Residents’ Place Satisfaction and Place Attachment on Destination Brand-Building Behaviors: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation

Abstract

Place attachment has become a popular concept in tourism and environmental psychology. However, little research has explored its role in predicting place-related behaviors, compared to alternative place-related constructs such as place satisfaction. This article clarifies the differential impacts of place satisfaction and place attachment on a series of residents’ place-related behaviors (i.e., destination brand-building behaviors), providing empirical evidence from a quantitative survey study. A sample of 358 residents from Sydney, Australia, was included for partial least square (PLS) based structural equation modeling testing. Results of a number of model testing suggest that compared with place satisfaction, dimensions of place attachment affect residents’ destination brand-building behaviors differently in a unique pattern. Place satisfaction strongly predicts residents’ intention to stay or leave, while place attachment more strongly influences residents’ word of mouth, ambassador behavior, and participation in tourism planning for a destination.

Keywords

place satisfaction place attachment destination brand-building behaviors partial least square modeling Sydney

Introduction

After becoming a major research theme in environmental psychology, place attachment has attracted increasing attention from academic researchers and practitioners in tourism because of its potential for interpreting behaviors by residents and tourists. Place attachment is a concept that focuses on “the phenomena of human–place bonding” (Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005, 155). It refers to “an individual’s cognitive or emotional connection to a particular setting” (Low 1992, 165). This concept is often associated with other place-related concepts, especially place satisfaction, in different contexts, such as of tourists (Hosany et al. 2015; J. J. Lee, Kyle, and Scott 2012) and residents (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b, 2015; C. K. Lee, Kang, and Reisinger 2010). However, very few studies base their arguments on well-established theories to explain clearly the differences and relationships between place-related concepts, especially between place satisfaction and place attachment. For instance, both place attachment and place satisfaction are found to predict tourism-related behaviors, but little research attempts to explore the differences in the nature of the predictions theoretically or empirically.

Specifically, there are two contrasting beliefs as to the direction between place satisfaction and place attachment. One stream of research (mainly in tourism research) regards place attachment as an important factor explaining the variance of perceived values, and thus a predictor of place satisfaction (e.g., Hwang, Lee, and Chen 2005; Prayag and Ryan 2012; Veasna, Wu, and Huang 2013; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). Another research stream, associated with environmental psychology, argues that place satisfaction is a predictor of place attachment (Brocato 2006; Halpenny 2006; J. J. Lee, Kyle, and Scott 2012; Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b; Ramkissoon and Mavondo 2015). Unfortunately, little research has been undertaken to compare the results of the competing views.

A similar situation occurs in the general marketing and branding literature, where researchers have shown significant interest in studying consumers’ attachment to brands (Chaplin and John 2005; Park and MacInnis 2006). Park et al. (2010) drew a conceptual distinction between brand attachment and attitude-based concepts. Accordingly, brand attachment and attitude-based concepts (attitude strength in their case) share similarities involving assessments of “strength,” but attachment implicates a linkage from the brand to the self, which is absent in concepts such as place satisfaction. In addition, brand attachment was found to better predict behaviors that are more difficult in terms of required resources (Park et al. 2010). Satisfaction reflects the evaluation of the target entity (a brand or a place), while attachment measures the strength of the connection between the self and the entity. This distinction suggests that place attachment is a higher-level place-related concept than place satisfaction.

Residents’ support for tourism planning and development, as well as their participation and involvement in tourism development, is crucial to destination marketing and branding, because of the increasing person-to-person interactions in tourism activity. Residents’ behaviors influence tourists’ traveling experiences at all levels, from information search (Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008) to tourism product consumption (Sautter and Leisen 1999). However, the focus of research on residents in tourism is still on their attitude and support in the backstage (Lankford and Howard 1994; Lindberg and Johnson 1997; Liu and Var 1986), and very little research has addressed their behaviors in frontline encounters with tourists. Thus, a gap exists between the increasing importance of residents’ place-related behaviors and the research effort. Hence the need arises for more detailed study on the drivers of residents’ “destination brand-building” behaviors.

This article aims to explore how different aspects of place attachment influence behaviors at various levels; and further, how this investigation adds value to tourism and place marketing scholars compared with other place-related concepts such as place satisfaction. Practically speaking, this effort may provide empirical evidence for tourism marketing practitioners to motivate residents to be more involved in the destination marketing and branding practice. After reviewing literature on place-related concepts (mainly place satisfaction and place attachment) and brand-building behaviors, this research proposes a list of hypotheses for testing two structural models. The tested research models, based on a survey of residents of Sydney, Australia, provides both theoretical and practical evidence for future discussions on understanding the differential impacts of dimensions of place attachment, as well as place satisfaction on place-related behaviors.

Theoretical Development

Place Attachment and Place Satisfaction

There are many concepts developed to denote and interpret the people–place relationship in social science. These include sense of place (Low and Altman 1992; Stedman 2002, 2003); place attachment (Lewicka 2005, 2008, 2011); place identity (Lewicka 2008; Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminof 1983; Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, and Breakwell 2003; Uzzell, Pol, and Badenas 2002); rootedness (McAndrew 1998); place dependence (Williams and Vaske 2003); place satisfaction (Bonaiuto 2004), etc. For place attachment alone, there are more than 400 articles published within the last 40 years in more than 100 journals studying this concept, and the number is increasing fast (Lewicka 2011). This people–place bond has gained interest among humanistic geographers and sociologists (Scannell and Gifford 2014) who have advanced the foundations of place attachment theory (Morgan 2010). Conceptualized as “an affective bond” in early age (Shumaker and Taylor 1983), place attachment has developed into a multidimensional, complex concept involving “an interplay of affect and emotions, knowledge and beliefs, and behaviors and actions” (Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005, 155).

Place attachment has been argued to involve six place processes, which equally contribute to the modes and intensity of the bonds with the place (Seamon 2014). The six place processes include place interaction, place identity, place release, place realization, place creation, and place intensification (Seamon 2014). Scannell and Gifford (2014) further added proximity, safe haven, secure base, and separation distress to understand place attachment process based on Bowlby’s attachment theory. Gustafson (2014), on the other hand, argued that place attachment can be extendable to multiple places, which extends the usage of this concept in understanding mobility and mobile people.

An increasing number of studies focus on untangling the unclear relations between these various place-related concepts (Giuliani and Feldman 1993; Pretty, Chipuer, and Bramston 2003). Specifically, the people–place relationship can be interpreted in its typologies of the relationship, as well as the facets and degrees of the relationship (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014a; Lewicka 2011). This study puts place attachment at the center of its discussions, as this concept has been widely accepted to denote the multifacet people–place relationship.

In the early stage of place attachment research, a two-dimension (place identity and place dependence) framework was proposed and it has been widely accepted to date in the environmental psychology and tourism literature (e.g., Williams and Vaske 2003; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). This framework focuses on the cognitive connection (Proshansky 1978) and functional value (Shumaker and Taylor 1983) of the human–place relationship, but does not specifically consider social, purely emotional, or symbolic components in this relationship (Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005). More recent works in environmental psychology propose social bonding and affective attachment as another two key dimensions of place attachment (Hidalgo and Hernández 2001; Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005). These four dimensions of place attachment are defined and discussed as follows.

