environmental behavioural intentions, the
strength and direction remains unclear in the existing literature
(Scannell & Gifford, 2010b). Existing studies on the topic have fallen
short of considering place attachment as comprising of the sub-
constructs of place identity, place dependence, place affect, and
place social bonding simultaneously in a single theoretical model.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 2: Place attachment as second-order factor positively
influences pro-environmental behavioural intentions of park
visitors.
4. Place satisfaction
Visitor satisfaction has attracted the interest of many
researchers in tourism, leisure and recreation (Neal & Gursoy, 2008;
Sirgy, 2010). Satisfaction is perceived to be a key to the success of
many organisations (Bosque & Martin, 2008). Emotions are seen to
play an important role in satisfaction formation in organisations
(Yu & Dean, 2001). Stedman (2002) defined place satisfaction as
a multi-dimensional summary judgement of the perceived quality
of a setting, meeting an individual’s needs for the physical char-
acteristics of a place, its services, and social dimensions. Although
some studies have demonstrated the links between place attach-
ment and place satisfaction (e.g., Yuksel et al., 2010), further
research is warranted to investigate the relationship between
these two constructs. Evidence suggests that place attachment,
conceptualised as place dependence, place identity (Hwang, Lee, &
Chen, 2005;Prayag & Ryan, 2012) and place affect (Yuksel et al.,
2010) may be significantly predictive of visitors’satisfaction.
However, the association between place social bonding and place
satisfaction is yet to be established in the literature (Ramkissoon
et al., 2012). Moreover, research to date has not yet investigated
the relationship between place attachment as a second-order factor
with its four sub-dimensions and place satisfaction. There is thus
a need to examine place attachment as a second-order factor, with
the four sub-dimensions of place dependence, identity, affect and
social bonding, and its role in predicting place satisfaction. Conse-
quently, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 3: Place attachment as a second-order factor posi-
tively influences park visitors’place satisfaction.
Individuals who are more satisfied with a place are in some
cases more willing to engage in pro-environmental intentions and
behaviours (Jabarin & Damhoureyeh, 2006;Lopez-Mosquera &
Sanchez, 2011;Oguz, 2000). Studies have demonstrated positive
correlations between satisfaction and willingness to pay in relation
to green spaces (Baral, Stern, & Bhattarai, 2008;Bigné, Andreu, &
Gnoth, 2005;Lopez-Mosquera & Sanchez, 2011). Jabarin and
Damhoureyeh (2006) also noted that visitors who were more
satisfied with the functional value offered at Dibeen National Park
reported higher willingness to pay for the park. Davis, Le, and Coy
(2011) noted that individuals with greater satisfaction with the
environment were more likely to feel committed to the environ-
ment. This in turn led to greater willingness to sacrifice for the
well-being of the environment at the expense of their immediate
self-interest, costs and efforts.
However, contrary to these studies, Stedman’s (2002) research
found place satisfaction to inhibit environmental behaviour. He
showed that people with lower levels of satisfaction were more
willing to engage in place-protective behaviours, and showed
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 555

greater willingness to counter environmental changes to the lake.
Most of these studies suggest that place satisfaction is likely to be
a significant predictor of pro-environmental intentions and
behaviours, although the direction of the relationship may vary in
different contexts. Based on the above review, the following
hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 4: Place satisfaction positively influences park visi-
tors’pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
5. Research design
The model and hypothesised relationships were tested using
data collected from visitors to the Dandenong Ranges National Park,
situated in the state of Victoria, in Australia, located about 35 km
east of the centre of Melbourne city. Managed by Parks Victoria, the
park attracts over one million visitors annually due to its easy
accessibility (with multiple access points), free entrance, and
recreational facilities on offer. Recreational facilities encompass
a variety of outdoor activities such as picnicking, bushwalking,
photography, nature study, bird watching, car touring, cycling, and
horse riding. The park also provides food and beverage outlets, free
parking, toilet facilities and other amenities as well as a number of
volunteering opportunities to assist in the protection of its rich flora
and fauna. The park attracts both first-time and repeat visitors, and
its attractive natural environment leads to increasing visitation
(over one million visitors per year) that puts severe pressure on
resources, requiring the park authority to find ways to manage
visitor impacts and preserve the natural environment. This makes
it an ideal case study for examining place attachment and
pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
The fieldwork for this study was conducted in the months of
JuneeSeptember 2011 at four locations within the national park,
namely the Thousand Steps, Ferntree Gully Picnic Ground, Grants
Picnic Ground, and a children’s playground. While little is known
about the distribution of visitation to Dandenong Ranges National
Park and how visitor numbers and profiles may vary within the
park, these four sites were identified by Parks Victoria as high use
sites appropriate for data collection for this study. Data were
collected from 600 respondents with approximately 150 ques-
tionnaires collected from each location in both off-peak (week-
days) and peak times during weekends and school holidays. This
ensured that a range of visitors (locals and non-locals; intrastate
and interstate; individuals, families, and other groups; first-time
and repeat visitors) was included in the sample. Data collection
at exit was considered impractical, as there are multiple entry and
exit options necessitating interception in car parks, where visitors
are often in a hurry to leave. It was considered more appropriate
to approach visitors during their visit since they were more
relaxed, increasing the chances of participation. After explaining
the purpose of the study to respondents, a self-completed ques-
tionnaire was administered to adult visitors on a next person
basis. An average of 150 questionnaires was collected from each
location.
The fieldwork yielded to a 79% response rate. Twenty-two
questionnaires were eliminated due to missing data (Hair,
Anderson, Tathan, & Black, 1998). This is one of the oldest and
most popular methods used in psychological research to avoid
statistical bias (Schafer & Graham, 2002). This resulted in 452
surveys retained for the analysis with almost equal proportions of
female (53%) and male (47%) respondents. More than half of the
respondents were under the age of 35; the age distribution was 23%
(18e24 years), 29% (25e34 years), 19% (35e44 years), 15% (45e54
years), 11% (55e64 years) and 9% (65þyears of age). The vast
majority (97%) was from Australia, and had completed university
studies (70%). Virtually all respondents were day visitors with 47%
being on repeat visits. The visitor profile is comparable to statistics
collected by Parks Victoria (2010) for the Dandenong Ranges
National Park.
