Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.—Confi rmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, and item descriptive San Diego (n = 729) � M SD Factor Loadings tvalue Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 Los Angeles (n = 929) � M SD Factor Loadings Place Identity .92 .90 PI1 I feel the National Forest is a part of me 3.04 .95 .90 -- 3.12 .94 .90 -- PI2 I identify with the National Forest 3.12 .93 .87 34.24 3.20 .91 .86 36.98 PI3 I feel that my identity is refl ected in the National Forest 2.92 .88 .84 31.90 2.90 .85 .84 34.16 PI4 Visiting the National Forest says a lot about who I am 3.06 .86 .84 27.81 3.08 .82 .79 29.68 Place Dependence .69 .73 PD1 I can’t imagine a better place for what I like to do 2.88 .88 .83 -- 3.20 .91 .88 -- PD2 The National Forest is the best place for the recreation activities that I enjoy 3.19 .85 .65 17.26 3.12 .94 .65 18.13 Affective Attachment .87 .85 AA1 The National Forest means a lot to me 3.63 .88 .91 -- 3.08 .82 .91 28.71 AA2 I really enjoy the National Forest 3.74 .83 .85 27.61 2.91 .85 .82 23.71 Social Bonding .88 .88 SB1 I associate special people in my life with the National Forest 3.09 .95 .88 -- 3.20 .91 .87 -- SB2 The time spent on the National Forest allows me to bond with my family and friends 3.32 .94 .76 21.86 3.12 .94 .76 24.22 SB 3 Visiting the National Forest allows me to spend time with my family and friends �2 = 177.77, df = 36 RMSEA = .071 Fit index NNFI = .984 CFI = .989 Note. Items measured on a 5-point scale, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. Table 3.—Summary of cross-validation tvalue 3.74 .83 .77 22.33 2.91 .85 .77 24.83 Model � 2 df �� 2 �df RMSEA NNFI CFI Baseline Cleveland Angeles and Los Padres 177.77 197.17 36 36 .071 .069 .984 .984 .989 .990 H1- Form 374.96 72 .070 .984 .990 H2- Invariant factor loadings 382.77 79 7.83 7 .067 .985 .990 H3- Regression coeffi cients 386.97 82 4.20 3 .066 .986 .990 �2 = 197.17, df = 36 RMSEA = .069 NNFI = .984 CFI = .990 123
Grayson 1995). Th e fi t of this model was compared with the fi t of the model above that did not require this invariance (equality of structure). As shown in Table 3, the imposition of this constraint did not signifi cantly impact the goodness-of-fi t indices (Δ� 2 = 7.83, Δ df = 7). Th us, the pattern of factor loadings was held constant across the two groups. For the fi nal test (H 3), equality constraints were placed on each element of beta matrix to test the equality of regression coeffi cients across two groups. Model fi t was compared with the fi t indices from the model tested above (H 2) and illustrated that this constraint did not signifi cantly impair the model’s fi t to the data (Δ� 2 = 14.20, Δdf = 3). Th is fi nding indicates that the latent structure tested in our hypothesized model was equivalent between the two groups. 3.3. Summary Th ese fi ndings off er support for the hypothesized model, suggesting that the identity-related dimension would positively predict each of the place attachment dimensions. Specifi cally, the following relationships were observed in the fi nal model (see Table 4): a. Place dependence was positively predicted by place identity (� = .83, t = 35.12). Place identity accounted for 77 percent of the variation in place dependence for the San Diego data, and 63 percent of the variation for the Los Angeles data. Th us, the degree of self-identifi cation with these national forests infl uenced respondents’ dependency on the ability of the setting to provide or facilitate functional outcomes (e.g., leisure experiences). b. Aff ective attachment was positively infl uenced by place identity (� = .77, t = 34.46) and accounted for 64 percent of the variance for the San Diego data and 65 percent of the variance in the Los Angeles data. Th us, the sentiment respondents associated with the setting was a product of the association between the physical environment and their self-conceptualization. c. Place identity positively predicted social bonding (� = .80, t = 34.40). Th is dimension accounted for 64 percent of the variance in social Table 4.—Structural model analysis Dependent variable β t-value R2 Place dependence Affective attachment Social bonding bonding for the San Diego data and 65 percent of the variance for the Los Angeles data. Th is fi nding suggests that self-conceptualizations are closely intertwined with respondents’ social ties. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS In this investigation, we adapted identity theory to reposition identity in the conceptualization of humanplace bonding. Guided by tenets of identity theory, we proposed a revised causal structure of place attachment in which the cognitive component (place identity) precedes other aff ective and conative facets. Analyses of two datasets (San Diego and Los Angeles) provided strong support for our reconceptualization of the place attachment construct and its associated measures. In our results, all signifi cant relationships demonstrated that place identity positively predicted the other dimensions (i.e., aff ective, place dependence, and social bonding). We therefore suggest that identifi cation processes are a driver of other aff ective and conative elements. As a guide for future model testing, identity theory could provide researchers with a stronger theoretical base to construct hypotheses about the relationships between other leisure-related constructs, such as enduring involvement, commitment, loyalty, and specialization. 5.0 CITATIONS Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. 1982. Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research. 19: 453-460. Bollen, K.A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Burke, P.J. 1989a. Academic identity and race diff erences in educational aspirations. Social Science Research. 18: 136-150. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 .83 .77 .80 35.12 34.46 34.40 San Diego Los Angeles .77 .59 .64 .63 .60 .65 124
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 NORTHEASTER
Page 5 and 6:
OUTDOOR RECREATION—TRAILS Experie
Page 7 and 8:
GIS APPLICATIONS AND RECREATION RES
Page 9 and 10:
diff erent points along the spectru
Page 11 and 12:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 13 and 14:
amount of bare rock. Camel’s Hump
Page 15 and 16:
Larson, M. 2004. A Passive Approach
Page 17 and 18:
THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN EXPERIEN
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1.—Special places surveys L
Page 21 and 22:
For some people, being in their spe
Page 23 and 24:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 25 and 26:
large geographical area (Fig. 1). T
Page 27 and 28:
Divers seen = 4.4 Figure 2.—Norm
Page 29 and 30:
Table 4.—Most-specialized divers
Page 31 and 32:
Sarah Young Human Dimensions of Mar
Page 33 and 34:
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Th e FRR
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4.—Divers’ perception of
Page 37 and 38:
YOUTH AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Page 39 and 40:
A qualitative research design was u
Page 41 and 42:
containers, instead of plastic bags
Page 43 and 44:
WALK, RIDE AND LEARN: STUDENTS’ D
Page 45 and 46:
school. Because of the large sample
Page 47 and 48:
Table 8.—Observation of built str
Page 49 and 50:
“I’M TOO OLD TO GO OUTSIDE!”
Page 51 and 52:
Mean Eco-Affinity Score 5.0 4.5 4.0
Page 53 and 54:
children. In: Klenosky, David B., F
Page 55 and 56:
Cherie LeBlanc Fisher U.S Forest Se
Page 57 and 58:
Table 1.—Comparative statistics f
Page 59 and 60:
did some fi shing himself at each s
Page 61 and 62:
On the other hand, some personal kn
Page 63 and 64:
Illinois Department of Natural Reso
Page 65 and 66:
Consumer behavior researchers have
Page 67 and 68:
50 percent of the households were d
Page 69 and 70:
y respondents indicated that these
Page 71 and 72:
a bivariate approach (instead of th
Page 73 and 74:
HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN RUR
Page 75 and 76:
Short cruise season. Th e river fre
Page 77 and 78:
Lynda J. Sperazza, Ph.D. Recreation
Page 79 and 80: 2.3 Leisure Participation Values Re
Page 81 and 82: Dychtwald, K. 1999. Age power: How
Page 83 and 84: With all research, the research que
Page 85 and 86: comprehensive. Cross (2005) even ar
Page 87 and 88: Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Univ
Page 89 and 90: EXPERIENCE USE HISTORY AND ITS RELA
Page 91 and 92: Table 1.—Comparison of experience
Page 93 and 94: 5.0 DISCUSSION As mentioned previou
Page 95 and 96: HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
Page 97 and 98: 2.0 METHODS Data were collected at
Page 99 and 100: 0 buses 4 buses 8 buses 12 buses Fi
Page 101 and 102: 4.0 DISCUSSION Visitor surveys and
Page 103 and 104: LEISURE AND HEALTH
Page 105 and 106: Second, in a world where clean drin
Page 107 and 108: Table 1.—Importance of different
Page 109 and 110: Countries also need to be careful a
Page 111 and 112: Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 113 and 114: Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 115 and 116: do something and we might think it
Page 117 and 118: Th ese relational interactions enab
Page 119 and 120: EXPLORING ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE S