(1) Place identity refers to a dimension of place attachment and a dimension of self. Place identity reflects both sameness (continuity) and distinctiveness (uniqueness), and is “a self-categorization in terms of place” (Lewicka 2008). Therefore, one’s place identity is an outcome of a cognitive justification process (Schneider 1986; Rose 1995). (2) Place dependence, (3) social bonding, and (4) affective attachment, respectively, reflect the conative, social, and affective aspects of place attachment (Chen and Šegota 2015; Kyle, Graefe and Manning 2005; Schreyer, Jacob, and White 1981; Williams and Roggenbuck 1989). Place dependence is another outcome of the cognitive justification process based on comparisons and evaluations, while the other two dimensions indicate the affective aspects of place attachment at both social and individual levels.

Additional to these four evaluative dimensions of place attachment, previous literature in sociology and interactionism proposes an autobiographic dimension of place attachment, place memory, to reflect the attachment through personal experiences (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014a; Lewicka 2011). Another dimension of place attachment, place expectation, defined as how much the future experiences expected as likely to occur in a place, is further conceptualized in this logic (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014a; Milligan 1998). The two interaction-based dimensions of place attachment combined depict a people–place bond rooted in the personal experiences, rather than via a judgment or evaluation. These six dimensions of place attachment can be categorized by their dynamic nature and the trilogy of mind (Hilgard 1980), illustrated in Figure 1.

Place satisfaction, on the other hand, is defined as “residents’ subjective evaluation of benefits across the rich bundle of goods and services” (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b). Place satisfaction is the most basic place-related concept, which is applicable to both attached and unattached people as long as they have used public services (from which the evaluation is indicated as residential or physical satisfaction) and community services (from which the evaluation is indicated as social satisfaction).

Predicting the Differential Impacts of Place Attachment and Place Satisfaction

Recent place attachment research conceptualizes the people–place relationship on a set of dimensions or compares it with typologies. One option is to categorize this relation into different strengths, such as Relph’s (1976) seven stages of insideness, and Shamai’s (1991) three types of sense of place from place belongingness though place attachment to place commitment. In terms of the strengths of the relationships, these various place-related concepts, including dimensions of place attachment, can be summarized and compared. On the one hand, place satisfaction reflects evaluations and judgments about the place, and thus this construct differs in its motivational power compared with place attachment (Park et al. 2010). On the other hand, place attachment, defined as the multifacet people–place bond, has emotional and self-implications that drive behaviors with more power.

The various place-related concepts have been explored for their potential to predict place-related behaviors (specifically behaviors in favor of destination brand building, that is, destination brand-building behaviors) on residents in environmental psychology, and on tourists in tourism studies. For instance, Mihaylov and Perkins (2014) suggest that place attachment is a powerful motivator for action to preserve and improve the communities and related social capital. A brief review with examples of publications in these fields is illustrated in Table 1. However, prior research has not yet distinguished the differential effects of each antecedent, from a theoretical perspective. In various studies in marketing and branding, researchers have found that emotional attachment and attitude have distinct effects, with attachment better predicting brand loyalty and willingness to pay a price premium, while with attitude more closely tied to actual purchase behavior (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005). This implies that different relationship concepts may predict different outcomes. Park et al. (2010) conceptualized both people–brand relationships and behaviors in hierarchies, and found a variation in the prediction of different behaviors by brand attachment and attitude. The findings shed light on our understanding of how different place-related concepts predict place-related behaviors (destination brand-building behaviors specifically).

Table 1.

A Review of Research on Place-Related Concepts and Resident Behaviors.

Place-Related Concepts	Behaviors	Base Theories	References
Residential satisfaction; social bond	Mobility/retention	Theory of planned behavior; theory of migration	Landale and Guest 1985; Lu 1998, 1999; Speare 1974
Place identification	Retention	Attachment theory; social identity theory; organizational identification theory	Chen and Šegota 2015; Druzhinina and Palma-Oliveira 2004; Fried 2000; Sebastian and Petersen 2010
Place satisfaction; place attachment; identity salience; place identification	Word of mouth	Social identity theory; organizational identification theory; self-categorization theory	Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b, 2015; Choo, Park, and Petrick 2011; Simpson and Siguaw 2008; Sebastian and Petersen 2010
Place identification	Activities for visitor satisfaction; purchase of tourism product	Social identity theory	Choo, Park, and Petrick 2011; Stryker 1968, 1980
Community satisfaction; community attachment; community involvement; attitude toward tourism	Support for tourism development	Social exchange theory	Ap 1992; Gursoy, Chi, and Dyer 2010; Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal 2002; Gursoy and Rutherford 2004; T.H. Lee 2013; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2011; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990; Yoon, Gursoy, and Chen 2001
Place identity; place dependence	Environmentally responsible behaviors; participation	Attachment theory; social identity theory	Carrus, Bonaiuto, and Bonnes 2005; Cheng, Wu, and Huang 2013; Perkins, Brown, and Taylor 1996; Scannell and Gifford 2010; Vaske and Kobrin 2001
Place satisfaction; place identity; place dependence	Social engagement and civic actions	Attachment theory	Devine-Wright 2009; Lewicka 2005; Payton, Fulton, and Anderson 2007

Hypotheses Development

From the summary in Table 1, place-related behaviors include mobility/retention, ambassador behaviors, word of mouth, and so on. Ambassador behaviors are defined as residents’ behaviors consistent with the image and values of the place, such as dressing codes, manners, etc. (Morhart, Herzog, and Tomczak 2009), as well as behaviors satisfying tourists’ needs in the tourism-specific context (Choo, Park, and Petrick 2011). In addition, residents’ support for tourism development and their participation in tourism planning is an important topic for tourism researchers to understand and investigate (T.H. Lee 2013; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990). These behaviors can be categorized in terms of difficulty in the extent to which behaviors expend economic, social, psychological, temporal, or physical resources (Park et al. 2010). Park et al. (2010) suggest the application of Self-Expansion Theory (SET) to understand resident behaviors based on attachment. Under SET, residents actively invest their own resources in the place to maintain their people–place relationship, and residents who are highly attached to the place are more motivated to expend their own social, financial, and time resources in the process of self-expansion. Based on this logic, place-related behaviors are arranged in terms of required resources from the least difficult to the most difficult: retention, ambassador behavior, word of mouth, and participation in tourism development, environmentally responsible behaviors, civic actions, etc. The first four behaviors listed are conceptualized as destination brand-building behaviors (Morhart, Herzog, and Tomczak 2009).

As for the place-related concepts, place satisfaction is considered as the lowest level of people–place relationship without requiring any commitment from the residents. Place attachment, on the other hand, can be categorized into two levels: the lower evaluative place attachment and the higher experience-based place attachment (or interactive place attachment). Thence, place-related concepts are conceptualized in the degree of the relationship, corresponding to behaviors at different difficulty levels. Previous research on brand attachment (Park et al. 2010; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005) found that the stronger the relationship is, the more difficult the behavior the individual is willing to enact to maintain the relationship. This novel extension of SET suggests the hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Place attachment is a better indicator of a resident’s intentions to perform difficult behaviors than place satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Interactive place attachment is a better indicator of a resident’s intentions to perform difficult behaviors than evaluative place attachment.

Hypothesis 3: Dimensions of place attachment vary in predicting destination brand-building behaviors.