For the place attachment construct, four dimensions were
included in this study: place dependence (three items), place
identity (three items), place affect (three items), and place social
bonding (three items) borrowed from Kyle et al. (2004) and Yuksel
et al. (2010). Three items borrowed from Yuksel et al. (2010) were
used for the place satisfaction construct. Each item was measured
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼strongly disagree, 5 ¼strongly agree).
Twelve items, derived from Halpenny (2010) were used to measure
visitors’pro-environmental behavioural intentions. A 5-point
rating scale was used (1 ¼not probable at all, 5 ¼very probable).
As a result of modifications necessary to customise Halpenny’s scale
to the present context, the pro-environmental behavioural scale
was subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using prin-
cipal component method. The purpose of the EFA was to ensure
uni-dimensionality and internal consistency of this construct in the
present context. The EFA was conducted using a pre-test sample of
115 respondents who were intercepted at different locations in the
Dandenong Ranges National Park. This process resulted in the
elimination of two items, “encourage others to reduce their waste
and pick up their litter when they are at this national park”and
“pick up litter at this national park left by other visitors”, reducing
the number of items from twelve to ten.
The pro-environmental behavioural intentions construct was
subjected to another EFA analysis using the main sample size
(n¼452) to further confirm scale dimensionality. This was
considered important since the scale items had been modified to
suit the context of the study. This resulted in the deletion of one
item which was the respondent’s stated likelihood to “contribute
to donations to ensure protection of this national park”due to
cross-loadings (Gursoy & Gavcar, 2003). The nine remaining items
used to measure the pro-environmental behavioural intent
construct loaded onto two factors. Based on the items, factor 1 was
labelled “low effort pro-environmental behavioural intent”while
factor 2 was labelled “high effort pro-environmental behavioural
intent”. The six items that loaded on the first factor were:
“volunteer to reduce my use of a favourite spot in this national
park if it needs to recover from environmental damage”,“tellm
y
friends not to feed animals in this national park”,“sign petitions in
support of this national park”,“volunteer to stop visiting
a favourite spot in this park if it needs to recover from environ-
mental damage”,“pay increased park fees if they were introduced
for this national park’s programs”and “learn about this national
park’s natural environment”. Three items loaded on the second
factor: “participate in a public meeting about managing this
national park’s programs”,“volunteer my time to projects that
help this national park”and “write letters in support of this
national park”. Therefore, the pro-environmental behavioural
intent construct was examined as having two dimensions. Internal
consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and both factors
showed a measurement greater than 0.7, indicating adequate to
strong levels of internal consistency (Nunally, 1978). Further, given
the two-factor structure of the pro-environmental behavioural
construct, hypotheses 2 and 4 were divided into two sub-
hypotheses each as follows:
Hypothesis 2a: Place attachment as a second-order factor posi-
tively influences low effort pro-environmental behavioural inten-
tion of park visitors.
Hypothesis 2b: Place attachment as a second-order factor posi-
tively influences high effort pro-environmental behavioural
intention of park visitors.
Hypothesis 4a: Place satisfaction positively influences low effort
pro-environmental behavioural intention of park visitors.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566556

Hypothesis 4b: Place satisfaction positively influences high effort
pro-environmental behavioural intention of park visitors.
5.1. Modelling process
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) has two components: the
measurement model and the structural model. Amos (V. 19), one of
the most commonly used SEM software applications (Nachtigall,
Kroehne, Funke, & Steyer, 2003) was utilised to determine the
overall fit of the measurement and structural models using the
maximum likelihood method of estimation (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). The chi-square was used as the first fit index. However,
since it has been found to be sensitive to sample size (Byrne, 2001),
other fit indices were necessary. The root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI, Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1989), comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990), normed
fit index (NFI, Bentler & Bonett, 1980), incremental fit index (IFI, Hu
& Bentler, 1995), parsimonious goodness of fit index (PGFI, Mulaik
et al., 1989) and parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI, Mulaik
et al., 1989) were included in the study. Values for GFI, CFI, NFI,
PGFI and PNFI range from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1.00 indi-
cating a good model fit(Byrne, 2001;Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010;Mulaik et al., 1989).
The measurement model specifies causal relationships between
the measures and illustrates ways in which the variables are
operationalised through their indicators. First, the overall
measurement model for place attachment was tested. The overall
fit was then evaluated using the fit indices. Second, the overall
measurement model with place attachment, place satisfaction, low
effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions, and high effort
pro-environmental behavioural intentions was tested. This resulted
in the deletion of three items “volunteer to stop visiting a favourite
spot in this national park if it needs to recover from environmental
damage”(PEB5), “pay increased park fees if they were introduced
for this national park’s programs”(PEB7) and “learn about this
national park’s natural environment”(PEB10) on the low effort pro-
environmental behavioural intentions construct. The measurement
model was respecified, and the overall fit was then evaluated using
the fit indices. Composite reliability and variance extracted were
used to further evaluate the reliability and validity of the overall
measurement model.
6. Findings
The first stage was to test the second-order factor model to
determine whether the four sub-dimensions (place dependence,
place identity, place affect, and place social bonding) can be viewed
as appropriate indicators of place attachment. While researchers
have recognised that place attachment is a multi-dimensional
construct (e.g., Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001;Ramkissoon et al.,
2012;Scannell & Gifford, 2010a), studies have fallen short of con-
firming that the above-mentioned four first-order factors together
represent a second-order factor “place attachment”. The
measurement model for the place attachment constructs (Fig. 2)
had good model fit indices (Table 1):
c
2
¼178 ( p¼0.00);
GFI ¼0.94; CFI ¼0.93; PGFI ¼0.61; PNFI ¼0.71; IFI ¼0.96;
NFI ¼0.90; and RMSEA ¼0.067. This indicates that the model fits
the data fairly well (Hair et al., 2010). In sum, results confirm that
place attachment is represented as an overarching concept (i.e.
second-order factor) consisting of place dependence, place identity,
place affect, and place social bonding (first-order factors).
