Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and … · 2019-05-31 · Review Place...

Review

Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review andagenda

Marino Bonaiuto a, b, *, Susana Alves c, Stefano De Dominicis a, b, Irene Petruccelli da Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Universit!a di Roma, Rome, Italyb CIRPA e Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca in Psicologia Ambientale, Rome, Italyc Architecture Department, Okan }Universitesi, Istanbul, Turkeyd Facolt!a di Scienze dell'Uomo e della Societ!a, Universit!a Kore di Enna, Enna, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 4 August 2015Received in revised form28 July 2016Accepted 31 July 2016Available online 1 August 2016

Keywords:Place attachmentSense of placeNatural environmentNatural hazardRisk perceptionRisk coping

a b s t r a c t

Little is known about how place attachment affects natural hazard risk perception and coping. A sys-tematic search of social science databases revealed 31 works (1996e2016) that directly address placeattachment in relation to natural hazard risk or natural environmental risks (seismic, volcanic, etc.).Across different contexts, the research shows: (a) both positive and negative relations between placeattachment and natural environmental risk perception; (b) both positive and negative relations betweenplace attachment and risk coping; and (c) mediating and moderating relations. In particular, results showthat: (a) strongly attached individuals perceive natural environmental risks but underestimate theirpotential effects; (b) strongly attached individuals are unwilling to relocate when facing natural envi-ronmental risks and are more likely to return to risky areas after a natural environmental disaster; (c)place attachment acts both as a mediating and moderating variable between risk perception and coping.Place attachment should play a more significant role in natural hazard risk management.

© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.1. Psychological factors and environmental risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.2. Place attachment, natural environmental risk perception and coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351.3. Criteria for selection of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2. Place attachment in environmental risk research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.1. Different definitions and measurements of place attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. Place attachment and risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.1. Positive relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.2. Negative relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4. Place attachment and risk coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.1. Positive relationships between place attachment and environmental risk coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.2. Negative relationships between place attachment and environmental risk coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.3. Moderation and mediation effects between place attachment and environmental risk perception and between place attachment and risk coping454.4. Lack of relationships between place attachment and environmental risk perception or environmental risk coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.1. Place attachment and natural environmental risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.2. Place attachment and natural environmental risk coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475.3. Mediation and moderation effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.4. Understanding conflicting results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

* Corresponding author. Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo eSocializzazione, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185, Roma, Italy.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Bonaiuto).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.0070272-4944/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 33e53

6. Conclusions and implications for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1. Introduction

Current ecological concerns and the increasing number ofpeople affected by natural environmental disasters require a betterunderstanding of how people perceive and cope with disaster risk.Environmental risks, particularly linked to natural disasters, have along history quite inseparable from that of humans. The focus ofthis paper is on natural environmental risks, their perception andcoping, and their relationship to place attachment. Other importantkinds of environmental risks are considered elsewhere (Acu~na-Rivera, Brown, & Uzzell, 2014; Pitner, Yu, & Brown, 2012).

The presence and memory of natural disasters and environ-mental risks mark humankind's relationship to the environments.Universally, natural environmental risks have figured prominentlyin mythological accounts where humans explained their relation-ship with the environment by using recurrent themes found inlegends, folktales and oral traditions (see MythGeology, e.g., Masse& Masse, 2007; Piccardi & Masse, 2007; Vitaliano, 2007; or moregenerally Ker"enyi, 1951, 1958). The memory of places via the con-struction of myth and other cultural processes such as in history istherefore situated in people-place transactions, which necessarilyencompass contexts of natural environmental risks.

Psychological ties with places are fundamental to understand-ing person-environment transactions. They are conceptualized byenvironmental psychologists with constructs such as placeattachment, sense of place, and place identity (Stedman, 2002).Place attachment can be broadly defined as an emotional andcognitive experience linking people to places. Place attachmentincludes individually-based factors and cultural beliefs and prac-tices (Low & Altman, 1992). However, the scientific attentiondevoted to natural environmental risk initially privileged a de-contextualized cognitive consideration of the subject. Forexample, early research on risk perception and assessment hasbeen based on the “psychometric paradigm of risk” (see Slovic,2000) and on other quantitative methodologies (e.g., Slovic,Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1979). Favouring the analysis of aggre-gated data, this approach neglected the analysis of individual dif-ferences. Critics of this “psychometric paradigm of risk” devisedstudies to incorporate individual factors into risk assessmentdsuchas anxiety (Metha & Simpson-Housley, 1994a, 1994b), self-efficacyand locus of control (Kallmen, 2000), venturesomeness (Twigger-Ross & Breakwell, 1999)deven though the evidence to date sug-gested that individual differences did not account for substantialvariance in risk perception (Breakwell, 2007).

