Exploring the Role of 'Visual Catalysts' on Influencing People's Attraction and Use of Place

PLACE ATTACHMENT
For <strong>the</strong> most part, place attachment can be understood as <strong>the</strong> “affective bond or link between
people and specific places” (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001). However, <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> place
attachment is not necessarily so clear-cut. The concept is still largely ambiguous, principally
due to <strong>the</strong> expansive variation in research perspectives, <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> a clearly adopted
<strong>the</strong>oretical framework, and <strong>the</strong> contemporary state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concepts evolution (Katlenborn &
Bjerke 2002).
Humanistic geographers and environmental psychologists were <strong>the</strong> first to study <strong>the</strong> concept.
Having been inspired by <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> attachment <strong>the</strong>orist Bowlby in 1969, academics
argued that <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> place attachment centred around <strong>the</strong> link with space as a common
emotional bond that fulfils essential human needs (Relph 1976; Tuan 1977). This concept was
subsequently explored fur<strong>the</strong>r; with <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Schroeder (1991) and Altman & Low (1992)
who proposed <strong>the</strong> clear distinction <strong>of</strong> place attachment being centred around ‘meaning’,
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> ‘preference’.
In turn, <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> place attachment has maintained this view at its core, yet has
diversified in content as experts across various fields have sought to explore <strong>the</strong> concept
fur<strong>the</strong>r in more niche, focused ways (Lewicka 2010). Researchers, such as Stedman (2003),
sought to argue that place attachment was in fact a smaller fragment <strong>of</strong> our connection to
place; with place containing <strong>the</strong> various sub-categories <strong>of</strong> place identity, attachment and
dependence. O<strong>the</strong>rs have focused <strong>the</strong>ir work on place attachment pivoting around idea
<strong>of</strong> desire (Hay 1998), and o<strong>the</strong>rs have looked at <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> various scales and settings in
specifying attachment to place; ranging from <strong>the</strong> home (Giuliani 1993), to expansive landscape
and recreational spaces (Fishwick & Vining 2003; Katlenborn & Bjerke 2002; Kyle, Graefe &
Manning 2005; Hammitt, Backlund & Bixler 2006).
This has led to an extensive breadth and depth <strong>of</strong> research on place attachment. Yet, at
<strong>the</strong> same time <strong>the</strong> disunity <strong>of</strong> meaning has, in many respects, created more questions than
answers on <strong>the</strong> fundamental understandings <strong>of</strong> place attachment (Lewicka 2010). Current
<strong>the</strong>orists have aimed to create greater clarity around what place attachment means, and what
elements can be universally applicable (Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001; Scannell & Gifford 2010).
PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS
Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) proposed that place attachment should be understood as
part <strong>of</strong> two broad <strong>the</strong>oretical categories; <strong>the</strong> physical and social dimensions <strong>of</strong> place. The
social dimension refers to <strong>the</strong> human experience and cognition <strong>of</strong> place, whereas <strong>the</strong> physical
dimension refers to a more grounded form – <strong>the</strong> actualities <strong>of</strong> place that are graspable and
visualised (Burley 2007). Research has included both <strong>the</strong> intertwinement and segregation <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> two dimensions, yet for <strong>the</strong> most part <strong>the</strong>re has been a vast concentration on <strong>the</strong> social
dimensions <strong>of</strong> place attachment in <strong>the</strong> literature (Scannell & Gifford 2010).
12