The second-order model proposes that (1) place attachment
positively influences visitors’low effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions; (2) place attachment positively influences
visitors’high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions; (3)
place attachment positively influences visitors’levels of place
satisfaction; (4) place satisfaction positively influences visitors’low
effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions; (5) place satis-
faction positively influences visitors’high effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions. The initial testing of the overall measure-
ment model resulted in the deletion of three items on “low effort
pro-environmental behavioural intentions”due to low factor
loadings. The model fit indices for the final overall measurement
model as shown in Table 2 indicated that it was acceptable:
c
2
¼531.9 (p¼0.00); GFI ¼0.90; CFI ¼0.93; PGFI ¼0.70;
PNFI ¼0.76; IFI ¼0.93 and RMSEA ¼0.07. The CMIN/df value was
2.97 which was an acceptable fit(Hair et al., 2010).
The measurement model was further validated for its reliability
and validity. Composite reliability and average variance extracted
were used as reliability measures. As indicated in Table 3, the
composite reliability scores for all the constructs exceeded the
recommended level of 0.70, indicating the internal consistency of
the indicators (Hatcher, 1994). Table 3 also shows that the variance
extracted estimate for each construct meets the desirable level of
50% or higher (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Construct validity is the
extent to which indicators of a construct measure what they are
supposed to measure (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Convergent validity was
assessed from the measurement model by determining whether
each indicator’s estimated pattern coefficient on its posited
underlying construct factor was significant (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988;Marsh & Grayson, 1995). All factor loadings for items
Fig. 2. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 1
Overall measurement model indices for place attachment as a second-order factor.
Model Chi-square RMSEA GFI CFI IFI PGFI PNFI
OMM 178 (p¼0.00) 0.07 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.61 0.71
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 557

retained as shown in Table 2 were greater than 0.5 and were
statistically significant (p<0.001), indicating convergent validity
(Cabrera-Nyugen, 2010). To assess discriminant validity, the
average variance extracted for each construct must be greater than
the squared correlations between the construct and other
constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;Nusair & Hua,
2010). Table 4 shows evidence of discriminant validity between
each pair of constructs. For instance, the average variance extracted
for high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions was 0.69
while the shared variance between high effort PEB and other
constructs ranged from 0.02 to 0.35 indicating that discriminant
validity has been achieved.
After ensuring that the overall measurement model was valid
and acceptable, the structural model was tested. The fit indices for
the structural model (Fig. 3) were as follows:
c
2
¼540.7 (p¼0.00);
GFI ¼0.90; CFI ¼0.93; PGFI ¼0.70; PNFI ¼0.77; IFI ¼0.93;
RMSEA ¼0.067 (see Table 5) and CMIN/df ¼3. All indices suggest
a good fit(Hair et al., 2010) showing that the model fits the data
well. The high factor loadings further demonstrate that the
proposed indicators capture well the constructs that they were
hypothesised to measure.
Once it was ensured that the measurement and structural
models were valid and reliable, the path relationships among the
different constructs were tested. Results are presented in Table 6,
and indicate support for four of the five hypotheses that were
originally proposed. Place attachment was found to positively
influence both low and high effort pro-environmental behavioural
intentions of park visitors, as well as place satisfaction. Interest-
ingly, while place satisfaction was found to exert a positive effect on
low effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions, it negatively
influenced high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
7. Discussion and implications
This study considered place attachment as a second-order
factor, comprised of sub-dimensions of place dependence, iden-
tity, affect, and social bonding. The goodness of fit statistics as
reported above show that the model fits the data well and suggest
that the four dimensions are an accurate representation of the
place attachment construct, confirming Hypothesis 1. It is inter-
esting to note that place identity has the highest predictive
power, followed by place affect, place dependence and place
social bonding. Our findings are in line with Kyle et al. (2004) who
noted that place attachment is comprised of four sub-dimensions.
Table 3
Psychometric properties of the confirmatory factor model.
Constructs and scale items Factor loadings Composite reliability Average variance extracted
Place attachment 0.86 0.61
Place dependence 0.76 0.53
PD1 For what I like to do, I could not imagine anything better than the settings
and facilities provided by this National Park
0.75
PD2 For the activities I enjoy the most, the settings and facilities provided by
this National Park are the best
0.82
PD3 I enjoy visiting this National Park and its environment more than any other parks 0.57
Place identity 0.86 0.68
PI1 I identify strongly with this park 0.83
PI2 I feel this National Park is part of me 0.89
PI3 Visiting this National Park says a lot about who I am 0.75
Place affect 0.90 0.74
PA1 I am very attached to this park 0.85
PA2 I feel a strong sense of belonging to this National park and its settings/facilities 0.88
PA3 This National Park means a lot to me 0.85
Place social bonding 0.78 0.54
PSB1 Many of my friends/family prefer this National Park over many other parks 0.78
PSB2 If I were to stop visiting this park, I would lose contact with a number of friends 0.75
PSB3 My friends/family would be disappointed if I were to start visiting other settings
and facilities
0.67
Place satisfaction 0.83 0.62
SAT1 I believe I did the right thing when I chose to visit this National Park 0.68
SAT2 Overall, I am satisfied with my decision to visit this National Park 0.84
SAT3 I am happy about my decision to visit this National Park 0.83
Low effort pro-environmental behavioural intent (Factor 1) 0.73 0.50
PEB6 Volunteer to reduce my use of a favourite spot in this National Park if it needs to
recover from environmental damage
0.61
PEB8 Tell my friends not to feed animals in this National Park 0.72
PEB9 Sign petitions in support of this National Park 0.73
High effort pro-environmental behavioural intent (Factor 2) 0.87 0.69
PEB1 Participate in a public meeting about managing this National Park’s programs 0.85
PEB2 Volunteer my time to projects that help this National Park 0.92
PEB3 Write letters in support of this National Park 0.73
Table 2
Overall measurement model indices.