Following Park et al.’s (2010) point on the distinction between place satisfaction and place attachment, this study argues that residents’ evaluations on the place as a whole and in features (i.e., place satisfaction) precede the higher level of place-related concept, indicating the strength of the connection between the self and the place (i.e., place attachment). This is consistent with the majority of views in the environmental psychology literature and is supported by the psychological continuum model in different disciplines (Alcañiz, García, and Blas 2009; Funk and James 2001; Thurstone 1927). Accordingly, an arrow is added from place satisfaction to evaluative place attachment for model testing, as interactive place attachment is found to correlate with place satisfaction (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b). Figure 2 demonstrates the hypotheses and relationships between constructs, based on a second-order construct model.

Method

Site Selection

This study chose the city of Sydney, Australia, as the context of the empirical study for several reasons. First, recent research has found that the degree of place attachment at the city level is higher than that at the neighborhood level that has been the focus of environmental psychology research (Hidalgo and Hernández 2001; Lewicka 2010). Second, research on place attachment at the city level is very limited and deserves more attention according to the existing literature (Lewicka 2010). Third, place attachment strength and possible effects of place attachment are particularly strong in highly attractive cities, and Sydney is a highly attractive and popular international tourism destination. It is Australia’s major tourism city and its main gateway to and from the rest of the world. It is also the city of residence of substantial numbers of ethnic Chinese. Lastly, tourism significantly contributes to Sydney’s economy, and thus research in this context can provide useful implications for tourism planning and development to sustain this substantial economic contribution. In summary, Sydney fits the research context, and is a representative tourism destination for investigating residents’ attachment and behaviors, with indicative implications for numerous tourism destinations worldwide.

Measurement

The scales of place satisfaction, dimensions of evaluative and interactive place attachment, and the four-destination brand-building behaviors are all retrieved from previous studies that are statistically validated by a number of structural equation modeling studies. This study applied a three-item, 7-point Likert scale of place satisfaction, from a previous study by Chen, Dwyer, and Firth (2014b). The reliability and validity of this measurement has tested highly in several studies, for instance, a resident study in Shanghai (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b), and a study of Chinese students in Australia (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2015. Both of these studies conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and reported acceptable results. The widely applied place attachment measure (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014a; Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005) was applied. The majority of the items testing these dimensions have repeatedly been proven to have high reliability and validity in different studies, for example, Chen, Dwyer, and Firth’s (2014a) studies on Chinese and Australian residents; Kyle, Graefe, and Manning’s (2005) study on hikers in the United States; and Kyle, Mowen, and Tarrant’s (2004) study on subscribers to Cleveland Metroparks’ Emerald Necklace publication. Further, Morhart, Herzog, and Tomczak’s (2009) brand-building behavior scale was modified and used to suit the destination and resident context. Again, measures of each construct have passed CFA in relevant studies.

Sampling

An online survey was carried out between November 2011 and March 2012. A panel data was used to collect data from residents of the city of Sydney, Australia, and a stratified sampling technique was applied based on respondents’ postcode (Whitley 2002). All the respondents are residents who had lived at least a year in Sydney to ensure they had developed attachment to the city. In total, 554 responses were recorded in Qualtrics, of which 358 responses were completed and valid for the data analysis (valid rate of 64.62%).

Procedure

This study applied partial least squares (PLS)-based structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to test the research model and hypotheses. There are two major benefits of applying this technique in marketing and tourism research. First, the PLS technique does not require normally distributed data (Chin 1998; Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011). Second, PLS performs well for complex models with limited sample size (Hair et al. 2012; Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009). Two studies were tested: study 1 was tested on a second-order model testing hypotheses. Study 2 was tested on a first-order model testing the differentiation between dimensions of place attachment. The structural model encompassed 74 paths with 13 latent variables (including two second-order constructs) on a sample size of 358 in study 1, while study 2 encompassed 70 paths with 11 latent variables. The software SmartPLS version 3.2.3 was used to perform the analysis. As suggested by Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011), this study ran standard PLS algorithm (1,000 iterations and a stop criterion of 10^-7) and assessed the significance level of the estimates based on 5,000 bootstraps.

Descriptive Analysis

The demographics of the sample are illustrated in Table 2. The sample distributes equally in gender (with female 50%). Mean of age is 40.6, with a minimum age of 17 and a maximum age of 85. More than half (54.7%) of the sample possessed bachelor’s or higher degrees and the majority (53.4%) of respondents have annual income in the range between AU$40,000 and AU$99,999. More than 90% of the sample are Australian citizens or have permanent residence status. Around half (48.9%) identified themselves as Australian or Oceanian in ethnicity, with European as the second biggest ethnic group (23.2%). The distribution of length of living in Sydney is with a mean of 24.55 years, and a standard deviation of 17.478. 41.1% of the sample were born in Sydney.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Sample Size (n)	358
Age	Mean, SD
Age	40.6, 13.808)
Length of living in Sydney	24.55 17.478)
Gender	%
Male	50.0
Female	50.0
Born in Sydney	%
Yes	41.1
No	58.9
Status	%
Australian citizen	84.6
Permanent residence visa	11.5
Other visas	3.9
Education	%
Graduate degree or higher	22.3
Bachelor’s degree	32.4
Diploma	15.4
Certificate or TAFE	18.4
High school or less	11.5
Annual income (in AU$)	%
<20k	15.4
20k to 39,999.99	15.9
40k to 59,999.99	20.1
60k to 79,999.99	19.3
80k to 99,999.99	13.9
100k or more	15.4
Ethnicity	%
Australian/Oceanian	48.9
East Asian	14.0
South Asian	8.4
Middle Eastern	2.0
European	23.2
African	1.4
Others	2.1

Reliability and Validity

A confirmatory factor analysis is conducted based on the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The results indicate acceptable reliability (from Table 3): all items load highly on the respective latent constructs (.733–.965); all Cronbach’s α are higher than .77; and all CR are higher than .86 (Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009). Discriminant validity is examined by comparing the square root of AVE for each construct with the correlations between pairs of latent variables (Fornell and Larcker 1981). All correlation coefficients are smaller than the square roots of AVEs in Table 4, suggesting a pass of discriminant validity test.

Table 3.

Psychometric Properties of the Scales (n = 358).

