PLACE ATTACHMENT OF RESIDENTS TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK IN SMALL TOWN

325

Place Attachment of Residents to Green Infrastructure Network in Small Town

PLACE ATTACHMENT OF RESIDENTS TO GREENINFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK IN SMALL TOWN

Mazlina Mansor and Ismail Said

Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi [email protected]

ABSTRACT: This study explores attachment of town residents towards green infrastructurenetwork in Taiping, an old town in Central Peninsular Malaysia. Green infrastructure is greeneryand open spaces linked by streets, waterways and drainage ways around and between urbanareas, at all spatial scales. In Taiping, the green infrastructure network consists of the LakeGardens (town park), street planting, open spaces of public buildings, pocket spaces betweenshop-houses, school playfields, residential open space, home gardens, and river corridors. Sixdimensions of place attachment including familiarity, favourite place, meaningful place, emotionalresponse to physical attributes, concern and satisfaction for green spaces are elicited from 335residents using survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted in neighbourhood areas,town centre, government institution and the Lake Gardens. The findings suggest that a majorityof residents perceived strong attachment to the green infrastructure of the town. Majority ofthe residents valued their town park (91%) and hill sites (68%) as their favourite places forleisure and physical activities that afford them positive emotional feelings including relaxation,solitude and relieving stress. They also evaluated the open spaces are places for activefunctioning including sports and physical exercises as well as passive performances such assite seeing, strolling and resting. Diversity, coherence and naturalness of the green spacesgenerated the attachment to the town. An array of green spaces including size, types andmixtures of elements distributed in town allows experiential choice that affords physical, cognitiveand social wellbeing.Keywords: Green infrastructure, Place attachment, Perception and feeling, Small town

1. INTRODUCTION

Some environments are valued by people in which personal bond may develop between peopleand place (Tuan, 1980; Sime, 1995; William and Steward, 1998). The bonding of people to placesis termed as ‘place attachment’ (Altman and Low, 1992). Place attachment has also been describedby researchers using concepts or dimensions of place bonding (Hammit et al., 2006), sense ofplace (Tuan, 1977), community attachment (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Kim and Kaplan, 2004),place identity (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky et al., 1983) and place dependence (Stokol andShumaker, 1981). Shumaker and Taylor (1983) defined place attachment as the person-placebond that evolves from specifiable conditions of place and characteristics of people. It is a strongemotional tie, temporary or long lasting between a person and a particular physical location (Sime,1995). The emotional link formed by an individual to a physical site has been given meaningthrough interaction. Hence, place attachment embraces the affective and emotional feelings ofpeople that are accompanied by cognition (thought, knowledge and belief) and practice throughaction and behavior in which it is emphasized through people’s interaction with the settings. In

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM325

326

SENVAR + ISESEE 2008: Humanity + Technology

sums, place attachment often emerges as individuals get to know the setting and endow it withvalue (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1980).

Initially, researches on place attachment were mainly concentrated to home and neighbourhoodsettings (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Rivlin, 1987; Lalli, 1992; Cooper-Marcus, 1995; Bonaiuto et al., 1999;Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brown, et al., 2003). Yet, it is found that investigations on placeattachment had varied considerably in terms of the nature of the place or spatial context. It is foundthat place attachment studies have expanded to nature and wilderness experiences (Steel 2000;Vitterso et al., 2001), public space (Low, 2000) and recreational place (Hammit et al., 2006).

The review of place attachment researches has revealed several key dimensions. Traditionally,two important measures for place attachment that are conceptualized were place identity byProshansky et al. (1983) and place dependence by Stokol and Shumaker (1981) which are commonlyused by many researchers in their study (e.g. Williams and Roggenbuck, 1989; William and Vaske,2003). However, recent conceptual models on place attachment have added to the current body ofknowledge by developing additional attachment dimensions such as place familiarity and belongingness(Hammit et al., 2006) and rootedness (Tuan, 1983). The paper explores six important dimensions toelucidate people and green infrastructure attachment phenomena: place familiarity, favourite andmeaningful place, emotional feeling towards physical attributes of green spaces, concern over thegreen infrastructure and satisfaction. The research defines green infrastructure as greenery andopen spaces linked by streets, waterways and drainage ways around and between urban areas, atall spatial scales (Tzoulas et al., 2007). The experience using the green infrastructure networkincludes engagement in park, open space, incidental spaces, ‘loose-fit’ places (Dovey et al. (2002),residual spaces (Davidson, 1999) and streets (Ward Thompson, 2002).