Model Chi-square RMSEA GFI CFI IFI PGFI PNFI
OMM 531.9 (p¼0.00) 0.067 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.70 0.76
Table 4
Discriminant validity matrix.
Place
attachment
Place
satisfaction
Low
PEB
High
PEB
Place attachment 0.62 0.54 0.42 0.35
Place satisfaction 0.62 0.38 0.02
Low PEB 0.50 0.23
High PEB 0.69
The average variance extracted for the respective constructs are shown in bold.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566558

Additionally, a number of hypotheses to test the relationships
between place attachment, place satisfaction, and pro-
environmental behavioural intentions was proposed and tested.
Results from the factor analysis indicated the need to delineate
the pro-environmental behavioural construct into two factors:
low effort and high effort pro-environmental behavioural inten-
tions, and this resulted in the development of additional
hypotheses. Although this finding is somewhat unexpected, it is
in line with researcher’s arguments that pro-environmental
behaviours can be of different types (Devine-Wright & Clayton,
2010;Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), depending on the amount of
effort, resources needed and physical action required (Thøgersen,
2004).
Hypotheses 2a and 2b tested the direct effects of place attach-
ment on visitors’low and high effort pro-environmental behav-
ioural intentions. Findings suggest that place attachment has
a strong and direct positive effect on both visitors’low (t¼4.089,
p<0.001;
b
¼0.32) and high pro-environmental behavioural
intentions (t¼5.882, p<0.001;
b
¼0.49). This lends support to
early place theories (Relph, 1976;Tuan, 1977), suggesting that
experience with a place leads to attachment which leads to
intentions to protect the place. Consistent with literature (e.g.,
Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000;Halpenny, 2010;Harmon, Zin, &
Gleason, 2005;Walker & Ryan, 2008), the study has revealed
greater detail about relationships between place attachment and
pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Investigations of these
relationships in national park contexts are limited (Ramkissoon
et al., 2012). Further, to the authors’knowledge few if any, studies
have treated place attachment as a second-order construct (with
four dimensions of place dependence, identity, affect and social
bonding), and investigated its influence on intentions of visitors to
engage in low and high effort pro-environmental behaviours.
Hypothesis 3 tested the relationship between place attachment and
place satisfaction. The strength of the relationship between the two
constructs provided evidence for this relationship (t¼6.670,
p<0.001;
b
¼0.54). This implies that those visitors who were more
attached to the place were also more likely to be satisfied with their
decision to visit the park as compared to those who had lowers
levels of place attachment. These findings are consistent with other
studies in tourism (e.g., Prayag & Ryan, 2012;Yuksel et al., 2010)
and leisure, and recreational fields (e.g., Halpenny, 2010;Williams
& Vaske, 2003).
Hypotheses 4a and 4b investigated the influence of place
satisfaction on visitors’low and high effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions. Findings indicate that place satisfaction
was a significant determinant of low effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions (t¼3.164, p<0.01;
b
¼0.20) confirming
Hypothesis 4a. This implies that the more satisfied visitors were
with their decision to visit the park, the higher was their intention
to engage in low effort pro-environmental behaviour. This finding
is in line with studies (e.g., Jabarin & Damhoureyeh, 2006;Lopez-
Mosquera & Sanchez, 2011;Oguz, 2000) who reported a positive
correlation between satisfaction and low effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions (e.g., willingness to pay for park use and
subsidies). Unlike Hypothesis 4a, Hypothesis 4b was not supported
by the pooled data. A negative relationship was noted between
place satisfaction and high effort pro-environmental behavioural
intentions (t¼#3.775, p<0.001;
b
¼#0.25). This suggests that the
more satisfied visitors were with their decision to visit the national
park, the weaker their intentions were to engage in high effort pro-
environmental behaviours. The inverse effect of place satisfaction
on visitors’high effort pro-environmental intentions is consistent
with Stedman (2002) and Prester, Rohrmann, and Schellhammer
(1987) in that place satisfaction negatively influences pro-
environmental behaviour.
Results indicate that while place satisfaction exerted a positive
influence on visitors’low effort pro-environmental behavioural
Fig. 3. Structural model.
Table 5
Structural equation model indices.
Model Chi-square RMSEA GFI CFI IFI PGFI PNFI
SEM 540.7 (p¼0.00) 0.067 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.70 0.77
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 559

intentions, it negatively influenced high effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions. Visitors who are generally satisfied with
their decision to visit the park may not see the need to improve the
park’s environment, perhaps because the park and its resources are
already meeting their visitation goals and are perceived to be in an
optimal condition by such visitors. Thus, these visitors may not find
any need to enhance the environment by engaging in environ-
mental behaviours that involve high effort, but are willing to
engage in those environmental behaviours that involve low efforts
to maintain and protect the park’s environment. Our findings
reinforce the need to consider pro-environmental behaviour as
something other than a uni-dimensional construct and suggest that
the same factor can have different effects, depending on the type of
environmental behaviour.
An important learning that emerges from the above findings is
that park managers may need to consider increasing visitors’
attachment to the park by investing in the park’s distinctive
attributes, infrastructure, affective components, and activities.
Evidence suggests that these elements are likely to influence place
attachment (e.g., Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001;Williams et al.,
1992). The authors suggest that this can be done by provision of
information (e.g., leaflets, information desk, tour guides, websites)
and allow park users to contribute to the well-being and protec-
tion of the park’s environment. Findings indicate that place
identity and place affect contributed significantly to place
attachment. This confirms the merits of park management
attempts to promote the affective component of the park and
invest in strategies that are likely to make visitors identify
themselves more with the park. Strategies to promote affective
components could range from on-site marketing and post-visit
communication/interpretation aimed at encouraging repeat visi-
tation to sophisticated message development and delivery aimed
at building emotional attachment, a sense of belonging, and
enhanced personal meaning.
These strategies are likely to increase place satisfaction and
pro-environmental behavioural intentions of park visitors.
However, park authorities may need to recognise that visitors
who are highly satisfied with their decision to visit the park are
less likely to engage in high effort pro-environmental behaviours.