Constructs and Items	Mean	SD	Factor Loading
Place satisfaction (CR = .937, α = .828, AVE = .789)
I am very satisfied with my life in Sydney.	5.12	1.386	.899
Sydney does a good job of satisfying my needs.	5.06	1.479	.904
The services provided by Sydney are very satisfactory.	4.74	1.454	.839
Living in Sydney is usually a very satisfying experience.	5.11	1.351	.909
Evaluative place attachment
Place identity (CR = .937, α = .910, AVE = .788)
I identify strongly with Sydney.	5.55	1.297	.897
I feel commitment to Sydney.	5.44	1.396	.869
I feel that I can really be myself in Sydney.	5.52	1.261	.876
Sydney is very special to me.	5.48	1.353	.909
Place dependence (CR = .892, α = .819, AVE = .734)
I prefer Sydney to others for the activities that I enjoy.	4.88	1.401	.797
Sydney is my favorite place to be.	4.99	1.505	.899
I really miss Sydney when I am away from it for too long.	5.07	1.532	.871
Affective attachment (CR = .945, α = .922, AVE = .811)
Sydney means a lot to me.	5.38	1.335	.933
I feel a strong sense of belonging to Sydney and its settings/facilities.	5.35	1.315	.928
I have emotional attachment to Sydney and its settings/facilities.	5.26	1.466	.858
I have a special connection to Sydney and the people here.	5.28	1.352	.882
Social bonding (CR = .897, α = .828, AVE = .743)
My friends/family would be disappointed if I were to move from Sydney.	4.98	1.570	.849
If I were to leave Sydney, I would lose contact with a number of friends.	5.09	1.430	.847
Many of my friends/family prefer Sydney over other cities.	5.01	1.376	.889
Interactive place attachment
Place memory (CR = .942, α = .912, AVE = .803)
My experiences in Sydney are unique.	5.16	1.258	.855
My experiences in Sydney are unforgettable.	5.31	1.273	.920
My experiences in Sydney make me feel loving Sydney more.	5.23	1.287	.920
I feel connected to Sydney due to my experiences here.	5.33	1.321	.888
Place expectation (CR = .938, α = .918, AVE = .791)
Future Sydney is better than now.	4.60	1.504	.871
Future Sydney continues creating unique experiences for me.	4.96	1.330	.894
I will be enjoying future Sydney more than now.	4.66	1.362	.903
I feel connected to Sydney due to my experiences here.	4.89	1.332	.887
Destination brand-building behaviors
Participation (CR = .952, α = .925, AVE = .869)
I let my community know of ways to strengthen the image of Sydney as a tourism destination.	3.65	1.524	.923
I make constructive suggestions to improve tourists’ experience in Sydney.	3.57	1.517	.954
If I have a useful idea on how to improve our Sydney’s tourism performance, I share it with my community.	3.67	1.520	.920
Word of mouth (CR = .972, α = .957, AVE = .921)
I “talk up” Sydney to people I know.	5.02	1.452	.952
I bring up Sydney in a positive way in conversations I have with friends and acquaintances.	5.05	1.426	.965
In social situations, I often speak favorably about Sydney.	5.16	1.380	.962
Ambassador behavior (CR = .867, α = .770, AVE = .686)
In tourist contact situations, I ensure that my personal appearance is in line with Sydneysider’s appearance in my mind.	3.50	1.715	.733
I adhere to my standards for Sydneysider’s behavior.	4.57	1.420	.894
I see that my actions in tourist contact are not at odds with a Sydneysider’s behavior.	4.56	1.339	.850
Retention (Leaving intention) (CR = .952, α = .924, AVE = .867)
I have decided to leave Sydney.	2.57	1.682	.926
I intend to leave Sydney within a short period of time and live elsewhere.	2.61	1.649	.927
I am looking at some other places to live now.	2.78	1.726	.941

Table 4.

Testing Discriminant Validity.

Sqrt of AVE	SAT	PI	PD	AA	SB	PM	PE	WOM	PAR	AMB	LEA
SAT	.888
PI	.704	.888
PD	.643	.728	.857
AA	.677	.857	.760	.901
SB	.405	.485	.472	.529	.862
PM	.651	.704	.667	.747	.467	.896
PE	.635	.524	.523	.523	.369	.606	.889
WOM	.607	.591	.572	.621	.351	.627	.588	.960
PAR	.248	.267	.262	.285	.257	.317	.353	.395	.932
AMB	.337	.352	.343	.381	.343	.420	.375	.436	.416	.828
LEA	−.351	−.340	−.325	−.339	−.236	−.233	−.224	−.282	.147	−.020	.931

Note: Square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal of the matrix in bold; inter-construct correlation is shown off the diagonal; SAT = place satisfaction; PI = place identity; PD = place dependence; AA = affective attachment; SB = social bonding; PM = place memory; PE = place expectation; WOM = word of mouth; PAR = participation; AMB = ambassador behavior; LEA = leaving intention.

For evaluating the structural model, effect sizes are calculated for the endogenous variables (Hair et al. 2012; Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009). The full structural model is compared to models without each predicting construct to produce f² and q² effect sizes. f² reflects the changes in R² in relation to the unexplained variance of an endogenous variable, while q² measures the predictive relevance of a latent variable for the structural model (Matzler et al. 2016). This study selects the default omission distance of 7 in SmartPLS, which meets the criteria between 5 and 10 and the sample size is not a multiple of the omission distance (Hair et al. 2012).

Study 1: Second-Order Model Testing on Hypotheses

Inner-Model Evaluation

The second-order constructs of evaluative place attachment and interactive place attachment were included in the structural model and tested for their impact on different destination brand-building behaviors. The results are listed in Table 5 for the endogenous variables of the four types of behaviors. Interactive place attachment demonstrates a weak effect on participation (f² = .055; q² = .047) and ambassador behavior (f² = .048; q² = .029). Leaving intention was found to be weakly affected by place satisfaction (f² = .024; q² = .021) and by evaluative place attachment (f² = .037; q² = .029), but not affected by interactive place attachment. On the other hand, f² and q² effect sizes suggest weak effects of place satisfaction (f² = .020; q² = .015), evaluative place attachment (f² = .039; q² = .032), and interactive place attachment (f² = .118; q² = .099) on word of mouth. The results underline the importance of these constructs in explaining the dependent variables differently (Chin 1998; Cohen 1992; Hair et al. 2016). The SRMR value from the second-order model is .078, further indicating an acceptable model fit. The path coefficients of the relationships are further illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 5.

f² and q² Effect Sizes for Endogenous Variables.

	R²	f²	Q² (OD = 7)	q²
PAR	.143		.122
Model without SAT	.141	.002	.120	.002
Model without EPA	.140	.004	.120	.002
Model without IPA	.096	.055^w	.081	.047^w
Model without PI	.125	.021^w	.123	−.001
Model without PD	.144	−.001	.122	.000
Model without AA	.144	−.001	.122	.000
Model without SB	.141	.002	.120	.002
Model without PM	.144	−.001	.123	−.001
Model without PE	.111	.037^w	.093	.033^w
WOM	.509		.466
Model without SAT	.499	.020^w	.458	.015
Model without EPA	.490	.039^w	.449	.032^w
Model without IPA	.451	.118^w	.413	.099^w
Model without PI	.508	.002	.464	.004
Model without PD	.506	.006	.464	.004
Model without AA	.503	.012	.461	.009
Model without SB	.512	−.006	.469	−.006
Model without PM	.494	.031^w	.453	.024^w
Model without PE	.481	.057^w	.439	.051^w
AMB	.211		.138
Model without SAT	.211	.000	.140	−.002
Model without EPA	.198	.016	.131	.008
Model without IPA	.173	.048^w	.113	.029^w
Model without PI	.215	−.005	.142	−.005
Model without PD	.212	−.001	.139	−.001
Model without AA	.212	−.001	.138	.000
Model without SB	.205	.008	.134	.005
Model without PM	.197	.018	.130	.009
Model without PE	.196	.019	.126	.014
LEA	.155		.127
Model without SAT	.135	.024^w	.109	.021^w
Model without EPA	.124	.037^w	.102	.029^w
Model without IPA	.149	.007	.123	.005
Model without PI	.155	.000	.126	.001
Model without PD	.151	.005	.124	.003
Model without AA	.154	.001	.126	.001
Model without SB	.152	.004	.124	.003
Model without PM	.150	.006	.122	.006
Model without PE	.158	−.004	.130	−.003

Note: Superscript w indicates weak effect. SAT = place satisfaction; EPA = evaluative place attachment; IPA = interactive place attachment; PI = place identity; PD = place dependence; AA = affective attachment; SB = social bonding; PM = place memory; PE = place expectation; WOM = word of mouth; PAR = participation; AMB = ambassador behavior; LEA = leaving intention.

