Place Attachment Assessment of A Heritage Place A Cas - 2018 - Frontiers of Arc
Place Attachment Assessment of A Heritage Place A Cas - 2018 - Frontiers of Arc
Place Attachment Assessment of A Heritage Place A Cas - 2018 - Frontiers of Arc
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Received 21 July 2016; received in revised form 2 December 2017; accepted 8 December 2017
KEYWORDS Abstract
Spiritual value; This research investigated the place attachment of a heritage place, namely, the Roman
Place attachment; amphitheater, by using a valid model, the Kyle, Graefe, and Manning (2005) model. This model
Place identity; presents three factors to reach place attachment: place identification, place dependence, and
Place identification; social bonding. Although the validity of the used model was proved, statistical tests were used
Place dependence;
to verify the validity of the collected data because the model was used on a heritage site. In
Social bond
accordance with the mentioned model, the sample was interviewed using the model
questionnaire to evaluate people's attachment to the heritage place during rush hours. Along
with other statistical tests, the exploratory factor analysis of the sample elaborated that the
Kyle, Graefe, and Manning model is not completely valid for this study, because the results
added a new effective factor, namely, spiritual value. The place attachment estimation was
then examined using the new model. The nature of the place was found to affect the model
used to evaluate its place attachment.
& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nessma1990@gmail.com (N.A. Al-Hammadi).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.12.001
2095-2635/& 2017 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 J.S. Goussous, N.A. Al-Hammadi
preserve the people's attachment to heritage places in ways. Place identity is a part of place attachment (Kyle
order to secure their identity (Ujang, 2010). Accordingly, et al., 2005) and vice versa (Lalli, 1992), but while place
the present study used the model of Kyle et al. (2005) to attachment and place identity are connected, they are
help identify the place attachment of a heritage place, with different from each other (Hernandez et al., 2007). Fried
the Roman amphitheater as a case study. The model (2000) explained that “the operational formulation of
provides a valid measurement of place attachment by attachment theory, as it applies to place behavior, points
examining the social bond, place dependence, and place to its origin and meaning in response to the availability of
identity of a people. close, local relationships to people and, by extension, to the
places of relational interaction” (p. 195). Low and Altman
1.1. Issues and objectives (1992) noted that place attachment contains several hidden
concepts, similar to the symbolic aspect that is related to a
The study area is one of the important heritage places in specific environment. They also added that emotional
Jordan. The Roman amphitheater, located in downtown attributes are attended by awareness and behaviors.
Amman (Fig. 1), was built in AD 167–177 into the slope of
a forum constructed in 19 years after the amphitheater. It
accommodates 6000 spectators and has 33 seats (Fig. 2)
2.2. Dimensions of place attachment
(Northedge and Bowsher, 1992)
Seamon and Sowers (2008), who relied on the studies of
Edward Relph, stated, “If places are to be more thoroughly
2. Theoretical background understood, one needs a language whereby we can identify
particular place experiences regarding the intensity of
2.1. Place attachment meaning and intention that a person and place hold for
each other” (p. 4). Some studies also considered the term
Heritage, as the UNESCO defines it, is “our legacy from the “person–place bond” to contain both place identity and
past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to place dependence (e.g., Williams and Roggenbuck, 1989;
future generations” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005). Schreyer et al., 1981). In addition, self-dimensions define
An individual's identification of heritage places can be the individual's identity in a physical environment through
changed significantly over the years, and it addresses the complicated ideas, viewpoints, predictions, emotions, and
difficult issue of preserving the identity of a valuable place so forth (Proshansky, 1978). This concept explains personal
(Tonkin, 2012). According to Ujang (2010), “to secure place attachment. Thus, to differentiate between personal
identity is to ensure continuity in the physical, social place attachment and actual place identity, the current
together with meanings and attachment held by the peo- study will refer to the first term as place identification.
ple” (p. 64). This idea emphasizes the social role of However, place dependence focuses on setting efficiency
preserving place identity (i.e., preserving heritage place with regard to serving goal achievement by giving different
identity). Studies have related place attachment (i.e., alternatives (Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). Furthermore,
people's attachment to a place) with place identity in many social bonds are emotions of belongingness or people
Fig. 1 Site of the Roman amphitheater. Source: Northedge and Bowsher (1992).
Place attachment assessment of a heritage place: A case study of the Roman amphitheater in downtown Amman, 3
Fig. 2 Drawings of the Roman amphitheater. Source: Northedge and Bowsher (1992).
PLACE ATTACHEMENT Place Identification Q1 (Meaning): The Roman amphitheater means a lot to me.
Q2 (Identify): I know the historical background of the Roman amphitheater.
Q3 (Attached): I am very attached to the Roman amphitheater.
Q4 (Commitment): I feel commitment to the Roman amphitheater.
Place Dependence Q1 (Activities): The place itself is enjoyable despite the festivals.