Park managers thus may also need to communicate to visitors
why high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions are of
benefit to themselves, the park and society generally. Clear
articulation of the threats to park sustainability and the efficacy of
visitor pro-environmental behaviour in reducing these threats
may be required. Visitors need to see for example how the current
global economic crisis has impacted on the capacity of Parks
Victoria to staff and to maintain Dandenong Ranges National Park,
particularly its recreational opportunities. To address these
threats, visitors may be asked to volunteer on a specific park-
related activity (e.g., clean-up Australia Day or pull up weeds
that encroach on the park) or to write a letter to support the park
(e.g., seeking additional facilities, services and staff to enhance or
expand recreational activities within the park). Environmental
behaviour literature argues that people will act only if they see
the efficacy of their behaviours (in this case how they will directly
benefit the park visitor and protect or enhance the current quality
and range of visitor experiences at the park) (Barr, Gilg, & Shaw,
2011).
It may also be important for the park authorities to segment
visitors based on their place satisfaction levels. Park managers
may consider collecting information on satisfaction levels and
demographic background of visitors through surveys. This infor-
mation would allow park managers understand the characteristics
of visitors with high levels of place satisfaction. Data collected can
then be used to segment visitors, and based on results, post-
visitation marketing and behavioural change strategies may be
implemented to encourage visitors with high place satisfaction to
engage in high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
This is likely to be a successful strategy given that the park attracts
many repeat visitors. It may also be useful for the park authority to
provide on-site information (e.g., through leaflets) to visitors
about the benefits of engaging in high effort pro-environmental
behaviours for the park and wider society. These strategies are
likely to target and benefit both first-time and repeat visitors to
the park.
8. Conclusion and recommendations for future research
By considering place attachment as a four-dimensional
construct and investigating its relationships with place satisfac-
tion and pro-environmental behaviours in a single model, this
study offers new theoretical insights to researchers and scholars.
The overall measurement model for place attachment showed
a good fit to the data which required no re-specification. This
implies that the measurement model imposed for the place
attachment construct (Fig. 2) is consistent with the place attach-
ment observations in the literature. From a methodological
perspective, the confirmatory factor analytic method applied sup-
ported the validity of the place attachment scale as a second-order
factor and will be of interest to researchers wishing to capture place
attachment in other contexts. Furthermore, while place depen-
dence, identity, and more recently affect have been used as sub-
constructs of place attachment, researchers have seldom included
the social bonding dimension in a national park context. Yet, as
argued in literature, it remains an important component of the
humaneplace interaction (Kyle et al., 2005).
The effects of place attachment on place satisfaction and low
and high effort pro-environmental behavioural intentions were
further examined using structural equation modelling. Upon
establishing a valid measurement model, the structural model was
tested. While previous research did consider the effect of place
attachment on pro-environmental behavioural intentions,
a notable theoretical contribution of this study is that it delineates
pro-environmental behavioural intentions into low and high effort
intentions. Researchers have called for more empirical research on
the different types of pro-environmental behaviours that individ-
uals exhibit (Dono, Webb, & Richardson, 2010). Our findings
suggest that place satisfaction has differential effects on the two
Table 6
Regression paths.
Hypothesis Regression paths coefficients Standard path Critical ratio (t-value) pResults
H2a Place attachment /Low PEB 0.317 4.089 *** Supported
H2b Place attachment /High PEB 0.491 5.882 *** Supported
H3 Place attachment /Place satisfaction 0.542 6.670 *** Supported
H4a Place satisfaction /Low PEB 0.201 3.164 ** Supported
H4b Place satisfaction /High PEB #0.248 #3.775 *** Not supported
**p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566560

types of pro-environmental behavioural intentions that were
investigated. This suggests that it may be important for researchers
not to consider pro-environmental behavioural intent as a uni-
dimensional construct. Future studies can further test Halpenny
(2010) in other national park settings to further this stream of
research. Another contribution of this study is that it contributes to
research on place satisfaction in a nature-based setting (O’Neill
et al., 2010;Ramkissoon et al., 2012). The differential effects of
place satisfaction on low and high effort pro-environmental
behavioural intentions suggest the need for studies to delve
further into the nature of park-related pro-environmental
behaviours.
Although the structural model tested in the present study is an
improvement over existing ones, future studies can expand on the
model by including other variables such as normative concerns
(Raymond et al., 2011), recreation involvement (Lee, 2011), and
environmental activism (Dono et al., 2010) that may influence pro-
environmental behaviours. Inclusion of these variables may
improve the predictive power of the model. The ways in which
some of the variables of the study have been defined may give rise
to some limitations. Existing studies suggest that overall satisfac-
tion is a function of visitors’satisfaction with different elements of
a setting (Tonge & Moore, 2007). Bolton and Drew (1991) also noted
that satisfaction comprises overall and specific place/product
evaluations. It is for these reasons that Ryan, Shuo, and Huan (2010,
p. 188) argued in favour of a “multi-attribute importance evaluation
approach”. Thus, there may be value for future studies to delineate
the satisfaction construct into other sub-dimensions in order to
shed further light on the relationships between place attachment
and place satisfaction.
The notion of place attachment also poses some conceptual
problems. While domestic visitors may have more opportunities
to repeatedly visit a place, international visitors are often not in
apositiontomakerepeatvisitsduetogeographical,financial, or
other constraints. Thus, place attachment may have limited
relevance in the case of international visitors. In addition, they
may simply be attached to a particular destination or be loyal to
tour operators rather than be attached to an attraction within
that destination. Some others may simply be engaging in
habitual behaviour without having any emotional connection
with a place. These pose some challenges when investigating
place attachment which future studies should address. Given the
contextual nature of place attachment, it is also important that
future research tests the model in other recreational contexts
and settings to confirm the external validity of the current
study’sfindings.
Appendix 1. Map of Dandenong Ranges National Park
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 561

Fig. A1. The Thousand Steps. Source: Parks Victoria (2010).
Fig. A2. Picnic ground. Source: Parks Victoria (2010).