Hypotheses Testing

Table 6 summarizes the path coefficients of the relationships in the tested structural model and the R² for the endogenous constructs. Significance levels are calculated on a 5,000-time bootstrapping (Hair et al. 2014), and T statistics are calculated using a Sobel test (MacKinnon et al. 2002). Recent research (Matzler et al. 2016; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010) suggests the usage of confidence intervals to investigate mediating effects. In summary, interactive place attachment has a stronger effect on word of mouth (β = .395, p < .001), compared to evaluative place attachment (β = .228, p < .01). Place satisfaction was not found to be a significant effect on word of mouth. The results on ambassador behavior are similar, with strong effects of interactive place attachment (β = .330, p < .001), moderate effect of evaluative place attachment (β = .187, p < .1), and no effect of place satisfaction. As for the most difficult behavior of participation, only interactive place attachment had a significant effect (β = .355, p < .001). The results on the least difficult behavior of leaving intention are reversed: place satisfaction (β = –.232, p < .01) has moderate negative effect and so does evaluative place attachment (β = –.294, p < .001), while interactive place attachment has no significant effect.

Table 6.

Second-Order Model Testing: Estimates, T statistics, and 95% Bias-Corrected Confidence Intervals.

	Estimates	T Statistics	95% BC CI	R²
EPA				.524
EPA → PI	.930***	75.489	.902, .950	.864
EPA → PD	.859***	37.269	.810, .898	.738
EPA → AA	.947***	162.966	.935, .957	.897
EPA → SB	.658***	15.675	.570, .736	.434
SAT → EPA	.724***	21.602	.658, .787
IPA
IPA → PM	.900***	71.403	.875, .923	.811
IPA → PE	.892***	61.386	.761, .917	.796
PAR				.143
SAT → PAR	−.079^n.s.	0.970	−.238, .073
EPA → PAR	.100^n.s.	1.166	−.055, .268
IPA → PAR	.355***	4.573	.216, .504
WOM				.509
SAT → WOM	.158^n.s.	2.088	−.010, .299
EPA → WOM	.228**	3.457	.102, .355
IPA → WOM	.395***	5.237	.250, .547
AMB				.211
SAT → AMB	−.035^n.s.	0.462	−.193, .109
EPA → AMB	.187*	1.913	.006, .383
IPA → AMB	.330***	4.001	.169, .492
LEA				.155
SAT → LEA	−.232**	2.916	−.389, –.087
EPA → LEA	−.294***	3.830	−.442, –.139
IPA → LEA	−.131^n.s.	1.636	−.033, .283

Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n.s. = not significant.

BC = bias-corrected; CI = confidence interval; SAT = place satisfaction; EPA = evaluative place attachment; IPA = interactive place attachment; PI = place identity; PD = place dependence; AA = affective attachment; SB = social bonding; PM = place memory; PE = place expectation; WOM = word of mouth; PAR = participation; AMB = ambassador behavior; LEA = leaving intention.

Study 2: First-Order Model Testing on Differentiation

Inner-Model Evaluation

The first-order constructs of different dimensions of place attachment were further tested for their effects on the proposed destination brand-building behaviors. The results are listed in Table 7 for the endogenous variables of the four types of behaviors. Relatively, place expectation demonstrates a weak effect on participation (f² = .041; q² = .035) and word of mouth (f² = .060; q² = .053). Place memory was further found to have a weak effect on word of mouth (f² = .027; q² = .019), while social bonding was found to have a weak effect on ambassador behavior (f² = .022; q² = .012). Lastly, place satisfaction was found to have a weak effect on leaving intention (f² = .021; q² = .018). The results indicate a variance in these constructs explaining the dependent variables. The SRMR value from the first-order model is .050, indicating an acceptable model fit.

Table 7.

f² and q² Effect Sizes for Endogenous Variables.

	R²	f²	Q² (OD = 7)	q²
PAR	.153		.126
Model without SAT	.151	.002	.125	.001
Model without PI	.153	.000	.127	−.001
Model without PD	.153	.000	.129	−.003
Model without AA	.153	.000	.127	−.001
Model without SB	.145	.009	.119	.008
Model without PM	.149	.005	.123	.003
Model without PE	.118	.041^w	.095	.035^w
WOM	.516		.469
Model without SAT	.508	.017	.462	.013
Model without PI	.516	.000	.469	.000
Model without PD	.514	.004	.468	.002
Model without AA	.508	.017	.463	.011
Model without SB	.515	.002	.468	.002
Model without PM	.503	.027^w	.459	.019
Model without PE	.487	.060^w	.441	.053^w
AMB	.224		.138
Model without SAT	.224	.000	.139	−.001
Model without PI	.224	.000	.142	−.005
Model without PD	.224	.000	.139	−.001
Model without AA	.223	.001	.139	−.001
Model without SB	.207	.022^w	.128	.012
Model without PM	.210	.018	.132	.007
Model without PE	.210	.018	.130	.009
LEA	.158		.122
Model without SAT	.140	.021^w	.106	.018
Model without PI	.157	.001	.123	−.001
Model without PD	.154	.005	.122	.000
Model without AA	.156	.002	.121	.001
Model without SB	.155	.004	.119	.003
Model without PM	.151	.008	.117	.006
Model without PE	.158	.000	.124	−.002

Note: Superscript w = weak effect. SAT = place satisfaction; PI = place identity; PD = place dependence; AA = affective attachment; SB = social bonding; PM = place memory; PE = place expectation; WOM = word of mouth; PAR = participation; AMB = ambassador behavior; LEA = leaving intention.

Simultaneous Estimation of Place Satisfaction, Evaluative Place Attachment, and Interactive Place Attachment on Destination Brand-Building Behaviors

Table 8 summarizes the path coefficients of the relationships in the tested first-order structural model. Again, significance levels are calculated on a 5,000-time bootstrapping (Hair et al. 2014), and T statistics are calculated using a Sobel test (MacKinnon et al. 2002). In summary, place satisfaction and dimensions of place attachment demonstrate different effects on the four behaviors. For the most difficult behavior of participation, only place expectation has a moderate effect (β = .261, p < .001), while place satisfaction is the only factor affecting the least difficult behavior of leaving intention with a moderate effect (β = –.222, p < .01). As for ambassador behavior, social bonding (β = .155, p < .01), place memory (β = .202, p < .1), and place expectation (β = .168, p < .1) all have moderate effects. Four antecedents are found for word-of-mouth behavior: affective attachment (β = .195, p < .1), place memory (β = .191, p < .1), and place expectation (β = .238, p < .001) have moderate effects, while place satisfaction (β = .145, p < .1) has a weak effect. The path coefficients of the relationships are further illustrated in Figure 4.

Table 8.

First-Order Model Testing: Estimates, T Statistics, and 95% Bias-Corrected Confidence Intervals.