Additional efforts to include person-environment factors arestudies within the cultural theory framework (e.g., Douglas, 1986).Cultural theory proposes that people have cultural biases (attitudesand beliefs shared by a group) to which they refer in order to judgelocal hazards, risky situations, and lifestyles. Initially, this theoryappears to include affective links to places as well as contextuallyrelevant factors, however a deeper analysis shows that it does not.This framework simply places people in distinct groups of culturalbias, such as hierarchists, egalitarians, fatalists, and individualists.Cultural theory has been criticized for its limited scope in definingand measuring cultural bias and its inability to accommodate cul-tural change (Sjoberg, 1997).

Beyond these attempts, systematic scientific attention to the

relationship between place attachment and risk perception andcoping, is still missing. Although there are studies addressing other“subjective” factors related to risk perception (Weinstein, 1984),research on risk perception and formal risk assessment has aimedfor rigorous control and estimation, while it has neglected impor-tant psychological factors, such as people's attachment to places.This lacuna exists despite the importance of place attachment as afundamental social psychological variable affecting person-environment transactions.

1.1. Psychological factors and environmental risk

Risk is the “probability of a particular adverse event occurringduring a stated period of time” (Breakwell, 2007, p. 2). Thus risk ismeasured in terms of an event's likelihood of occurring and itsseverity and potential consequences. Adverse events or “hazards”are terms that refer to anything that can cause harm to humans. It isimportant to differentiate between risk assessment and riskperception. Risk assessment refers to formal assessments con-ducted by experts, while risk perception is associated with atti-tudes about risks and hazards used by lay people. Risk assessmentand perception do not necessarily overlap, as experts' and layper-sons' evaluations of environmental quality, do not match across arange of issues (e.g., Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995).

Risk coping refers to the behaviours and actions that peopleadopt when facing a risky situation. It is essential to understandhow people make decisions as they attempt to cope with risk. Re-searchers agree that decisionmaking about risks is characterised bysystematic biases, such as the availability and representativeness ofinformation, anchoring, optimism, hindsight, and prospect(Breakwell, 2007).

One of these biases, optimism bias, refers to individuals’ beliefsthat negative events are less likely to happen to them (Weinstein,1984). Optimism bias is related to sense of control, and in hazard-ous situations, when people perceive lack of control, they maybecome more pessimistic about their abilities to cope with the risk(van der Velde, HooyKaas, & van der Joop, 1992). Furthermore,pessimism may be more likely when people have had prior directexperience with severe hazardous outcome, such as earthquakes(Helweg-Larsen, 1999).

Among diverse types of bias, optimism bias has assumed arelevant role for environmental psychologists studying risky situ-ations, including natural environmental risk. Risk perception is infact linked to two main factors: optimism bias and psychologicaldistance (Gifford et al., 2009). People often believe that environ-mental risks “will not happen to them” and thus may have inac-curate perceptions of how environmental risks will affect them andtheir communities.

Research suggests that people tend to rate environmentalproblems as more severe at the global than at the local level, aresult that is found in multiple cultural contexts (Schultz et al.,2014). Uzzell (2000) also examined whether people consideredenvironmental problems to be more serious at a global or locallevel. He found that people were able to conceptualize and un-derstand environmental problems (e.g., water pollution, globalwarming, noise pollution and deforestation) at a global level andperceived and evaluated environmental problems to be more

M. Bonaiuto et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 33e5334

serious the farther away they were from them. Based on thisassumption of invulnerability, people may tend to be too optimisticabout local conditions related to climate change, which may lead toinaction (Gifford, 2011).

Uzzell has termed this type of perception as “environmentalhyperopia” to convey the idea that direct experience with envi-ronmental risks does not compensate for psychological biases. Thenotion of hyperopia, when applied to environmental risk, proposesthat people have a “vision defect” in the sense that they are able tosee distant problems well, but have difficulty focusing on problemsthat are closer. A similar concept, psychological distance, refers tothe perception of environmental risks as more likely to affectdistant geographical areas or to happen in a distant future (Locke &Latham, 1990).