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566562

Fig. A4. Bird watching. Source: Parks Victoria (2010).
Fig. A3. Children’s playground. Source: Parks Victoria (2010).
Appendix 2
Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
Constructs and scale items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Place attachment
Place dependence 3.68 #0.41 0.44
For what I like to do, I could not imagine anything better than the settings and facilities
provided by this National Park
3.62 0.94
For the activities I enjoy the most, the settings and facilities provided by this National Park are the best 3.92 0.80
I enjoy visiting this National Park and its environment more than any other parks 3.49 0.93
Place identity 3.32 #0.10 #0.01
I identify strongly with this park 3.44 0.98
I feel this National Park is part of me 3.22 1.01
Visiting this National Park says a lot about who I am 3.29 0.96
Place affect 3.44 #0.27 0.08
I am very attached to this park 3.37 1.01
I feel a strong sense of belonging to this National park and its settings/facilities 3.30 1.00
This National Park means a lot to me 3.66 0.94
Place social bonding 2.35 0.64 #0.71
Many of my friends/family prefer this National Park over many other parks 2.85 1.09
If I were to stop visiting this park, I would lose contact with a number of friends 1.97 1.00
My friends/family would be disappointed if I were to start visiting other settings and facilities 2.25 1.03
Place satisfaction 4.26 #0.60 1.78
I believe I did the right thing when I chose to visit this National Park 4.19 0.72
Overall, I am satisfied with my decision to visit this National Park 4.28 0.63
I am happy about my decision to visit this National Park 4.30 0.67
Low effort pro-environmental behavioural intent (Factor 1) 3.51 #0.48 0.58
Volunteer to reduce my use of a favourite spot in this National Park if it needs to
recover from environmental damage
3.57 1.37
Tell my friends not to feed animals in this National Park 2.76 1.25
Sign petitions in support of this National Park 3.87 1.17
Learn about this National Park’s natural environment 3.65 1.09
Pay increased park fees if they were introduced for this National Park’s programs 2.66 1.29
Volunteer to stop visiting a favourite spot in this park if it needs to recover from environmental damage 3.55 1.93
High effort pro-environmental behavioural intent (Factor 2) 2.09 0.61 #0.71
Volunteer my time to projects that help this National Park 2.04 1.16
Participate in a public meeting about managing this National Park’s programs 1.94 1.16
Write letters in support of this National Park 2.29 1.24
Table 2
Covariance matrix.
SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 PEB1 PEB2 PEB3 PEB6 PEB8 PEB9 PSB1 PSB2 PSB3 PA1 PA2 PA3 PI1 PI2 PI3 PD1 PD2 PD3
SAT1 0.400
SAT2 0.322 0.520
SAT3 0.245 0.281 0.470
PEB1 0.018 0.044 0.028 1.545
PEB2 0.026 0.014 #0.10 0.959 1.332
PEB3 #0.026 0.020 #0.065 0.866 1.047 1.346
(continued on next page)
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 563

Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.003.
References
Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411e423.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40,8e34.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’support for conservation
messages, and sustainable management practices in wildlife experiences.
Tourism Management, 30(5), 658e664.
Baral, N., Stern, M., & Bhattarai, R. (2008). Contingent valuation of ecotourism in
Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: implications for sustainable park finance
and local development. Ecological Economics, 66(2/3), 218e227.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). Citizens, consumers, and sustainability. (Re)
Framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environ-
mental Change, 21, 1224e1233.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238e246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588e600.
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: an analysis of
pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833e844.
Blackstock, K. L., White, V., McCrum, G., Scott, A., & Hunter, C. (2008). Measuring
responsibility: an appraisal of a Scottish National Park’s sustainable tourism
indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 276e297.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’assessments of
service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17,375e384.
Bosque, I., & Martin, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction: a cognitive-affective model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551e573.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment, Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1975). Attachment theory, separation anxiety and mourning. In
D. A. Hamburg, & K. H. Brodie (Eds.), American handbook of psychiatry (pp. 292e
309). New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, Vol. 2. New York: Basic Books.
Brehm, J., Eisenhauer, B., & Krannich, R. (2006). Community attachment as
predictors of local environmental concern, the case for multiple dimensions of
attachment. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2), 142e165.
Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attach-
ment: an exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22,
233e257.
Brocato, E. D. (2006). Place attachment: An investigation of environments and
outcomes in service context (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis): The University of
Texas at Arlington.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing
neighbourhood: individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23(3), 259e271.
Budruk, M., Thomas, H., & Tyrrell, T. (2009). Urban green spaces: a study of place
attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Society and Natural Resources,
22(9), 824e839.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions and programming. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cabrera-Nyugen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and
validation results in the journal of society for social work and research. Journal
of Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), 99e103.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of
second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12,471e492.
Davis, J., Green, J., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment:
commitment, interconnectedness and environmental behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173e180.
Davis, J., Le, B., & Coy, A. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural
environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 31,257e265.
Devine-Wright, P., & Clayton, S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: place,
identity and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30,
267e270.
Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the
protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 271e280.
Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental
activism, pro-environmental behavior and social identity. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 30,178e186.
Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conflict: evaluating
public interest. Tourism Management, 31,104e112.
Felonneau, M. L. (2004). Love and loathing of the city: urbanophilia and urban-
ophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24,43e52.
Ferreira, S. (2011). Moulding urban children towards environmental stewardship:
the Table Mountain National Park experience. Environmental Education
Research, 18,251e270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.622838.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39e50.
Gooch, M. (2003). A sense of place: ecological identity as a driver for catchment
volunteering. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 8(2), 23e32.
Gosling, E., & Williams, K. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and
conservation behavior: testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 298e304.
Guiliani, M., & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and
cultural context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267e274.
Gursoy, D., & Gavcar, E. (2003). International leisure tourists’involvement profile.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 906e926.
Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of
school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407e434.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. London: Pearson.
Halpenny, E. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviors and park visitors: the effect of
place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409e421.
Hammitt, W. E. (2000). The relation between being away and privacy in urban
forests recreation environments. Environment and Behaviour, 32,521e540.
Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreational
places: conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25(1), 17e41.
Hammitt, W. E., Kyle, G. T., & Oh, C. O. (2009). Comparison of place bonding
models in recreation resou rce management. Journa l of Leisure Research, 41(1),
57e72.
Harmon, L. K., Zinn, H. C., & Gleason, M. (2005). Place-based affect and participation
in educational/interpretive programs: exploring differences. In Proceedings of
the 13th Biennial George Wright Society conference. Philadelphia, PA.
Hartig, T., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T., & Garling, T. (1996). Environmental
influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37,
378e393.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) system for factor
analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hernández, B., Martin, A., Ruiz, C., & Hidalgo, M. (2010). The role of place identity
and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 281e288.
Table 2 (continued )
SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 PEB1 PEB2 PEB3 PEB6 PEB8 PEB9 PSB1 PSB2 PSB3 PA1 PA2 PA3 PI1 PI2 PI3 PD1 PD2 PD3
PEB6 0.177 0.188 0.186 0.426 0.203 0.112 1.373
PEB8 0.184 0.237 0.224 0.396 0.29 0.163 0.729 1.564
PEB9 0.122 0.097 0.160 0.432 0.288 0.073 0.723 0.804 1.878
PSB1 0.016 0.021 #0.037 0.335 0.310 0.370 0.055 0.044 #0.056 1.057
PSB2 #0.064 #0.029 #0.041 0.443 0.417 0.432 0.042 0.078 0.026 0.621 0.997
PSB3 0.074 0.114 0.084 0.372 0.272 0.250 0.185 0.126 0.064 0.545 0.537 1.180
PA1 0.0249 0.287 0.244 0.309 0.275 0.268 0.379 0.290 0.215 0.249 0.172 0.326 0.879
PA2 0.210 0.270 0.203 0.367 0.301 0.298 0.416 0.325 0.187 0.300 0.194 0.374 0.719 1.026
PA3 0.240 0.245 0.186 0.337 0.317 0.307 0.354 0.291 0.159 0.332 0.244 0.411 0.654 0.775 1.006
PI1 0.210 0.238 0.176 0.320 0.265 0.305 0.293 0.259 0.128 0.362 0.255 0.419 0.615 0.687 0.657 1.017
PI2 0.235 0.277 0.227 0.343 0.260 0.249 0.352 0.304 0.137 0.261 0.194 0.367 0.637 0.680 0.678 0.743 0.968
PI3 0.180 0.253 0.236 0.297 0.160 0.187 0.298 0.292 0.150 0.247 0.204 0.328 0.568 0.570 0.570 0.579 0.634 0.924
PD1 0.176 0.203 0.140 0.042 0.032 0.018 0.155 0.172 0.084 0.041 0.011 0.147 0.244 0.271 0.271 0.225 0.284 0.266 0.642
PD2 0.150 0.185 0.161 0.135 0.067 0.069 0.219 0.231 0.000 0.169 0.100 0.308 0.298 0.311 0.311 0.305 0.341 0.330 0.490 0.891
PD3 0.160 0.212 0.142 0.178 0.161 0.128 0.184 0.163 0.001 0.225 0.156 0.401 0.354 0.360 0.360 0.433 0.411 0.372 0.277 0.399 0.869
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566564

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empirical
questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21,310e319.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: the role of
affective connection and identity. Journal of Environme ntal Psychology, 28,
109 e120.
Hipp, J., & Ogunseitan, O. (2011). Effect of environmental conditions on perceived
psychological restorativeness of coastal parks. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31,421e429.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concept, issues and applications (pp. 76e99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., & Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’
involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s
national parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143e156.
Jabarin, A. S., & Damhoureyeh, S. A. (2006). Estimating the recreational benefits of
Dibeen National Park in Jordan using contingent valuation and travel cost
methods. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9,2198e2206.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User reference guide (1st ed.). Chicago:
Scientific Software.
Jorgensen, B., & Stedman, R. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners’
attitudes toward their properties.Journal of Environmental Psychology,21,233e248.
Kals, E., Shumaker, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as
a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behaviour, 31,178e202.
Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In
I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Human behavior and the environment: Advances
in theory and research: Behavior and the natural environment, Vol. 6 (pp. 163e
203). New York: Plenum Press.
Kelly, G., & Hosking, K. (2008). Nonpermanent residents, place attachment, and “sea
change”communities. Environment and Behaviour, 40(4), 575e594.
Korpela, K., Ylen, M., Tyrvainen, L., & Silvennoinen, H. (2009). Stability of self-
reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 29,95e100.
Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A. R., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place
attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behaviour, 37, 285e303.
Kyle, G., Mowen, A., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place
meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and
place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439e454.
Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment, and conservation
commitment affect environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 19(7), 895e915.
Lehman, P., & Geller, E. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection.
Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior & Social Issues, 13,13e32.
Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city?
Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
30,35e51.
Lopez-Mosquera, N., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Emotional and satisfaction benefits to
visitors as explanatory factors in the monetary evaluation of environmental
goods. An application to periurban green spaces. Land Use Policy, 28,151e166.
Low, S., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, &
S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1e12). New York: Plenum.
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent-variable models of multitraitemulti-
method data. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues and
applications (pp. 177e198). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of
individuals’feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 503e515.
Milligan, M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: the social construction of
place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21,1e33.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings. Leisure
Sciences, 16,17e31.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989).
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 105, 430e445.
Nachtigall, C., Kroehne, U., Funke, F., & Steyer, R. (2003). (Why) should we use SEM?
Pros and cons of structural equation modelling. Methods of Psychological
Research Online, 8(2), 1e22.
Neal, J., & Gursoy, D. (2008). A multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfaction. Journal
of Travel Research, 47(1), 53e62.
Negra, C., & Manning, R. (1997). Incorporating environmental behaviour, ethics, and
values into non-formal environmental education programs. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education, 28(20), 10e21.
Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nusair, K., & Hua, N. (2010). Comparative assessment of structural equation
modelling and multiple regression research methodologies: E-commerce
context. Tourism Management, 31,314e324.