	Estimates	T Statistics	95% BC CI	R²
SAT
SAT → PI	.704***	17.943	.625, .778	.496
SAT → PD	.645***	16.331	.565, .718	.415
SAT → AA	.678***	18.662	.605, .745	.459
SAT → SB	.406***	7.569	.303, .511	.165
PAR				.153
SAT → PAR	−.077^n.s.	0.868	−.257, .097
PI → PAR	.001^n.s.	0.010	−.237, .200
PD → PAR	.012^n.s.	0.139	−.141, .184
AA → PAR	.052^n.s.	0.444	−.177, .282
SB → PAR	.108^n.s.	1.802	−.010, .228
PM → PAR	.109^n.s.	1.367	−.040, .270
PE → PAR	.261***	3.806	.122, .391
WOM				.516
SAT → WOM	.145*	1.995	.002, .282
PI → WOM	.020^n.s.	0.234	−.147, .191
PD → WOM	.081^n.s.	1.278	−.038, .212
AA → WOM	.195*	2.096	.003, .370
SB → WOM	−.035^n.s.	0.730	−.127, .060
PM → WOM	.191*	2.149	.027, .381
PE → WOM	.238***	3.840	.111, .354
AMB				.224
SAT → AMB	−.009^n.s.	0.114	−.172, .146
PI → AMB	−.024^n.s.	0.220	−.232, .193
PD → AMB	.016^n.s.	0.164	−.163, .229
AA → AMB	.074^n.s.	0.605	−.180, .300
SB → AMB	.155**	2.713	.047, .271
PM → AMB	.202*	2.286	.029, .373
PE → AMB	.168*	2.299	.029, .314
LEA				.158
SAT → LEA	−.222**	2.787	−.387, –.070
PI → LEA	−.084^n.s.	0.699	−.299, .171
PD → LEA	−.102^n.s.	1.220	−.279, .044
AA → LEA	−.124^n.s.	1.073	−.367, .087
SB → LEA	−.069^n.s.	1.163	−.185, .049
PM → LEA	.156^n.s.	1.838	.001, .337
PE → LEA	.011^n.s.	0.156	−.124, .149

Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n.s.: not significant.

BC CI = bias-corrected confidence interval; SAT = place satisfaction; PI = place identity; PD = place dependence; AA = affective attachment; SB = social bonding; PM = place memory; PE = place expectation; WOM = word of mouth; PAR = participation; AMB = ambassador behavior; LEA = leaving intention.

Discussion

Results of study 1 provide evidence that, consistent with hypothesis 1, place attachment better predicts, than does place satisfaction, residents’ difficult destination brand-building behaviors, such as participation in tourism development, word of mouth, and ambassador behavior. These results also suggest that interactive place attachment better predict these three types of behaviors, in contrast to evaluative place attachment, while evaluative place attachment predicts better than place satisfaction, which supports hypothesis 2. The only exception is the effect on retention (or leaving intention). Evaluative place attachment affects retention similarly to place satisfaction. However, no significant effect of interactive place attachment was found on retention, suggesting that this highest level of people–place relationship hardly drives basic place-related behaviors. In general, this study provides evidence that a higher-level people–place relationship better predicts more-difficult place-related behaviors, while a lower-level people–place relationship better predicts less-difficult place-related behaviors.

Study 2 extends study 1 by examining the first-order construct relationships and finds variations in the effects on difficulty-categorized destination brand-building behaviors, supporting hypothesis 3. The interesting findings include (1) participation was found only affected by place expectation; (2) place memory, affective attachment, and place satisfaction drive word of mouth, while place memory and social bonding predict ambassador behavior; and (3) retention or leaving intention is only predicted by place satisfaction in the first-order structural model. This finding on participation extends previous research on residents’ support for tourism development (e.g., Gursoy, Chi, and Dyer 2010; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2011), and suggests a potential role for expectations in interpreting residents’ deep involvement in tourism planning and development. The finding on word of mouth is largely consistent with previous studies (Chen, Dwyer, and Firth 2014b, 2015). The results also validate the importance of the effect of social bonding on ambassador behavior. The logic is clear in this relationship, since ambassador behavior, according to its definition, is one type of behavior in the nature for a social conformity. Results from study 2 further imply a corresponding relationship between the time frame when the attachment is based on and the indications and predictions on how difficult the behavior is. This typology provides a new understanding on place-related concepts (Figure 5).

This study further compares the competing models in which the direction of the relationship between place satisfaction and place attachment is from evaluative place attachment to place satisfaction. In the second-order structural model, all path coefficients remain the same, and the only difference in the competing model is that the relationship from place satisfaction word of mouth becomes significant because of the change in the 95% bias corrected confidence intervals (.011, .301). As for the first-order structural model, all path coefficients and significance levels remain the same, except those between place satisfaction and dimensions of place attachment.

Conclusion

This article addressed the unexplored questions of how place attachment influences resident behaviors at various levels, and how this construct adds value to tourism and place marketing research compared with other place-related concepts such as place satisfaction, attitude, etc. Its conceptual contribution is that dimensions of place attachment are distinguished by their predictions on different destination brand-building behaviors, compared to place satisfaction. This adds another application of Self-Extension Theory, and provides evidence to support place attachment as a higher-level place-related concept compared to place satisfaction. Accordingly, it is more important to understand the differential impacts of place attachment and place satisfaction on behaviors, rather than the direction of the relationship between these two constructs. This study provides insights in distinguishing dimensions of place attachment and other place-related concepts, in terms of their impacts on behaviors, rather than purely conceptual differences. This enriches the depth of our understanding on place attachment, and extends the potential of applying the dimensionality of place attachment in understanding place-related behaviors. The key managerial implication is that the more strongly residents are attached to a place, the more willing they are to forsake personal resources to maintain an ongoing relationship with the place, consistent with Park et al.’s (2010) conceptualization and empirical findings on brand attachment. Destination brand-building behaviors are now categorized by the amount of required investment of time, money, energy, effort, and reputation, and more attached residents are willing to express behaviors that require more investment.

Empirically speaking, the more satisfied residents are with the place, the less probable they are to leave for another place to live. This finding is straightforward to local governments in understanding how to retain its residents from leaving and moving to another place; they should aim simply to provide better living conditions and resources to satisfy residents. On the other hand, the more attached to the place, the more likely residents are to behave in ways consistent with destination marketing and promotion. This suggests that destination marketing organizations (DMOs), as well as local authorities, should pay attention to enhancing resident–place connections to encourage them to act as destination brand ambassadors.

Residents with more faith in a place’s future and cherished memories with the place are more likely to participate in tourism planning for that place, to spread positive word of mouth for the place as a tourism destination, and behave favorably toward the destination during encounters with tourists. This implies that DMOs would benefit from an internal branding and marketing approach to motivate residents to be more proactively involved in tourism planning and development, as well as destination marketing and branding. This may be achieved by working with local authorities and stakeholders aiming at continuously creating unique positive resident-place experiences and building residents’ confidence in the development of the place. Further, the more emotionally attached they are to a place, the more intentionally residents would express positive attitudes toward the place, online or offline. For destinations where DMOs struggle with communicating preferred messages to potential tourists, it is possible to enhance resident participation in C2C marketing communication by building on their affection for the place. In addition, the more socially connected, the more likely the residents value their place identity and thus treat tourists positively. The implication is that DMOs may create a friendlier resident–tourist interaction environment and encourage local residents to internalize the core values of the place, with the assistance of local communities and social groups. In a different world, residents would be more likely to act as destination brand ambassadors by social pushes rather than individual drives. In summary, C2C communication becomes crucial in the success of promoting a destination, because of the rapid development of information and communication technology, combined with the limitation of any DMO in reaching so many potential tourists. The findings from this article shed light on motivating local residents more involved in the communication with potential markets.