Place familiarity means greater knowledge of the locale (Hammit et al., 2006). It involvespleasant memories, cognitions, and environmental images that result from acquaintances andremembrances associate with recreational places, and which serve as the initial stages of the human-to-place coupling process (Robert, 1996). Studies in residential place attachment suggest thatfamiliarity in terms of length of residence and intensity of use of neighborhood facilities are positivelyassociated with place attachment (Ahlbrandt, 1984; Brown et al., 2003; Lalli, 1992). Therefore,familiarity for the study is measured in terms of regularity of visit of urban residents to green spaceand their length of residency in the town. As stated by researchers (e.g. Commons, 1991; Gerwitz,1991), place attachment develops over time and stages of people–place intentions and is related topast use experience with a place (Low and Altman, 1992). Length of residence in a community canincrease familiarity in spatial knowledge and emotional domains of a place (Appleyard, 1969). Similarly,regularity of visit to green spaces increase residents familiarity and pleasant memories of leisureand physical activities, thus stimulate attachment to the green spaces.

Studies of place attachment have also focused on people’s use of particular places for self andemotion regulation (e.g. Korpela and Hartig, 1996). This is a favorite place, which appears to affordrestorative experiences that aid emotion- and self-regulation processes. For example, studies indicatedthat favourite place is visited to relax, calm down and clear minds (Korpela, 1991). It is oftendescribed as aesthetically engaging and afforded escape from social pressures with concomitantfreedom of expression and control (Korpela et al., 2001). The attachment to this place usuallydevelops over time hence, familiarity is important to nurture favourite place of people. When peopleare familiar towards a particular place, they often develop and affective-memory and memory-achievement familiarity that is a feeling of sense of belonging, identity, dependence or even

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM326

327


possessiveness towards places. To some extent, the places may become ‘their place’, a favouriteplace’ or the ‘only place’ for various types of leisure-recreation pursuits (Korpela et al., 2001).

Positive emotional feeling towards green infrastructure environment and concern over themindicate residents develop a sense of belonging towards their place and to community. Sense ofbelonging is achieved when one has a positive feeling and behavior to maintain or enhance a locale(Hammit et al., 2006). In the study, it is measured based on the perceptions and preferences ofresidents towards physical attributes of green infrastructure. As stated by Walker and Ryan (2008),reviewing landscape preference research may add to better understanding of place attachment.Preference, as an expression of human need and desire, has a strong influence on a person’sattitudes toward their environment. People’s preference for a landscape is grounded in their abilityto understand the landscape, and the level of complexity and engagement that the landscape offers(Kaplan et al., 1998), as well as the familiarity of the landscape or their experiences of similarlandscapes (Gerson et al., 1977).

Satisfaction plays significant role in attachment to a place, where increase in satisfaction andpreference typically influence levels of attachment. Studies of place attachment towards communityhave found that when local residents find their homes and community satisfactorily, they are likely toexperience strong community attachment (Fried, 1982; Cook, 1988; Zaff and Devlin, 1998).Comparably, attachment to green space is depended upon one’s satisfaction towards the physicalattributes that green space has to offer.

Quality of physical environments contributes to attachment of people. According to Relph,(1976), Branderburg and Carrol (1995) and Stedman (2003a), the attachment formed with placesmay involve three most dominant factors: (a) characteristics of the physical environment, (b)human use and experience with the environment and, (c) social, psychological and culturalinterpretations and constructed meanings of people-place interactions. Translating this to the contextof green infrastructure, the attachment of residents with green spaces in towns and cities sparksfrom participation of urban residents with physical and leisure activities. The quality of physicalproperties and attributes of the green infrastructure including diversity of spaces, coherence andnaturalness then enriches the experiences of users. The experience evokes positive cognitions,thus, encouraging positive meaning towards the spaces. These meanings are expressed fromresidents’ preference for various types of space for their outdoor activities. In other words,landscape preference affects place attachment and is influenced by experience and familiarity(Ryan, 1997). Diversity of spaces allows more outdoor experiential choices for urban residents,resulting in regular contact with various green spaces. The coherence of environment includinglegibility of places and good connectivity allow accessibility and assist wayfinding and orientationof residents. Readability of its environments, for example, noticeable landmarks and routes thatconnect to green areas offer a strong knowledge base for familiarity of residents to access andparticipate in activities. Naturalness qualities of the green spaces such as the presence of lushgreenery and water element attract residents to participate regularly in outdoor spaces. Theaesthetically pleasing environment may evoke pleasant memories and give character to the town,hence enhance familiarity of residents. Therefore, the qualities on physical characteristics mayresult in positive interpretation and meaning to the places that residents visit. With time, theydevelop an attachment for the places.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM327