Optimistic bias and psychological distance may be adaptive inthat they safeguard identity and reduce negative emotions, such asanxiety and fear. However, optimistic bias and psychological dis-tance may also act as barriers that prevent addressing and miti-gating environmental risks and disasters (see Few, Brown, &Tompkins, 2007 for an example in the UK context).

Other researchers have also suggested that a spatial optimisticbias in environmental risk perceptions could be a function of placeattachment and/or local identity (e.g. Bonaiuto, Breakwell, & Cano,1996; Gifford et al., 2009). That is, a reverse place attachment-riskperception relationship may be the basis of the optimism bias inenvironmental risk perception, and possibly in its coping anddecision-making. Therefore, when looking back at the history ofdisasters in order to understand people's perceptions and adapt-ability, it seems plausible that the perception of environmental riskis closely linked to attachment to place. Risk perception and copingwould thus be specific to a particular cultural milieu and physicalsetting (Weber & Hsee, 1999).

However, despite the apparent importance of locale andattachment to place in environmental risk perception and coping,place attachment has been given little systematic attention withinthe risk literature. Prior research (Bonaiuto et al., 1996; Giffordet al., 2009) suggests that people who are attached to their localeare likely to underestimate its potential vulnerability to risk. Thisrelationship needs to be conceptually framed and empiricallyillustrated, especially with respect to the use or rejection of copingbehaviours in the face of potential risks. Recently, for example,researchers have focused on the “community context” to under-stand how community place attachment relates to social capital,place development and disruption (Mihaylov & Perkins, 2014).More generally other contributions (Cutter et al., 2008) have shownthat possible important leveraging factors for improving percep-tions of disaster resilience at the local or community level are:sustainable development policies (disaster prevention, mitigation,preparedness, vulnerability reduction), local capacity interventions(Institutions and mechanisms), and risk reduction strategies (pri-mary and secondary prevention programmes).

Recognizing such an increasing interest in these topics over thelast couple of decades, the present work aims to establish thecurrent state of knowledge by reviewing empirical studies acrossdiverse cultural contexts while focusing on different kinds of nat-ural environmental risks: they all address the relationship of placeattachment with natural environmental risk perception and/orcoping.

1.2. Place attachment, natural environmental risk perception andcoping

Comprehensive literature reviews of place attachment and itsdevelopment in environmental psychology have been provided(e.g., Giuliani, 2003; Lewicka, 2011). The main objective here is

rather to address the links between place attachment, naturalenvironmental risk perception and coping. Place attachment refersto the affective bonds people hold towards places; this attachmentoften comprises a part of their individual and collective identities(Lewicka, 2008; Low & Altman, 1992). Indeed, Fried (1963)observed that when forced relocation separated people from theirusual living place they experienced grief, similar to a situationwhere people lose an important social relationship.

Several concepts have been used in the literature for this af-fective link, including place identity, place dependence, sense ofplace, and rootedness (Stedman, 2002). Despite different concep-tualizations, most researchers agree that place attachment involvesphysical, socio-cultural, symbolic, and psychological aspects (Relph,1976). There are multiple environmental issues for which placeattachment has proven to be relevant, such as residential mobility(Gustafson, 2014; Manzo, 2005), perceived residential quality(Bonaiuto & Alves, 2012), or residential satisfaction (Bonaiuto,Fornara, Ariccio, Ganucci Cancellieri, & Rahimi, 2015); perceptionsof technology implementation, such as a tidal energy projects(Devine-Wright, 2011); pro-environmental behaviours (Carrus,Scopelliti, Fornara, Bonnes, & Bonaiuto, 2014); contexts of stigmaand displacement (Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2014); and collectiveattachment and participatory design (Hester Jr., 2014; Manzo &Perkins, 2006).

A personeprocesseplace framework of place attachment(Scannell & Gifford, 2010; 2014) stresses the functions of placeattachment to be survival and security, goal support and self-regulation, continuity, and sense of belongingness. The frame-work draws parallels between the theories of place attachment andof interpersonal attachment. The psychological processes delin-eated by Bowlby (1982) to characterise attachment in social re-lationships (proximity, safe haven, secure base, and separationdistress) can also be applied to place attachment to better explainhow to manage situations and emotions related to attachment andseparation with respect to place.