Although the findings of this article are provocative, additional research is needed regarding the main managerial implications of this study on how DMOs can market the place internally and thus enhance residents’ place attachment. It is noteworthy that the cognitive dimensions of place attachment, place identity and place dependence, were not found to have any effect on any behavior investigated in the empirical study. Future research should also test and evaluate the structural model in other contexts and samples for further evidence of the findings herein. Results of model testing may be entirely different across cultures and countries. For instance, Chen, Dwyer, and Firth (2014b) found a systemic difference in testing the structural model on dimensions of place attachment affecting word-of-mouth behavior, between Australian and Chinese residents, and suggest Western and Eastern cultures might play important roles in interpreting these differences. Future research exploring the impact of cultures may provide great implications in further understanding residents’ psychology and behaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ning (Chris) Chen is a lecturer in marketing at the Department of Management, Marketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. His research interests are in place attachment, resident/tourist psychology & behavior, destination branding.

Larry Dwyer is a professor, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His research interests are in tourism economics, management and policy.

References

Alcañiz

E. B.

García

I. S.

Blas

S. S.

2009. “The Functional-Psychological Continuum in the Cognitive Image of a Destination: A Confirmatory Analysis.” Tourism Management 30 (5): 715–23.

1992. “Residents’ Perceptions on Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research 19 (4): 665–90.

Bonaiuto

2004. “Residential Satisfaction and Perceived Urban Quality.” Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 3:267–72.

Brocato

E. D.

2006. “Place Attachment: An investigation of Environments and Outcomes in a Service Context.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Arlington.

Carrus

Bonaiuto

Bonnes

2005. “Environmental Concern, Regional Identity, and Support for Protected Areas in Italy.” Environment and Behavior 37 (2): 237–57.

Chaplin

L. N.

John

D. R.

2005. “The Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Consumer Research 32 (1): 119–29.

Chen

N. C.

Dwyer

Firth

2014a. “Conceptualization and Measurement of Dimensionality of Place Attachment.” Tourism Analysis 19 (3): 323–38.

Chen

N. C.

Dwyer

Firth

2014b. “Effect of Dimensions of Place Attachment on Residents’ Word-of-Mouth Behavior.” Tourism Geographies 16 (5): 826–43.

Chen

N. C.

Dwyer

Firth

2015. “Factors Influencing Chinese Students’ Behavior in Promoting Australia as a Destination for Chinese Outbound Travel.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32 (4): 366–81.

10.

Chen

N. C.

Šegota

2015. “Resident Attitudes, Place Attachment and Destination Branding: A Research Framework.” Tourism and Hospitality Management 21 (2): 145–58.

11.

Cheng

T.-M.

C. H.

Huang

L.-M.

2013. “The Influence of Place Attachment on the Relationship between Destination Attractiveness and Environmentally Responsible Behavior for Island Tourism in Penghu, Taiwan.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (8): 1166–87.

12.

Chin

W. W.

1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.” In Modern Methods for Business Research, edited by Marcoulides

G. A.

, 295–336. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Choo

Park

S. Y.

Petrick

J. F.

2011. “The Influence of the Resident’s Identification with a Tourism Destination Brand on Their Behavior.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 20 (2): 198–216.

14.

Cohen

1992. “A Power Primer.” Psychological Bulletin 112 (1): 155–59.

15.

Devine-Wright

2009. “Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-Protective Action.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19 (6): 426–41.

16.

Druzhinina

Palma-Oliveira

J. M.

2004. “Radioactive Contamination of Wild Mushrooms: A Cross-Cultural Risk Perception Study.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 74 (1): 83–90.

17.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

1981. “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3): 382–88.

18.

Fried

2000. “Continuities and Discontinuities of Place.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (3): 193–205.

19.

Funk

D. C.

James

2001. “The Psychological Continuum Model: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding an Individual’s Psychological Connection to Sport.” Sport Management Review 4 (2): 119–50.

20.

Giuliani

M. V.

Feldman

1993. “Place Attachment in a Developmental and Cultural Context.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 267–74.

21.

Gursoy

Chi

C. G.

Dyer

2010. “Local’s Attitudes toward Mass and Alternative Tourism: The Case of Sunshine Coast, Australia.” Journal of Travel Research 49:381–94.

22.

Gursoy

Jurowski

Uysal

2002. “Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1): 79–105.

23.

Gursoy

Rutherford

D. G.

2004. “Host Attitudes toward Tourism: An Improved Structural Model.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3): 495–516.

24.

Gustafson

2014. “Place Attachment in an Age of Mobility.” In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, edited by Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

, 37–48. London: Routledge.

25.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2011. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2): 139–52.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

V. G.

2014. “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research.” European Business Review 26 (2): 106–21.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Mena

J. A.

2012. “An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (3): 414–33.

29.

Halpenny

E. A.

2006. “Environmental Behavior, Place Attachment and Park Visitation: A Case Study of Visitors to Point Pele National Park.” PhD diss., University of Waterloo.

30.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.” Advances in International Marketing 20 (1): 277–319.

31.

Hidalgo

M. C.

Hernández

2001. “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21:273–81.

32.

Hilgard

E. R.

1980. “The Trilogy of Mind: Cognition, Affection, and Conation.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16 (2): 107–17.

33.

Hosany

Prayag

Deesilatham

Cauševic

Odeh

2015. “Measuring Tourists’ Emotional Experiences: Further Validation of the Destination Emotion Scale.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (4): 482–95.

34.

Hwang

S. N.

Lee

Chen

H. J.

2005. “The Relationship among Tourists’ Involvement, Place Attachment and Interpretation Satisfaction in Taiwan’s National Parks.” Tourism Management 26 (2): 143–56.

35.

Jorgensen

B. S.

Stedman

R. C.

2001. “Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes toward Their Properties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (3): 233–48.

36.

Kyle

Graefe

Manning

2005. “Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings.” Environment and Behavior 37 (2): 153–77.

37.

Kyle

G. T.

Mowen

A. J.

Tarrant

2004. “Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (4): 439–54.

38.

Landale

N. S.

Guest

A. M.

1985. “Constraints, Satisfaction and Residential Mobility: Speare’s Model Reconsidered.” Demography 22 (2): 199–222.

39.

Lankford

S. V.

Howard

D. R.

1994. “Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale.” Annals of Tourism Research 21 (1): 121–39.

40.

Lee

C. K.

Kang

Reisinger

2010. “Community Attachment in Two Rural Gaming Communities: Comparisons between Colorado Gaming Communities, USA and Gangwon Gaming Communities, South Korea.” Tourism Geographies 12 (1): 140–68.

41.

Lee

J. J.

Kyle

Scott

2012. “The Mediating Effect of Place Attachment on the Relationship between Festival Satisfaction and Loyalty to the Festival Hosting Destination.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (6): 754–67.

42.

Lee

T. H.

2013. “Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable Tourism Development.” Tourism Management 34:37–46.

43.

Lewicka

2005. “Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment, Cultural Capital, and Neighborhood Ties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (4): 381–95.

44.

Lewicka

2008. “Place Attachment, Place Identity, and Place Memory: Restoring the Forgotten City Past.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (3): 209–31.

45.

Lewicka

2010. “What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 35–51.

46.

Lewicka

2011. “Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (3): 207–30.

47.

Lindberg

Johnson

R. L.

1997. “Modeling Resident Attitudes toward Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 24 (2): 402–24.

48.

Litvin

S. W.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Pan

2008. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Hospitality and Tourism Management.” Tourism Management 29 (3): 458–68.

49.

Liu

J. C.

Var

1986. “Resident Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts in Hawaii.” Annals of Tourism Research 13 (2): 193–214.

50.