Page 121 and 122: trails, and asking others to stay o
Page 123 and 124: time/fi nances” in dune protectio
Page 125 and 126: In summary, this study explored the
Page 127 and 128: Jinhee Jun Texas A&M University jju
Page 129: Table 1.—Sample demographics Indi
Page 133 and 134: Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2003. A so
Page 135 and 136: Jiaying Lu Texas A& M University Ji
Page 137 and 138: Table 1.—Demographic and particip
Page 139 and 140: Table 3.—Factor analysis of motiv
Page 141 and 142: species sought, satisfaction, and r
Page 143 and 144: social nature within sense of place
Page 145 and 146: Table 1.—Descriptions of key info
Page 147 and 148: sharing the place with others and a
Page 149 and 150: Manzo, L.C. 2005. For better or wor
Page 151 and 152: NORMATIVE TOLERANCES FOR SCUBA DIVE
Page 153 and 154: neutral point. Bubbles at the top o
Page 155 and 156: Table 1.—Snorkeler evaluations of
Page 157 and 158: Davis, D.; Tisdell, C. 1995. Recrea
Page 159 and 160: William Valliere University of Verm
Page 161 and 162: ��
Page 163 and 164: Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carryin
Page 165 and 166: mission is “...to promote and reg
Page 167 and 168: Figure 1.—Pedestrian walkway LOS
Page 169 and 170: Acceptability 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Page 171 and 172: TOURISM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Page 173 and 174: the rankings of 12 attendance motiv
Page 175 and 176: Table 3.—Comparison of socio-econ
Page 177 and 178: Table 6.—Entertainment Seekers’
Page 179 and 180: PLACE MEANINGS
Page 181 and 182:
Stedman (1999) posited that sense o
Page 183 and 184:
points in a focus group session, Ne
Page 185 and 186:
are not shared by current residents
Page 187 and 188:
Ishwar Dhami Division of Forestry a
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 2.—Model for the calculati
Page 191 and 192:
Table 1.—Viewshed results for all
Page 193 and 194:
land implies that planting vegetati
Page 195 and 196:
Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
Page 197 and 198:
a setting’s ability to facilitate
Page 199 and 200:
EUH Place Satisfaction Figure 1.—
Page 201 and 202:
Table 4.—Regression coefficients
Page 203 and 204:
Jőreskog, K.G.; Sőrbom, D. 2004.
Page 205 and 206:
OUTDOOR RECREATION II
Page 207 and 208:
Th e primary objective of the propo
Page 209 and 210:
Question 10. Do you believe that SU
Page 211 and 212:
Rodney B. Warnick Tom Stevens Unive
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1.—Estimated visitation to
Page 215 and 216:
Table 2.—Estimated national park
Page 217 and 218:
For this section of the trend analy
Page 219 and 220:
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM
Page 221 and 222:
RECREATION TRAILS IN MAINE AND NEW
Page 223 and 224:
Table 2.—Average cross-sectional
Page 225 and 226:
Table 5.—The percentage of stream
Page 227 and 228:
Demrow, C.C. 2002. Maine trails man
Page 229 and 230:
Turner, J.M. 2002. From woodcraft t
Page 231 and 232:
Chad P. Dawson, Professor State Uni
Page 233 and 234:
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very diss
Page 235 and 236:
Table 4.—The number of campers in
Page 237 and 238:
Fuller, C.; Dawson, C. 1999. A comp
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1.—Modal response rates Ini
Page 241 and 242:
Smee, A.; Brennan, M. 2000. Electro
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1.—Characteristics of parti
Page 245 and 246:
Table 3.—Results of discriminant
Page 247 and 248:
5.0 CITATIONS Babbie, E. 2001. Th e
Page 249 and 250:
Bernardita Silva Graduate Assistant
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1.—Expenditures by 2008 Ame
Page 253 and 254:
6.0 CITATIONS Della Bitta, A.; Lond
Page 255 and 256:
the economic impact of travel, and
Page 257 and 258:
the air show. Th e second most popu
Page 259 and 260:
not displace other local spending.
Page 261 and 262:
6.0 CITATIONS Adams, P.D.; Parmente
Page 263 and 264:
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
Page 265 and 266:
which suggests that diff erent type
Page 267 and 268:
Table 2.—Between-groups ANOVA to
Page 269 and 270:
forest settings (means = 4.4 and 4.
Page 271 and 272:
LEISURE RESEARCH
Page 273 and 274:
communities together, and a decline
Page 275 and 276:
Table 2.—Life satisfaction scale
Page 277 and 278:
onds within a social group is a mec
Page 279 and 280:
“I JUST WANTED TO GET AWAY”: AN
Page 281 and 282:
Th e importance of “getting away
Page 283 and 284:
Gerlach, J. 1989. Spring Break at P
Page 285:
www.nrs.fs.fed.us The U.S. Departme
show all

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?