328


2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The research utilizes exploratory approach by analyzing perceptions towards green infrastructureheld by residents of a small old town of Taiping located in central Peninsular Malaysia. It takesstride to explore the behavioural responses of residents change by experiencing a range of greenspaces, hence shaping their attachment to the green spaces of the town. The properties and attributesof the green infrastructure of the town including diversity, coherence, naturalness and the attributesof the environment (e.g. cleanliness, safety, and facility) play significant roles for the sense ofattachment. In particular, the survey was set to answer three main questions: (a) Are residentsfamiliar with the range of green infrastructure land uses in Taiping town? b) What are residents’perceptions and feelings towards the green spaces that lead to familiarity and bonding to the greenspaces? (c) What are the causal roles between the properties and attributes of green infrastructureand attachment of residents towards the green spaces that exist in the town?

3. METHOD AND DESIGN

3.1 Study Area

Taiping with population of around 145,000 people is located in the district of Larut Matang thatcovers 186 km² (Taiping Municipal Council, 2004). Within the peripheral area lie other small provincesincluding Kamunting, Tupai and Assam Kumbang. It was the first town established by the British in1874 and developed rapidly in the 19th century after tin was discovered. Its landscape was muchmodified by the tin mining activities, leaving many lakes and sand tailings, which was turn into a parksome 120 years ago. Taiping is composed of residential land, low-density commercial area and asignificant amount of green spaces. Green infrastructure in Taiping town consists of the Lake Gardensas town park, green and open spaces of institutional and government buildings, hills landscape,pocket spaces in town, street landscape, residential open spaces and home garden and river corridor.The Lake Gardens is a large town park near to the town centre with glorious large rain trees andlakes, recreational amenities and zoo covers 84 hectare of land. There are 22 pocket spaces betweenshop houses such as Laman Pasar in the town centre. Street landscape consisting of trees andshrubs connects places within commercial areas in town, to major recreational spaces and to theresidential neighbourhoods. For example, major roads of Taming Sari Road and Kota Road connecttown centre with the Lake Gardens and Maharaja Lela Road and Muzium Road connect to theresidential neighborhoods. However, only 26% of the road system in Taiping is considerably green.The composition of green infrastructure extends to the residential neighbourhoods with communityparks, playgrounds and home gardens, which make up 13% of green area of the town (Ismail andMazlina, 2007). The green spaces exist in apparently peaceful harmony with a range of urbancharms including old colonial public, institutional and commercial buildings defined by Larut Hill as abackdrop. The town is the wettest place in Peninsular Malaysia; therefore, the environment isrelatively cool and refreshing. Figure 1 illustrates the distributions of green and pocket spaces inTaiping town and nearby areas.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM328

329


3.2 Instrument

The research uses survey questionnaire to measure behavioural responses of residents from contactand engagement with green spaces in the town. The responses include perception, feeling andpreference of activities, the roles of physical properties and attributes of green infrastructure andsense of attachment to a range of green infrastructure land uses in Taiping.

Questionnaire surveys were used in many studies to explore environmental attitudes such asurban growth (e.g. Henwood and Pidgeon, 2001) and quality of life (e.g. Bonaiuto et al., 2003).Surveys are widely used as means of making descriptive assertions about preferences and attitudesof the sample of a population (Akbar et al., 2003). A questionnaire has the advantage of reachinga reasonable representative group of people in a short period, providing a means to generate datathat can be quantified and analyzed, hence giving opportunity to assess various issues from theview of people with different social, economical and geographical background (Akbar et al.,2003; Oppenheim, 1992).

The items in the survey were presented in categorical scale, positive five-point Likert scale andadjective rating scale. For example, categorical scales were used to obtain socio-demographic

Figure 1: Distribution of green and pocket spaces in TaipingSource: (Ismail and Mazlina, 2007)

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM329

330


information and responses on residents’ feelings on the uses and activities in the green spaces.Likert scale is a response from 5-strongly agree to 1-strongly disagree and a 3-neutral option. Theneutral option ensured that respondents are able to provide honest answers to the items (Balram andDragiæeviæ, 2005). Responses to a set of thirteen adjective rating were included to represent theattributes of various types of green infrastructure land uses in Taiping that town residents perceived.