Scannell and Gifford (2010) proposed that place attachment ischaracterised by three interrelated dimensions, namely person(individually or collectively determined use and meanings), psy-chological processes (affective, cognitive, and behavioural compo-nents), and place (the symbolic aspects, whether socialenvironment and social meanings, and the physical environment,whether natural or built). Scannell and Gifford's tripartite frame-work is important for understanding place attachment in general,as well as place attachment influence on place related behaviour(such as, in their specific case, pro-environmental behaviours). It isalso possible that this framework could aid understanding person-environment transactions within risky situations and the copingstrategies usedwhen attachment and separation issues are at stake.

Within psychological literature on coping with risks, manymodels address psychological preparedness, prevention and copingbehaviour either at individual or social group levels (see Hallman&Wandersman, 1992). Different frameworks emphasize differenttypes of coping styles. For example, the environmental stressperspective (Evans & Stecker, 2004; Stokols, 1978) considers envi-ronmental and human ecological factors and includes multiplelevels of analysis (individual and community level;Winkel, Saegert,& Evans, 2009). One study showed that assigning responsibility forenvironmental problems had important implications for coping(Hallman & Wandersman, 1992). They found that residents locatednear a hazardous waste landfill who blamed the operator of thelandfill for the problems reported less psychological distress. Incontrast, residents who adopted wishful thinking and problem-focused styles of coping reported higher psychological distress.The authors concluded that responsibility attribution has impor-tant implications for coping. In terms of collective coping strategies,

M. Bonaiuto et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 33e53 35

peoplemay turn to their social and institutional networks as well asthe creation of grass-roots organisations (Edelstein&Wandersman,1987).

In another example, when dealingwith the human dimension ofenvironmental risk in climate change, Reser and Swim (2011)proposed that adaptation encompasses intra-individual parame-ters and processes, such as affective responses to places; as well asextra-individual social and situational processes, like proximity andexposure, social comparison, and collective efficacy. The modelexplains how cognitive, affective, and motivational processes mayaffect mitigation and adaptation to climate change. In this model,the authors tried to integrate climate systemswith human systems,via cognitions, affect, motivations and other related psychologicalprocesses (Swim et al., 2011).

The above examples, in different ways, encompass emotionallyrelated factors to understand natural environmental risk percep-tion and/or coping. Additional analyses have focused on the nega-tive psychological consequences of environmental disasters such asenvironmental post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD)(Thordardottira et al., 2015) and the distress inhabitants experienceas a consequence of negative environmental changes, such as thosecaptured by the concept of “solastalgia” (i.e., the distress producedby environmental changes affecting one's own beloved place,especially the loss of solace once provided by the environment; seeAlbrecht, 2005, 2010, 2012; Albrecht et al., 2007). Although thiswork has been useful, a clear and systematic articulation of therelationships among place attachment, natural environmental riskperception, and coping is not presently provided.

In particular, prior work has not adequately incorporatedemotionally focused coping strategies, particularly those involvingthe person-place affective bonds of place attachment (Reser &Swim, 2011). Some exceptions operationalized this person-placerelation in terms of “vested interest” showing it could be relevantin strengthening the link between attitude-behaviour in a naturalenvironment risk coping scenario (De Dominicis et al., 2014). Inbrief, on the one side, there are the psychological models thatexplain stress, adaptation and coping responses with little atten-tion to emotionally based responses such as attachment to place.On the other hand, there are current models and contributions inenvironmental psychology which show that place attachment is anintegral part of person-environment transactions.

However, these two literature are not well integrated; relationsamong place attachment, environmental risk perception, andenvironmental coping responses are at present not systematicallylinked. It should be stressed that natural environmental risk is aglobal issue (climate change epitomizes this) and it offers oppor-tunities for trans-disciplinary integration (Swim et al., 2011). Inorder for this to happen, the role of place attachment has to beacknowledged since place attachment and the experiential natureof place can be central to people's reaction to places in general(Giuliani, 2003) and it may also be relevant for reactions to envi-ronmental risks. Coupling place attachment with environmentalrisk is psychologically intriguing, because it means consideringpeople-place transactions when a peculiar situation happens:namely, that of experiencing risk and the associated experiences ofthreat, danger, and uncertainty in relation to one's own place: anenvironment the inhabitant would consider as familiar and secure.This literature review then asks: what happens when one's ownplace becomes a source of threatening events? Does place attach-ment serve as a barrier or as a motivating factor in perceiving and/or in reacting to environmental risks located in one's own familiarand secure place?