Oguz, D. (2000). User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 52,165e217.
O’Neill, M., Riscinto-Kozub, K., & Van Hyfte, M. (2010). Defining visitor satisfaction
in the context of camping oriented nature-based tourism-the driving force of
quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(2), 141e156.
Parks Forum. (2008). The value of parks. Retrieved: 2012 August 22. http://www.nt.
gov.au/nreta/parks/pdf/valueof parks.pdf.
Parks Victoria. (2010). Parks Victoria: VSM 2009/2010: Dandenong Ranges National
Park. Victoria: Market Solutions Pty Ltd.
Perkins, D. D., & Long, A. D. (2002). Neighbourhood sense of community and social
capital: a multi-level analysis. In A. Fischer, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.),
Psychological sense of community: Research, applications and implications (pp.
291e318). New York: Plenum Press.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’loyalty to Mauritius: the role
and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement
and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 342e356.
Prester, G., Rohrmann, B., & Schellhammer, E. (1987). Environmental evaluations
and participation in activities: a social psychological field study. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 17(9), 751e789.
Prohansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behaviour, 10,
147e169.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L., & Weiler, B. Relationships between place attachment,
place satisfaction, and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian National
Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,in press.
Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2012). Place attachment and pro-
environmental behaviour in national parks: the development of a conceptual
framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(2), 257e276.
Raymond, C., Brown, G., & Robinson, G. (2011). The influence of place attachment,
and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetatio n:
a test of two behavioural models. Journal of Environmental Psychol ogy, 31,
323e335.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and place rootedness. London: Pion Limited.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory
second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23,51
e67.
Rolero, C., & De Picolli , N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environ-
ment perception: an empirical study. Journal of Environm ental Psycholo gy, 30,
198 e205.
Ryan, C., Shuo, Y. S., & Huan, T. C. (2010). Theme parks and a structural equation
model of determinants of visitor satisfaction eJanfusan Fancyworld, Taiwan.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16,185e199.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010a). Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1e10.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010b). The relations between natural and civic place
attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(3), 289e297.
Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147e177.
Sirgy, J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal
of Travel Research, 49(2), 246e260.
Sivek, D. J., & Hungerford, H. (1989/1990). Predictors of responsible behaviour in
members of Wisconsin conservation organizations. Journal of Environmental
Education, 21(1), 35e40.
Snepenger, D., Snepenger, M., Dalbey, M., & Wessol, A. (2007). Meanings and
consumption characteristics of places at a tourism destination. Journal of Travel
Research, 45,310e321.
Sobel, D. Watch it, do it, or watch it done: The relation between observation, inter-
vention, and observation of intervention in causal structure learning: Brown
University, Manuscript submitted for publication.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior
from place-based cognitions, attitudes, and identity. Environment and Behaviour,
34,561e581.
Stockdale, A., & Barker, A. (2009). Sustainability and the multifunctional landscape:
an assessment of approaches to planning and assessment in the Cairngorms
National Park. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 479e492.
Stokols, D., & Shumacker, S. A. (1981). People in places: a transactional view of
settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp.
441e448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thøgersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and
inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 24(1), 93e103.
Tonge, J., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park
hinterlands: a Western Australian case study. Tourism Management, 28(3),
768e776.
Tsai, S. (2011). Place attachment and tourism marketing: investigating international
tourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 139e152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.842.
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Tuan, Y. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24,3e8.
Tumanan, M., & Lansangan, J. (2012). More than just a cuppa coffee: a multi-
dimensional approach towards analysing the factors that define place attach-
ment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 529e534.
Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 205e220.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape
Research, 4(1), 17e23.
Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion and
environmental sustainability. Environment and Behaviour, 34(1), 26e53.
Vaske, J., & Kobrin, K. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16e21.
Walker, G. J., & Chapman, R. (2003). Thinking like a park: the effects of sense of
place, perspective-taking, and empathy on pro-environmental intentions.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(4), 71e86.
Walker, A. J., & Ryan, R. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in
rural New England: a Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2),
141e152.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566 565

Williams, D., & Vaske, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: val-
idity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6),
830e840.
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, 14,29e46.
Yu, Y., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer
loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12, 234e250.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,
31,274e284.
Haywantee (Rumi) Ramkissoon holds a PhD in Tourism
and has a second PhD degree from the Faculty of Business
& Economics, Monash University, Australia. In her current
role at Monash University, Haywantee conducts research
at BehaviourWorks Australia at the Monash Sustainability
Institute and serves as an executive member of the
Australia & International Tourism Research Unit. Most of
her research has centred on host and tourist behaviour
from a sustainable tourism perspective. Drawing from the
tourism and environmental psychology streams, Hay-
wantee’s current research interests aligns with behaviour
change in tourism. Her publications appear in leading
journals such as Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Tourism Analysis,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research among others.
Haywantee also teaches on undergraduate and post-
graduate tourism programs.
Liam Smith is the Director of BehaviourWorks Australia at
Monash University, a recently-formed interdisciplinary
research initiative focusing on behaviour change for
sustainable outcomes. Prior to this, Liam was acting
Director of the Tourism Research Unit, also at Monash
University. He completed his PhD in 2009 examining the
role of emotional arousal in influencing human behaviour.
Most of Liam’s research has been conducted in collabora-
tion with the tourism industry and he has published 20
peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters on
human behaviour and behaviour change as well as over 40
industry reports. He has received several accolades for his
research, including acceptance into Monash University’s
Research Accelerator program.
Betty Weiler holds a PhD from the University of Victoria
(Canada) and is Research Professor in the School of
Tourism & Hospitality Management at Southern Cross
University (Australia). Her 150 publications in interna-
tional tourism research journals and other outlets have
centred on the tourist experience, including the role of the
tour guide and heritage and nature interpretation. Betty is
known for her collaboration with and contribution to the
management of protected areas, zoos and heritage
attractions. More recently her work has focused on
managing visitors and influencing their on-site and post-
visit behaviour.
H. Ramkissoon et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 552e566566