The questionnaire was organized into two sections. The first section is socio-demographicinformation of residents that includes items such as age, gender, ethnicity and length of residency.Section 2 is responses on dimensions of attachment of residents using multiple response scale,Likert scale and bipolar adjective rating scale. The section contained sub-sections based on thedimensions measured for the study: familiarity, favourite and meaningful place, emotional responseto properties and attributes of green infrastructure and satisfaction and concern towards the greenspaces.

3.3 Administration and Respondents

Data was collected from 335 residents living in Taiping town, Kamunting, Tupai and Assam Kumbangusing purposive sampling method. This method is suitable, in which the unit of analysis fulfilled thecriteria as residents who use Taiping town regularly. This means, even though some of the residentslive in the peripheral areas such as in Kamunting, Tupai and Assam Kumbang, they consider Taipingtown as their main town for daily outdoor activities. Hence, they mostly participated in outdooractivities and green spaces of the town.

Residents were selected from two types of neighbourhood housing areas (terrace housing andvillage-like neighbourhood), town centre and nearby green spaces. A variation of the drop-off method(Kamarul Zaman, 2007) was used for on-site survey questionnaire administration. The method wascarried in two ways; drop-off door to door in the neighbourhoods and government office and publicspace intercept in town centre and green spaces. Twelve neighbourhoods consisted of terracedhousing types and village like neighbourhood were identified for the survey drop-off method. In themorning, the researchers distributed the survey questionnaires. The researchers explained the surveybriefly to respondents and then leave it for them to complete at their leisure. The deadline was setup, upon which the researcher returned and collected the questionnaires in the afternoon. Thismethod was administered for two days during the weekend when residents were most likely to be athome. Another drop-off method was a public space intercept, where the questionnaires weredistributed to residents in town centre such as passers-by, business owners and park users in theLake Gardens and in town. The questionnaires were explained either to individual or groups ofrespondents approached in these areas and they filled the surveys in the presence of the researcher.

3.4 Analysis

To describe the data, descriptive statistics such as percentage and cross tabulation analyses werecarried out. This is applicable for exploratory study because it concerns with summarizing a sample(Sulaiman, 2004) and aim at obtaining some degree of simplification. Accordingly, descriptive statisticsand frequencies were used in many studies involving public opinion (Akbar et al., 2003). The analyseswere carried out to discern the uses of green spaces and contributions of the physical properties andattributes of the green spaces to residents’ feeling of attachment.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM330

331


4. RESULTS

4.1 Socio-demographic Information

Socio-demographic information identified that fifty two percent (52%) of respondents are fromneighbourhoods. 23% of the respondents in town centre were the officers of Taiping MunicipalCouncil, town users and business owners and 25% were park users in the Lake Gardens.Demographically, the samples were evenly divided between male and female with 57% and 43%respectively. Malay represents the ethnic majority of the respondents. As can be seen in Table 1, thelargest percentage of respondents (82%) was adults and majority of them have resided in Taipingbetween 0.5 to 30 years suggesting that they are familiar with the physical properties and attributesof the green spaces of the town.

Table 1: Socio-demographic information of town residents

Survey item Levels Per cent n = 335

Gender Male 57%Female 43%

Ethnicity Malay 69%Chinese 19%Indian 10%Others 1.5%

Age group Adolescent (12-18 yrs old) 8%Adult (19-55 yrs) 86%older adult & elderly (>55yrs) 6%

Year of residence 1-10 years 30%11-30 52%31-50 16%> 50 years 2%

4.2 Familiarity from Regularity of Visit to Green Space

The first research question is on familiarity of residents on the range of green infrastructure. In thestudy, familiarity is measured in terms of regularity of visits to green spaces and length of residencyin the town. These dimensions are believed to determine familiarity of residents, hence, was anticipatedto imbue attachment to an array of green spaces available in the town. It is found that the largestpercentage (77%) of residents visit various green spaces available in Taiping town at least once intwo weeks as shown in Table 2. This shows the intensity of use of the green infrastructure is highand predicts that residents are familiar with their green spaces.

Specifically, to identify the level of familiarity of residents towards different types of greeninfrastructure, eight green infrastructure land uses were proposed in the questionnaire. The largestpercentage of residents indicated that they visited the Lake Gardens (91%) and the hill sites (68%)as shown by results in Figure 2, suggesting that residents are more familiar with spaces that have

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM331

332


distinctive physical properties and attributes such as the size and naturalness. On the other hand,preferences for pocket spaces (11%) and streets (11%) in towns are low suggesting that residentshardly recognized the spaces potential for outdoor activities.