In order to address those general questions, the following aimsare pursued.

1. First, the reviewed studies are presented according to thedifferent types of natural environmental risks considered. Theirperception or coping is related to place attachment, examiningwhether it is a positive or negative relationship or if there is justa lack of relationship.

2. Next, moderation and mediation are explored. Moderation oc-curs when a third variable modifies a relationship; mediationoccurs when a third variable links a cause and an effect.

3. Finally, studies showing no relations among variables arepresented.

The overarching aim is to highlight empirically based relation-ships that emerge from the data in order to describe currentknowledge on the topic and to inspire future research directionsand priorities.

1.3. Criteria for selection of studies

In order to undertake a systematic literature review, empiricalpublications were considered in environment-behaviour studies(EBS), landscape perception and planning, and environmentalstudies. The general criteria are consistent with similar overviewsrecently published on other topics within environmental sciences(e.g., Capstick, Whitmarsh, Poortinga, Pidgeon, & Upham, 2015;Taylor, Dessai, Bruine de Bruin, 2014). The review includedselected databases (PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, PsycARTICLES, JSTOR,and SCOPUS) for the identification of papers from 2016 backwards,using a variety of strategies, including keywords and subjectheadings. This search encompassed the EBS literature, such as theHandbook of Environmental Psychology and PION journals (i.e.,Environment & Planning A, B & D). The oldest relevant item waspublished in 1996; all articles are reported in Tables 1e6. The searchstrategy included only articles that addressed place attachment orone of its theoretically related variables (e.g., sense of place). Arti-cles examining only natural environmental risk perception andcoping, without any reference to place attachment or related var-iables and constructs, were not included. Priority was given to peer-reviewed research articles but due to the paucity of researchaddressing place attachment and environmental risk and percep-tion, PhD dissertations were not a priori excluded from the search.Other scientific sources (non-published or less available within theinternational databases) were excluded from this literature reviewdue to pragmatic reasons related to costs, time, and other resourcesrelated to the work.

2. Place attachment in environmental risk research

This section presents a critical overview of the reviewed studies(Table 1) focusing on place attachment relationships with naturalenvironmental risk perception and coping. The articles are orga-nized according to the kind of relationship found in the results(positive, negative, or none) and the kind of effectdcorrelation ormoderation or mediationdrevealed in the findings. The literaturedata are presented according to each kind of specific environmentalrisk, and then within each of them, they are presented acrossseveral columns: cultural context; environmental risk type; howplace attachment is operationalized and measured; the researchdesign; and finally if place attachment is related to risk perceptionand/or if it is related to coping strategies.

2.1. Different definitions and measurements of place attachment

Most of the studies reviewed here examined place attachmentas an antecedent variable to investigate how it affects differentkinds of risk perception and coping behaviour. From this review


Table1

Review

edstud

iesan

dtheirde

scriptionin

term

sof

placeattach

men

trelatedto

hydro-ge

olog

ical

risk.

Hyd

ro-geo

logicala

ndwea

ther

relatedrisk

Stud

yCu

ltural

contex

tEn

vironm

entalr

isktype

Placeattach

men

tde

finition

and

mea

suremen

tRe

search

design

Mainresu

ltswithrelation

ship

type

anddirection

DeDom

inicis

etal.(20

15).Journa

lof

Environm

entalP

sych

olog

y.Tw

oItaliancities

expo

sedto

low

andhigh

floo

drisk

(Rom

ean

dVibo

Valen

tia).

Hyd

roge

olog

ical

risk.

PAis

mea

suredas

neighb

ourh

ood

attach

men

tus

ingthe7-po

int

Like

rt-typ

eitem

sfrom

Forn

ara

etal.(20

10).

Thestud

yex

amined

the

mod

erationeffect

ofplace

attach

men

tin

therelation

betw

eenfloo

drisk

percep

tion

and

coping

andprev

entive

beha

viou

rs.

Risk

percep

tion

was

relatedto

coping

action

,how

ever

this

relation

iswea

kerforpe

ople

with

grea

terplaceattach

men

t.IfPA

ishigh

andrisk

ishigh

,the

naction

islik

elyto

belower.

Silver

andGrek-Martin(201

5)Ru

ralc

ommun

ityin

Ontario,

Cana

da.

Torn

ado.