Q2 (Best): The amphitheater is the best part of the place.
Q3 (Preference): I wouldn’t prefer any other place.
Q4 (Satisfaction): I feel satisfied on the Roman amphitheater than any other
place.
Social Bond Q1 (Memories): I have a lot of fond memories.
Q2 (Residency): I live near this place.
Q3 (Users): I will (do) bring my children to this place.
Q4 (Special bond): I have a special connection to the Roman amphitheater.
Fig. 3 Research model based on the Kyle, Graefe, and Manning model. Source: Author.
4 J.S. Goussous, N.A. Al-Hammadi
connection owing to common characteristics (Kasarda and The study used the questions’ model of the three factors
Janowitz, 1974). The social relationship with specific set- (variables) that allows individual differentiation between
tings in the place expresses special meaning and experi- the three dimensions of place attachment (Fig. 3). The
ences (Kyle et al., 2005). Therefore, a place could be impact of the nature of the study on the model will also be
valued because of its efficiency, its symbolic aspects, and examined by using the model on a heritage place. However,
its relationship with users or even by all three (Moore and the sample will not be divided into groups because the study
Graefe, 1994). Given that previous literature explained measures the whole sample equivalently and will depend on
place attachment in terms of its relation to securing place the analysis of one model. Consequently, the data were
identity, the present study will use this concept to measure entered and analyzed through the Statistical Package for
the place attachment of the Roman amphitheater as a the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0.
heritage place to predict the continuity of its identity.
3. Method 4. Result
3.1. Study setting Table 2 elaborates on the nature of the users, who
comprised 143 family members, of whom 70 were individual
The Roman amphitheater that was built by Emperor Pius is men and 41were individual women. These figures indicate
still used for local activities such as concerts and ceremo- that most of the users of the Roman amphitheater are
nies, especially in the summer, spring, and fall (USAID, families. Despite the lack of historical background for all
2013). This site is considered an essential icon of downtown users of the Roman amphitheater, they were affected by the
Amman, which is near a residential area. heritage importance of the place. (Fig. 4)
Table 3 describes the means of the variables that are the
most effective on every factor. For instance, place identi-
3.2. Design and sample fication was affected the most by people meanings of the
place. For place dependence, people activities were the
most affected question. Moreover, social bond was affected
– Data were collected over the spring (March) of 2016 on by people's opinion on the user type. The table also shows
Fridays at noon during the rush hours (3:00 p.m.–5:00 p. the standard deviations (SD) of the variables that present
m.). the concentration in the sample answers. As clarified in
– The population used in the study consisted of about 510 Table 3, people answered similarly in the last three ques-
local users of different ages and genders who were tions for the place identification factor that dealt with
approached during the rush hours. However, the study attachment, commitment, and identity feelings to the
depended on random sampling and covered 254 users, place. Therefore, SD in the last three questions was close
which is about half of the population. to M, which indicated people's focus on a certain answer
– The authorities concerned were also interviewed to (completely agree).
confirm their role in emphasizing the social attachment Table 4 presents the reliability of the place attachment
to the Roman amphitheater. measurement that was evaluated by investigating the
internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the questions
3.3. Analytical framework for the three factors of place attachment. The Cronbach's
alpha, as shown in the table, is questionable on two factors,
A correlation research design was used to describe the place dependence and social bond. Thus, a t-test was
existing relationship between the variables that resulted necessary to check their validity (Table 5). The test verified
special
the range of the interval.
bond
2.52
.969
Table 5 reports that the significant t-values Z1.96
SB:
provide evidence of the convergent validity of the data.
Note that this study tested the Chi-square and did not find
1.393
users
2.55
SB:
any significant results due to the small sample so no details
will be addressed. However, this result confirms Kyle et al.’s
(2005) study that the three factors of place attachment are
residency
not correlated with one another. Moreover, a non-significant
1.172
Chi-square indicates a good model fit.
2.50
SB:
memories
1.70
PD:
4.2. Commonalities
activities
1.005
1.076
1.73
tion for the four extracted factors, the study considered only
the magnitude values of the major values. For further
Std. Deviation
Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on Mean (M) Variance Std. Deviation (SD)
Alpha (α) standardized Items
Lower Upper
F1of4 6.3307 3.22062 254 – Means: The most affected variable on every factor is as
F2of4 6.8504 2.47542 254 follows (Table 2):
F3of4 4.7874 1.56357 254 *Place Identification people meanings
F4of4 6.9213 1.93207 254 *Place Dependence people activities
General F (SUM) 24.8898 4.54878 254 *Social Bond user type
– Standard Deviations (SD): The concentration in the sam-
ple answers is as follows (Table 2):
The study examined reliability in two ways: by factors in *Similarities PI: (attachment, commitment,
Table 8b and by variables in Table 8c. By examining identity)
reliability using the factors in Table 8b, Special bond (SB) *Bias SB: concentrate on a certain answer
was noted to be the most affected variable on the measure- (completely agree)
ment tool variance because it has the minimum scale
means, which indicate the sample tended to answer. (3) Reliability of the three factors (PI, PD, SB)
8 J.S. Goussous, N.A. Al-Hammadi
(Table 6a):
Factor No. Variables Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item Squared Multiple Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation if Item Deleted
Variables Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item Total Squared Multiple Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
6. The study model evaluates its attachment. Eventually, after the study ana-
lysis, place attachment was found to have a neutral
After the previous statistical tests, this research suggests a condition that requires greater efforts to raise up.