Table 2: Regularity of visit to green space

Levels Percent n = 335

Twice per week 24%Once a week 31%Once fortnightly 22%Once a month 19%Other 4%

4.3 Familiarity from Length of Residence

To explore the relationship between two variables, crosstabulation is used between regularity of visitto green space (dependent variable) and length of residency (independent variable) in Taiping town.It explores whether length of stay of residence in Taiping affect intensity of use of green spaces inthe town. As shown in Table 3, finding indicates that there is no significant association between thetwo variables. In other words, it signifies that residents regularly used green space regardless whetherthey are new to the town or has been in Taiping for most of their lives.

Figure 2: Types of green infrastructure that residents visitSource: (Mazlina, 2008)

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM332

333


Table 3: Crosstabulation result between length of residence and regularity of visit

Length of residence/Regularity of visit Percent n = 335

1-10 years 77%11-30 years 82%31 to 50 years 76%>50 years 100%

4.4 Favourite and Meaningful Place

Second research question focused on residents’ perception and feelings towards the green spacesthat lead to familiarity and attachment. It revealed their favourite place and their emotional responsestowards the attributes of the green infrastructure. Familiarity leads to regular activities in the greenspaces where residents obtain diverse experiences. Hence, residents may have developed favouriteplace for visit. Findings in Table 4 suggested residents of the town prefer outdoor activities in greenspaces (75%). A larger percentage of residents (69%) pointed out that green spaces are amongtheir favourite places for visit during leisure time. The reasons are that the spaces can offer relaxationand relief from stress (52%) and as places to perform physical activity (53%). On the other hands,a favourite place does not need to be a place that enable them to have contact with other people,socialize and feel safe and secure as shown in low responses for the items proposed in the survey.Some of the favourite places are meaningful to residents as suggested from result in Table 4 (53%).

In addition, exploration of relationships between favourite place and age group of residentsfound that there is no significant association between the two dimensions as shown in Table 5.Thissuggests that all residents have their own favourite place to be and this is seems to be related withactivities and places that suit the needs of all ages.

Table 4: Favourite place

Survey item Per cent n = 335

I prefer green infrastructure than any other type of space for outdoor activity 75%Green infrastructure is my favourite place 69%Green spaces is a meaningful place for me 53%

Reasons of favourite place:

For physical activity 53%To relax and relief stress 52%To interact with family and friends 46%Safe and secure 25%To interact with neighbour/other residents 14%

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM333

334


Table 5: Crosstabulation result between favourite place and age group

Age group/Favourite place Agreement Per cent n = 335

Adolescent (12-18 years old) 67%Young adult (19-39 years old) 65%Adult (40-55 years old) 78%Older adult and elderly (> years old) 68%

4.5 Satisfaction and Concern on Green Spaces

The questions for this section intended to explore residents’ satisfaction and their concern for greeninfrastructure in the town using Likert scale. The overall responses found to be very positive. Generally,a substantial percentage of residents satisfied with green infrastructure (68%) as seen in Table 6.Residents voted that they are satisfied with the green spaces due to their physical properties andattributes (72%). This means properties and attributes of green infrastructure including diversity,naturalness and coherence contributes to satisfaction of residents towards the green infrastructure.The satisfaction is a key contributor to sense of attachment of residents.

Table 6: Satisfaction and residents’ concern on green infrastructure

Per cent onSurvey item agreement n = 335

maximum = 5, min = 1

I am satisfied with green infrastructure in Taiping 68%I am satisfied with green infrastructure because of their physical 72%

properties and attributes.Green infrastructure offers suitable activity for residents’ lifestyle 65%I care and concern about the green spaces 75%I feel the green spaces should be protected and conserve 82%

4.6 Response on Properties and Attributes of Green Infrastructure

Final research questions focused on exploration of the causal roles between the properties andattributes of green infrastructure and attachment of residents towards the green spaces. Table 7shows results on assessment of perceptions and feelings for green infrastructure. Thirteen adjectiveson physical attributes of the green infrastructure were selected from literatures for identifyingemotional feeling of residents towards the green spaces. The responses would interpret their senseof attachment to the spaces. Overall, the responses were highly positive in which most of theattributes measured obtained high mean ratings except for item on ‘facilities’ (mean 3.69). Fourspecific green infrastructure land uses were also chosen to evaluate the difference in attachmenttowards different types of green spaces. They are the Lake Gardens, hill sites, pocket spaces intown and open space and home gardens of neighbourhood. As depicted in Figure 3, findings are in

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM334

335


favour of the Lake Gardens as compared to other green infrastructure land uses. The lowest scoreis for pocket spaces in town as can be seen in low mean score in Figure 3.