Attachm

entto

theph

ysical

features

oftheplacethroug

han

interview

proc

edure.

Thestud

yex

amined

how

reside

nts'sens

eof

placean

dplace

attach

men

tsinflue

nced

both

short-

andlong

-term

reco

very

from

thetorn

adodisaster.

Sens

eof

placewas

positive

lyrelatedto

disaster

reco

veran

dwillingn

essto

contribu

teto

the

reco

very

proc

essby

enga

ging

ina

tree

-plantingprog

ram.

Zhan

get

al.(20

14).Journa

lof

Environm

entalP

sych

olog

y.Great

Jiuzh

aitourism

area

,China

.Mud

slidean

dland

side

.PA

ismea

suredby

five

question

s.Th

eyinqu

ired

reside

nt'splace

depe

nden

ce,p

lace

iden

tity

and

placeaffection(e.g.“thisarea

isthe

best

placeforwha

tIliketo

do”;

“Irega

rdthisplaceas

apa

rtof

me”;“I

amve

ryattach

edto

this

place”).

Thepu

rposeof

thestud

ywas

toinve

stigatewhe

ther

reside

nts'

awaren

essof

disaster's

cons

eque

nces,v

alue

san

dplace

attach

men

taffected

theirplace-

protective

andpro-en

vironm

ental

beha

viou

rs(based

onva

luebe

lief-

norm

theo

ryan

dtheo

ryof

place

attach

men

t).

Placeattach

men

tpo

sitive

lyaffects

both

awaren

essof

cons

eque

nces

relatedto

therisk

andplace-

protective

andpro-en

vironm

ental

beha

viou

rs.

IfPA

ishigh

then

thereis

agrea

ter

likelihoo

dof

proen

vironm

ental

beha

viou

rs.

Boon

(201

4).N

atural

Hazards.

Ingh

am,a

ruraltow

nin

Que

enslan

d,Aus

tralia.

Season

alfloo

ding

.PA

isop

erationa

lized

asSe

nseof

place,

define

das

social

conn

ectedn

essan

dlove

ofthe

commun

ity,

andmea

suredwith

someitem

sde

velope

dby

Chan

g(201

0).

Thestud

yinve

stigated

resilie

nce

(com

mun

ityan

dindividu

alleve

l)us

ingsocio-econ

omic

and

demog

raph

icda

tato

exam

ine

whe

ther

peop

leremaining

inthe

disaster-impa

cted

commun

ity

werelik

elyto

beresilie

ntto

the

disaster.

Asens

eof

placewas

astrong

pred

ictorof

resilie

ncean

dwas

nega

tive

lylin

kedto

ade

sire

torelocate

resilie

nce.

Astrong

ersens

eof

placewas

also

linke

dto

less

nega

tive

health

expe

rien

cesin

family

andfriend

s.IfPA

ishigh

,the

nresilie

nceishigh

while

relocation

intentionis

low

andhe

alth

expe

rien

cesareless

nega

tive

.Bo

naiuto

etal.(20

11).Proceeding

sof

theInternationa

lSym

posium

UFR

IM.U

rban

Floo

dRisk

Man

agem

ent-Ap

proa

ches

toEn

hanc

eRe

silie

nceof

Commun

ities

Risk

area

sin

Italy(Rom

ean

dVibo

Valen

tia).

Fluv

ial/pluv

iala

ndco

astal/pluv

ial

contex

ts.

PAis

mea

suredat

the

neighb

ourh

oodleve

lusing

the

7-po

intLike

rt-typ

eitem

sfrom

Forn

araet

al.(20

10).

Thestud

yinve

stigated

the

relation

ship

betw

een

neighb

ourh

oodattach

men

tan

dseve

rale

nviron

men

talr

isk

features

efloo

drisk

percep

tion

,co

ncern,

attitude

,inten

tion

and

coping

beha

viou

rs.

Onlyforthoseliv

ingin

low

risk

area

s,high

placeattach

men

twas

relatedwithhigh

errisk

percep

tion

,floo

dco

ncern,

colle

ctitem

sintentionan

dbe

haviou

rmea

sures.

Inlow

risk

area

s,ifPA

ishigh

and

perceive

drisk

islow,the

nco

llect

item

sintentionan

dco

llect

item

sbe

haviou

rarehigh

er.