Low

S. M.

1992. “Symbolic Ties that Bind.” In Place Attachment, edited by Altman

Low

S. M.

, 165–85. New York: Plenum.

51.

Low

S. M.

Altman

1992. “Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry.” In Place Attachment, edited by Altman

Low

S. M.

, 1–12. New York: Plenum.

52.

1998. “Analyzing Migration Decisionmaking: Relationships between Residential Satisfaction, Mobility Intentions, and Moving Behavior.” Environment and Planning A 30 (8): 1473–95.

53.

1999. “Determinants of Residential Satisfaction: Ordered Logit vs. Regression Models.” Growth and Change 30 (2): 264–87.

54.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

2002. “A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects.” Psychological Methods 7 (1): 83–104.

55.

Matzler

Strobl

Stokburger-Sauer

Bobovnicky

Bauer

2016. “Brand Personality and Culture: The Role of Cultural Differences on the Impact of Brand Personality Perceptions on Tourists’ Visit Intentions.” Tourism Management 52: 507–20.

56.

McAndrew

F. T.

1998. “The Measurement of ‘Rootedness’ and the Prediction of Attachment to Home-Towns in College Students.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (4): 409–17.

57.

Mihaylov

Perkins

D. D.

2014. “Community Place Attachment and Its Role in Social Capital Development.” In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

, 61–74. London: Routledge.

58.

Milligan

M. J.

1998. “Interactional Past and Potential: The Social Construction of Place Attachment.” Symbolic Interaction 21 (1): 1–33.

59.

Morgan

2010. “Towards a Developmental Theory of Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 11–22.

60.

Morhart

F. M.

Herzog

Tomczak

2009. “Brand-Specific Leadership: Turning Employees into Brand Champions.” Journal of Marketing 73 (5): 122–42.

61.

Nunkoo

Ramkissoon

2011. “Developing a Community Support Model for Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 38 (3): 964–88.

62.

Park

C. W.

MacInnis

D. J.

2006. “What’s in and What’s out: Questions on the Boundaries of the Attitude Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research 33 (1): 16–18.

63.

Park

C. W.

MacInnis

D. J.

Priester

Eisingerich

A. B.

Iacobucci

2010. “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers.” Journal of Marketing 74 (6): 1–17.

64.

Payton

M. A.

Fulton

D. C.

Anderson

D. H.

2005. “Influence of Place Attachment and Trust on Civic Action: A Study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge.” Society and Natural Resources 18 (6): 511–28.

65.

Perdue

R. R.

Long

P. T.

Allen

1990. “Resident Support for Tourism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research 17 (4): 586–99.

66.

Perkins

D. D.

Brown

B. B.

Taylor

R. B.

1996. “The Ecology of Empowerment: Predicting Participation in Community Organizations.” Journal of Social Issues 52 (1): 85–110.

67.

Prayag

Ryan

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): 342–56.

68.

Pretty

G. H.

Chipuer

H. M.

Bramston

2003. “Sense of Place amongst Adolescents and Adults in Two Rural Australian Towns: The Discriminating Features of Place Attachment, Sense of Community and Place Dependence in Relation to Place Identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:273–87.

69.

Proshansky

H. M.

1978. “The City and Self-identity.” Environment and Behavior 10: 147–69.

70.

Proshansky

H. M.

Fabian

A. K.

Kaminoff

1983. “Place-Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1): 57–83.

71.

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

F. T.

2015. “The Satisfaction–Place Attachment Relationship: Potential Mediators and Moderators.” Journal of Business Research 68 (12): 2593–602.

72.

Relph

1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

73.

Rose

1995. “Place and Identity: A Sense of Place.” In A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation, edited by Massey

Jess

P. M.

, 87–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

74.

Sautter

E. T.

Leisen

1999. “Managing Stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 312–28.

75.

Scannell

Gifford

2010. “The Relations between Natural and Civic Place Attachment and Pro-environmental Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (3): 289–97.

76.

Scannell

Gifford

2014. “Comparing the Theories of Interpersonal and Place Attachment.” In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

, 23–36. London: Routledge.

77.

Schneider

1986. “Psychological Identity of and Identification.” In Quality of Urban Life: Social, Psychological, and Physical Conditions, edited by Frick

Hoefert

H. W.

Legewie

Mackensen

Silbereisen

R. K.

, 203–18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

78.

Schreyer

Jacob

White

1981. “Environmental Meaning as a Determinant of Spatial Behavior in Recreation.”

Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences

4:294–300.

79.

Seamon

2014. “Place Attachment and Phenomenology: The Synergistic Dynamism of Place.” In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by Manzo

L. C.

Devine-Wright

, 11–22. London: Routledge.

80.

Sebastian

Petersen

2010. “Resident-City Identification: Translating the Customer Relationship Management Approach into Place Marketing Theory.” Paper presented at the 50th European Regional Science Association Congress, 19–23.

81.

Shamai

1991. “Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement.” Geoforum 22:347–58.

82.

Shumaker

S. A.

Taylor

R. B.

1983. “Toward a Clarification of People-place Relationships: A Model of Attachment to Place.” In Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, edited by Feimer

N. R.

Geller

E. S.

, 219–51. New York: Praeger.

83.

Simpson

P. M.

Siguaw

J. A.

2008. “Destination Word of Mouth: The Role of Traveler Type, Residents, and Identity Salience.” Journal of Travel Research 47 (2): 167–82.

84.

Speare

1974. “Residential Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable in Residential Mobility.” Demography 11 (2): 173–88.

85.

Stedman

R. C.

2002. “Toward a Social Psychology of Place Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity.” Environment and Behavior 34 (5): 561–81.

86.

Stedman

R. C.

2003. “Sense of Place and Forest Science: Toward a Program of Quantitative Research.” Forest Science 49: 1–8.

87.

Stryker

1968. “Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 30: 558–64.

88.

Stryker

1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummings.

89.

Thomson

MacInnis

D. J.

Park

C. W.

2005. “The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 15 (1): 77–91.

90.

Thurstone

L. L.

1927. “Psychophysical Analysis.” American Journal of Psychology 38 (3): 368–89.

91.

Twigger-Ross

Bonaiuto

Breakwell

2003. “Identity Theories and Environmental Psychology.” In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues, edited by Bonnes

Lee

Bonaiuto

, 203–33. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

92.

Uzzell

Pol

Badenas

2002. “Place Identification, Social Cohesion, and Environmental Sustainability.” Environment and Behavior 34 (1): 26–53.

93.

Vaske

J. J.

Kobrin

K. C.

2001. “Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Education 32 (4): 16–21.

94.

Veasna

W. Y.

Huang

C. H.

2013. “The Impact of Destination Source Credibility on Destination Satisfaction: The Mediating Effects of Destination Attachment and Destination Image.” Tourism Management 36:511–26.

95.

Williams

D. R.

Roggenbuck

J. W.

1989. “Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results.” In Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium, edited by McAvoy

L. H.

Howard

Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

96.

Williams

D. R.

Vaske

J. J.

2003. “The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach.” Forest Science 49 (6): 830–40.

97.

Whitley

B. E. J.

2002. Principles of Research in Behavioral Science, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

98.

Yoon

Gursoy

Chen

J. S.

2001. “Validating a Tourism Development Theory with Structural Equation Modeling.” Tourism Management 22 (4): 363–72.

99.

Yuksel

Bilim

2010. “Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management 31 (2): 274–84.

100.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Chen

2010. “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2): 197–206.