Table 7: Perceptions and feelings towards green infrastructure

Bipolar adjective rating scale Mean of agreement n = 335max = 5; min = 1

PROPERTIES1) Spacious - crowded 4.342) Beautiful - ugly 4.303) Variety - monotonous 4.054) Clean - dirty 3.875) Good facility –vandalism/graffiti 3.69ATTRIBUTES6) Calm - stressful 4.417) Fond of it-dislike it 4.408) Exciting - boring 4.309) Lively - abandoned 4.0410) Comfortable - uncomfortable 4.0411) Safe - fear /anxiety 4.0012) Familiar - strange 3.9713) Inspiring - unimaginative 3.94

Figure 3: Comparative mean of residents’ feelings towards specific places

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM335

336


5. DISCUSSION

The primary research question for the study is on familiarity of residents towards the range of greenspaces of the town. Data from the survey has documented various age groups of residents. Anumber of them have been living in Taiping for more than ten years. Most of residents regularly usedthe spaces regardless of whether they are new to the town or they have been in Taiping for most oftheir lives. Hence, local residents are familiar with all types of green infrastructure land uses proposedin the survey. The familiarity seems contributed by the diversity of green infrastructure as suggestedby findings in Figure 2. For examples, the size of the Lake Gardens and the outstanding naturalfeatures of Larut Hill permit various leisure and recreational activities. Inside the Lake Gardens,various smaller spaces exist for residents to participate in any desired activities, be it physical orsocial activities. Larut Hill offers leisure and recreational activities at the waterfall of the BurmesePool. The scenic beauty of the town’s environment looking from the top of the hill is aestheticallypleasing for residents to immerse. In addition, the significance difference on residents’ preferencebetween the Lake Gardens and the green spaces in town centre strongly influenced by the propertiesand attributes of its spaces. In other words, diversity of spaces and activities in the pocket spaces isminimal and affect uses and regular contact of residents with the spaces. The lack of coherence interms of the existence of noticeable landmarks discourages legibility to the places. Furthermore,connectivity of the spaces with another may not be physically and visually easy and diminishesaccessibility and affecting residents’ usage of the spaces, thus, reducing familiarity. The conditionsimpinged by the lack of naturalness quality in the pocket spaces such as the existence of water andgreenery, which found to shape preference of people towards their environment.

As suggested by many studies, length of stay in a place can positively affected place attachmentfor the place (e.g. Ahlbrandt, 1984; Lalli, 1992; Brown et al., 2003). However, the result of thesurvey found to be in contrast with the researches. The reasons for this difference lie in the contextof the town itself. Taiping town is an old colonial town and is relatively a small place. The contentsof its environment consist of a town park from colonial period that sits in harmony with the rest ofold buildings erected in the same era and other contemporary structures. Most of the greeneryespecially the Lake Gardens is already established. Therefore, the environment seems very rusticand serene. One can easily feel attach to a small town like Taiping that has already began to shapeits own identity rather than to a large town or city. Feldman (1990) posited that people identify witha neighbourhood, suburb or small town, rather than with a particular place or town. They were likelyto give these places higher ratings of desirability for settlement.

Residents of Taiping perceived the green spaces as their favourite place that afford residentsrelaxation and relief from stress and as places for them to perform physical activity. The favouriteplace does not need to be a place to socializing with other residents or feel safe and secure. Thus,the findings are parallel with studies by Korpela (1991), Korpela et al. (2001) and Korpela andHartig (1996) who emphasized that favourite place is place for leisure and recreational pursuitswhere one can primarily achieve self and emotion regulation and afford restorative experience fromdemanding everyday activities. Result also shows that there is no significant association betweenage group and favourite place. Finding in the study are in accord with many researches that demonstratethat there are many aspects of outdoor environments and green spaces that are attractive to people,regardless of age (Ward Thompson, 2007). It suggests that adolescents use green space because itsupports their social life: as a place to be comfortable with friends and place to be one self. In other

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM336

337


words, green spaces offer them attractive places to ‘hang out’, hence, develop a sense of self-identity and independence. As for older adults, green spaces offer them a better quality of life:active social life, good health and good neighbouring environments. This means green space is aplace for them to enjoy fresh air, walking and enjoying scenery, hence, feeling healthy. In addition,they can meet other people, therefore, maintaining social networks and be active socially.

