The Relations Among Natural and Civic Place Attachment, Environmental Evaluations, and Pro- Environmental Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relation between place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour has not yet been thoroughly examined. The few studies that have investigated this report conflicting findings: place attachment was associated with more (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001) and with less (Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas, 2002) proenvironmental behaviour. These contrasting results may relate to inconsistencies in the definition of place attachment. The current study distinguished two dimensions of place attachment: social-symbolic (civic), and physical-natural. Data were collected from 104 community members in two proximate towns in British Columbia, Canada. The towns are similar in geographic and demographic characteristics, but they differ in environmental reputation. Participants completed a place attachment scale that assessed the strength of their local attachment on the civic and natural dimensions, evaluated the current and future quality of the environment, and completed a measure of their pro-environmental behaviour (Kaiser & Wilson, 2001). Consistent with previous research on place attachment and place perception, greater attachment was associated with more positive ratings of one’s own town. However, this relation held only for evaluations of current (i.e., not future) environmental quality, and only for the town with reputedly poorer environmental quality. Surprisingly, environmental evaluations did not predict sustainable behaviour in either town, presumably because participants did not perceive environmental problems to be sufficiently salient or serious. Both civic and natural place attachment predicted pro-environmental behaviour in the town with the better environmental reputation, but only natural place attachment predicted pro-environmental behaviour in the town with a poorer environmental reputation. This demonstrates that the dimension and the location of place attachment importantly vary as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. Directions for further research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".