Kicket

al(201

1).D

isasters

Differen

tcities

intheU.S

inCa

lifornia,

Louisian

a,Geo

rgia,a

ndNorth

Carolin

a.

Floo

d(defi

nedin

gene

ralterms).

PAis

operationa

lized

asattach

men

tto

homean

dco

mmun

ity,

mea

suredby

asking

resp

onde

ntsho

wattach

edthey

wereto

theirprop

erty.

Thestud

yex

amined

therepe

titive

floo

dloss

victim

sex

perien

cean

daske

dwhe

ther

strong

lyattach

edfloo

dvictim

sha

dmoredifficu

lty

reaching

amitigationde

cision

favo

urab

leto

relocation

than

less

attach

edon

es.

Theim

portan

ceof

placemak

esit

harder

forplace-attach

edfloo

dvictim

sto

accept

mitigationoffers

that

caus

ethem

torelocate.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nacceptan

ceof

mitigationoffers

arelow.

(con

tinu

edon

next

page)


(see Table 1), we may highlight that place attachment is not aunified concept; it has been operationalized and measured in anumber of ways with different methods and tools (see Table 1fourth column). One striking result is the very small number ofstudies examining place attachment as an outcome variable(Groulx, Lewis, Lemieux,& Dawson, 2014; Lavigne et al., 2008; Ruiz& Hern"andez, 2014; Tanner, 2012, pp. 1e52; Willox et al., 2012),while the vast majority of them considered it as either a predictoror intervening factor. In terms of research design, most studieswere correlational, while a few were field quasi-experimental ones(see Table 1 fifth column), but one study combined interview datawith Geographical Information System (GIS) coded maps to illus-trate place attachment in terms of spatial patterns (Donovan,Suryanto, & Utami, 2012). A few used interview data collected af-ter disaster (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2009) and the use of aphenomenological approach (e.g., Burley, Jenkins, Laska, & Davis,2007).

Some authors focused on the importance of different concep-tualizations and operationalization of place attachment and relatedconstructs (for place attachment examination in relation to itsdefinitions and measurement, see for example Giuliani, 2003;Lewicka, 2011; Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2014). In the present re-view, all the different place attachment definitions and measure-ments are included in order to extensively map out and evaluatethe state of the art on this subject.

3. Place attachment and risk perception

The impact of place attachment on risk perception is addressedin the following section by looking at the character of the associ-ation: positive, negative, and lack of relationship between thesetwo variables. Again, the category of risk perception is used here ina very broad sense encompassing different ways of conceptualizingand measuring how inhabitants recognize a certain environmentalrisk, whether in terms of knowledge, awareness, assessment,concern, and/or evaluation.

3.1. Positive relationships between place attachment andenvironmental risk perception

Some studies found a positive relation among place attachmentand risk perception, without regard to zone of residence. Forexample, in the context of volcanic eruption risk in Iceland, Bird,Gíslad"ottir, and Dominey-Howes (2011) found place attachment,risk perception and risk knowledge to be positively correlated forboth urban and rural residents. The same pattern of results wasfound in the U.S. context, in a sample of Louisiana residents living inareas suffering from coastal land loss and prospect of hurricanes(Burley et al., 2007): awareness and perception of a hurricanedisaster were associated with a heightened sense of placeattachment.

The finding that place attachment is associated to greaterawareness was also found in relation to other hydro-geologicalrisks (such as landslide, mudslide) and earthquakes. Zhang,Zhang, Zhang, and Cheng (2014) examined the awareness of di-saster's consequences, values, and place attachment among Chi-nese residents living in Great Jiuzhai tourism area. These residentswere found to be resource-dependent and highly attached to theirplace showing a positive awareness of disaster consequences.Disaster consequences, in this case, were related to people's riskperception.

With respect to drought risk (Stain et al., 2011), the same posi-tive association is found between place attachment and environ-mental risk perception: exposure to prolonged drought in Australiawas correlated with sense of place (sense of personal connectionTa

ble1(con

tinu

ed)

Hyd

ro-geo

logicala

ndwea

ther

relatedrisk

Stud

yCu

ltural

contex

tEn

vironm

entalr

isktype

Placeattach

men

tde

finition

and

mea

suremen

tRe

search

design

Mainresu

ltswithrelation

ship

type

anddirection

Mishr

a,Mazum

dar,&

Dam

odar

(201

0).Jou

rnal

ofEn

vironm

ental

Psycho

logy

.