Familiarity with the green spaces has developed affective-memory and memory-achievementof residents – among others, dependency and possessiveness towards the places. Therefore, theyfeel that certain places are meaningful to them. This is because these places have reminded them oftheir childhood memories or memories of being with loved ones and doing activities together. Resultshave also suggested that residents respond positively towards maintaining the environment as it isand conserving the green spaces because it has value to individual and community in the town. Thefeelings of concern and effort to conserve the green spaces by residents indicate they have developeda sense of belonging and attachment to the green spaces as proposed by Hammit et al. (2006).

The causal roles between the properties and attributes of green infrastructure and attachmentof residents towards the green spaces that exist in the town explored from responses on the attributesof the green infrastructure. From the analysis, the attachment of residents form the emotionalresponses on various attributes of the green spaces such as fond of the green space, exciting, calmand inspiring place. In other words, the residents prefer most of the attributes of the greeninfrastructure. These feelings confer satisfaction in which residents are likely to experience strongattachment to the green spaces as suggested by environment behavioral studies such as Fried(1982).

6. SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

In summary, the attributes of the green infrastructure such as diversity, coherence of the environmentand naturalness quality were affecting the attachment of residents. Feelings of residents towardsthe attributes were highly positive. They are more familiar with types of green infrastructure thatare more diverse in spaces, legible and accessible. A coherent setting offers residents the ability tomake sense of their environment. Green spaces with strong visual qualities including landmark,vista and connectivity ease way finding and orientation of residents to access and participate invarious features and activities. Trees, grass, flowers and water elements present naturalness quality,hence, provide a sense of meaning and shaping preference and attachment of town residents to thegreen spaces. Familiarity of the green spaces was not associated with length of residency to thehistorical background of the town as well as its size. Similarly, residents consisting of all age groupsseemed to own their favourite place that suited their particular activities. Therefore, residents seemedto feel satisfy with the green infrastructure environment in Taiping town, suggesting that attachmentto the places has already begun to take its shape.

Nonetheless, data from the study has several limitations. Firstly, the data were analyzed usingdescriptive statistics such as percentage and cross tabulation due to the exploratory nature of thestudy. Hence, the study is far from conclusive and primarily useful for guiding future research. Itonly answers the questions of ‘what’ rather than on ‘how’ and ‘why’, thus, further research shouldevaluate these findings. Many aspects of abstract experiential qualities on perception, feelings andpreferences of residents are unable to be express as in an open-ended interview. Therefore, the

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:09 PM337

338


study did not elicit deeper feelings of residents towards types of green infrastructure. Futureinvestigation on the topic should include open-ended questions to illuminate these issues.

REFERENCES

Ahlbrandt, R. S. (1984). Neighborhoods, people, and community. New York: Plenum.Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H. & Headley, A. D. (2003). Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in

northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 3, 139-144.Altman, I., and Low, S. (1992). Human behavior and environments: advances in theory and research. Volume

12: Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press.Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known. Environment and Behavior, 1, 131-156.Balram, S. and Dragievi, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and

collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 147-162.

Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugina, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception ofresidential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 19, 331-352.

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F. & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environmental quality andneighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study of the city of Rome. LandscapeUrban Planning, 65, 41-52.

Brandenburg, A. M. & Carroll, M. S. (1995). Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmentalvalues and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381-398.

Brown, B., Perkins, D. & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in revitalizing neighborhoods: Individual andblock level analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3), 259-271.

Commons, M. L. (1991). A comparison and synthesis of Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental and Gerwitz’slearning-developmental attachment theories. In: Gerwitz, J. L. & Kurtines, W. M. (Eds) Intersections withAttachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 257-291.

Cook, C. C. (1988). Components of neighborhood satisfaction: Responses from urban and suburban single-parent women. Environment and Behavior, 20, 115-149.

Cooper-Marcus, C. (1995). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home. Berkeley, CA:Conari.

Davidson, N. (1999). Urban grafts: A study of residual space in urban restructuring strategies. MA Thesis,Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt University.

Dovey, K. (2000). Spaces of ‘becoming’. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the International Associationfor People - Environment Studies, Paris.

Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society.Environment and Behavior, 22 (2), 183-229.

Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of SocialIssues, 38, 107-119.