developed model. Given that the study estimated the
attachment of a heritage place, the Roman amphitheater,
the uniqueness of the place affected the measurement References
model, namely, the Kyle et al. (2005) model. The results
of the EFA analysis clarified that a heritage place attach- Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., 2011. Exploratory factor analysis.
ment cannot be correctly represented by extracting only Oxford University Press.
three factors, thus addressing the need for a fourth factor. Fried, M., 2000. Continuities and discontinuities of place. J.
As the first model had three factors (place identification, Environ. Psychol. 20, 193–205.
place dependence, social bond), this study will suggest Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M.C., Salazar-Laplace, M.E., Hess, S.,
spiritual values as the fourth factor. 2007. Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-
Fig. 5 shows the new factor variables that contain the natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 310–319.
people's special bond and subjective meaning to the place. Jorgensen, B.S., Stedman, R.C., 2001. Sense of place as an
Owing to the nature of the variables, the study named the attitude: lakeshore owners' attitudes toward their properties.
J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 233–248.
new factor as “spiritual value.” In the end, the general
Kasarda, J., Janowitz, M., 1974. Community attachment in mass
factor, which is mentioned in Table 7a, represents the society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 328–339.
PLACE ATTACHMENT that has half the mean of the total. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., 2005. Testing the dimensionality
This figure means that people attachment to the Roman of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ. Behav. 37,
amphitheater is neutral (not high and not low). It also 153–177.
indicates the need for increasing place attachment to Lalli, M., 1992. Urban-related identity: theory, measurement and
heritage places. Note that since the 1960s, the authorities empirical findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 12, 285–303.
have attempted to help in this matter by organizing Low, S.M., Altman, I., 1992. Place attachment: a conceptual
festivals from music ceremonies to boxing matches. Nowa- inquiry. In: Altman, I., Low, S.M. (Eds.), Place Attachment.
days, the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is trying to Plenum, New York, pp. 1–12.
Moore, R.L., Graefe, A.R., 1994. Attachments to recreation set-
maintain the same vitality in the place by organizing
tings: the case of rail-trail users. Leis. Sci. 16, 17–31.
festivals for different occasions, especially during the spring Northedge, A., Bowsher, J., 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic
semester. The consistent maintenance and the convenient ʻAmmān: The Excavations of Mrs. C-M Bennett and Other
security of the place likewise increase the visitors and, Investigations. Published for the British Institute in Amman for
consequently, it will increase people's attachment to the Archaeology and History by Oxford University Press, Oxford.
place. Proshansky, H.M., 1978. The city and self-identity. Environ. Behav.
10, 147–169.
Schreyer, R., Jacob, G., White, R., 1981. Environmental meaning as
7. Conclusion a determinant of spatial behavior in recreation. Proc. Appl.
Geogr. Conf. 4, 294–300.
This research aimed to assess the place attachment of the Seamon, D., Sowers, J., 2008. Place and Placelessness, Edward
Roman amphitheater in downtown Amman, a heritage place Relph, Human Geography. David Seamon & Jacob Sowers, 43–51.
that sits near a residential area. Many studies have defined Tonkin, S., 2012. WHAT IS HERITAGE?, Australian Heritage Strategy,
place attachment and related it to several concepts. In this Public Consultation Paper.
research, we relied on Kyle et al. (2005), who developed a Ujang, Norisdah, 2010. Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban
valid model to measure place attachment by place identi- Place Identity. Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty
fication, place dependence, and social bond. Owing to the of Design and Architecture, University Putra Malaysia (UPM).
UNESCO, 2005. UNESCO World Heritage Centre - New Inscribed Proper-
specialty of the heritage place, the model used did not
ties. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from 〈www.whc.unesco.org〉.
perfectly fit the study, as shown by the statistical results. USAID, 2013. A Walk Around Al-Balad Downtown Amman. Jordan
Statistical tests suggested a new model that contains four Tourism Development Project (Siyaha).
factors instead of the mentioned three; it adds spiritual Williams, D.R., Roggenbuck, J.W., 1989. Measuring place attach-
value as an effective factor of place attachment. In other ment: Some preliminary results Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure
words, the nature of the place affects the model that Research Symposium (p. 32).