Gerson, K., Stueve, C. A. & Fischer, C. S. (1977). Attachment to place. In: Fisher, C.S., Jackson, R.M., Stueve,C.A., Gerson, K., Jones, L., Baldassare, M. (Eds.), Network and Places: Social Relations in the UrbanSetting. New York: Free Press, pp. 139-161.

Gerwitz, J. L. (1991). Identification, attachment, and their developmental sequencing in a conditioning frame. In:Gerwitz, J. L. & Kurtines, W. M. (Eds), Intersections with Attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 247-256.

Hammitt,W. E., Backlund, E. A. & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for Recreational Places: Conceptual andempirical development. Leisure Studies, 25 (1), 17-41.

Henwood, K. and Pidgeon, N. (2001). Talk about the woods and trees: threat of urbanization, stability, andbiodiversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 125-147.

Hidalgo, M. C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and theoretical questions. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:10 PM338

339


Ismail, S. & Mazlina, M. (2007). Green infrastructure as network of social spaces for well-being of urbanresidents in Malaysian towns: A case study in Taiping. In: Proceedings of Second InternationalSeminar on Towards Establishing Sustainable Planning and Governance, Sungkyungkwan University,Seoul.

Kamarul Zaman Ahmad (2007). PhD: The pursuit of excellence. Singapore: Thomson Learning.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design management of everyday nature.,

Washington, DC: Island Press.Kasarda, J. D. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review,

39, 328-339.Kim, J. & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New Urbanist Kentlands

and Nearby Orchard Village, Environment and Behavior, 36 (3), 313-340.Korpela, K. & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology,

16, 221-233.Korpela, K. (1992). Adolescents’ favourite places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 12, 249-258.Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite

places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572-589.Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 12, 285-303.Low, S. (2000). On the plaza: the politics of public space and culture. Austin. TX: University of Texas Press.Mazlina Mansor (2008). Taiping on-site survey.Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. 2nd eds. London:

Printer.Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-id entity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the

self, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.Rivlin, L. (1987). The neighborhood, personal identity, and group affiliation. In I. Altman & A.Wandersman

(Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments. New York: Plenum, pp. 1-34.Roberts, E. (1996). Place and spirit in public land management. In: Driver, B. L. et al. (Eds). Nature and the

Human Spirit. State College, PA: Venture Publishers, pp. 61-80.Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas.

Environment and Behavior, 37, 1, 3-42.Shumaker, S. A. & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: a model of attachment

to place. In: Feimen, N. R. & Geller, E. S. (Eds.) Environmental psychology: directions and perspectives.New York: Praeger, pp. 219-251.

Sime, J. D. (1995). Creating places or designing spaces? In Groat, L. (Ed.) Readings in Environmental Psychology:Giving Places Meanings. New York: Harcourt Brace, pp. 27-41.

Stedman, R. C. (2003a). Sense of place and forest science: toward a program of quantitative research. ForestScience, 49, 822-829.

Steel, D. (2000). Polar bonds: Environmental relationships in polar regions. Environment and Behavior, 32,796-816.

Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J.H. Harvey (Ed.),Cognition, social behavior and the environment. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sulaiman Shamsuri (2004). Research methods for the social sciences made simple. Kuala Lumpur: DSS PublishingEnterprise.

Taiping Municipal Council (2004). Studies on Local Plan, Department of Town Planning Development, TaipingMunicipal Council.

Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold.Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3-8.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:10 PM339

340


Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Ka’zmierczak, A., Niemela, J and James, P. (2007). Promotingecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 81 (3), 167-178.

Vitterso, J., Vorkinn, M. & Vistad, O. (2001). Congruence between recreational mode and actual behavior: Aprerequisite for optimal experiences? Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 137-159.

Walker, A. J. & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: AMaine case study. Landscape and urban planning, 86, 141-152.

Ward Thompson, C. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 59-72.Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Playful nature: What makes the difference between some people going outside and

others not? In: Ward Thompson, C. & Travlou, P. (2007). Open Space People Space (Ed.). London: Taylorand Francis.

Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results (Abstract),In: Proceedings of the National Recreation and Parks Association Symposium on Leisure Research, SanAntonio, TX, October, 1989.

Williams, D. R. & Stewart, S. (1998). Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystemmanagement, Journal of Forestry, 96, 18-23.

Williams, D. R. & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of apsychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830-840.

Zaff, J. & Devlin, A. S. (1998). Sense of community in housing for the elderly. Journal of Community Psychology,26, 381-398.

6-P & L.pmd 11/21/08, 12:10 PM340

Documents

PLACE ATTACHMENT OF RESIDENTS TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK IN SMALL TOWN