Region

ofOrissa,

India.

Storms,he

avyrainfall,

andseve

refloo

dsin

Orissa'srive

rba

sins

and

deltas.

PAis

mea

suredby

asp

ecificplace

attach

men

tscale

deve

lope

dforthe

Oriya

contex

t.Itinclud

esthree

men

tion

edaspe

cts:

econ

omic,

gene

alog

ical,a

ndrelig

ious

.

Thestud

yinve

stigated

whe

ther

placeattach

men

taffected

prep

ared

ness

forfloo

ds.

Resu

ltsreve

aled

that

gene

alog

ical

andecon

omic

attach

men

tco

rrelated

positive

lywithfloo

dprep

ared

ness

whe

reas

relig

ious

attach

men

tdidno

tinflue

nce

prep

ared

ness

beha

viou

r.IfPA

ishigh

,the

nfloo

dprep

ared

ness

ishigh

.Ch

amlee-W

righ

tan

dStorr(200

9).

Journa

lofU

rban

Affairs.

Low-an

dmod

erate-inco

me

neighb

ourh

oodin

New

Orlea

ns.

Hurricane

:pre-

andpo

st-

hurrican

eKatrina

expe

rien

ces.

PAis

operationa

lized

assens

eof

place,

inve

stigated

viainterview:

data

wereco

llected

afterdisaster.

Thestud

yex

plores

thesens

eof

placethat

reside

ntsin

theNinth

Wardne

ighb

ourh

oodin

New

Orlea

nsex

pressedab

outtheirpre-

andpo

st-H

urricane

Katrina

expe

rien

ces.

Return

ingreside

ntsbe

lieve

that

New

Orlea

nsan

dtheNinth

Ward

possessaun

ique

man

ych

aracteristicsthat,w

hentake

ntoge

ther,can

notbe

replicated

elsewhe

re.S

ense

ofplaceis

anim

portan

tmotivator

forreturn

ing

reside

nts.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

npe

ople

will

tend

toreturn

toriskyarea

s.


with the surrounding land and environment). Even though thecomparison between high vs. low levels of attachment was notpresented in the results, the study shows that those with a strongersense of place reported more worry about the drought and weretherefore aware of it.

In a study of ice pack diminishment in Churchill (Canada),

Groulx et al. (2014) found a positive correlation between partici-pant's connections to place and their perceptions of climate change.The results showed that participants' overall natural attachmentand sense of place identity, as well as their sense of civic attach-ment, correlated with self-reported experiences about the changesrelated to ice conditions in the bay (i.e., climate change impacts in

Table 2Reviewed studies and their description in terms of place attachment related to multiple risks.

Multiple risks

Study Cultural context Environmental risk type Place attachmentdefinition andmeasurement

Research design Main results withrelationship type anddirection

Groulx et al. (2014).Landscape and UrbanPlanning.

Churchill, Manitoba,Canada.

Climate changeperceptions (i.e., beliefsabout future climate risks,experiences with localclimate impacts, andconcern for theseimpacts).

PA is operationalized asnatural and civicattachment.

The study examined theinfluence of placeattachment onperceptions of climatechange at the local scale.

Place attachment wasneither related to concernfor climate change norwith perception of climatechange related risks.However, in this specificcontext this could belinked to deficiency withclimate messaging.No relationship betweenPA and climate changerisk perception.

Bernardo (2013). Estudiosde Psicologia.

City of "Evora, Portugal. Dimensions of riskperception (i.e.,earthquakes, pollution,desertification,criminality, social conflict,unemployment, globalwarming, terrorism, warand currencydevaluation).

PA is measured by theplace attachment scale(based on Hern"andezet al., 2007).

The study explored theimpact of placeattachment on riskperception.

Place attachmentcontributed to amplifyingthe perception of highprobable risks (usuallyless dangerous) andattenuating theperception of lowprobable risks (usuallymore dangerous). Forrisks perceived to be lesslikely, place attachmentreduced risk perception,whilst in highly probablerisks, attachment to placeincreased risk perception.If PA is high, then theperception of lowprobable/high impactrisks is low.

Willox et al. (2012). SocialScience and Medicine.

Rigolet Inuit communityin Nunatsiavut, Canada.

Climatic andenvironmental change(i.e., weather, snow andice quality, water sources,wildlife, and vegetation).

Environmental DistressSurvey (Higginbothamet al., 2006) was used tomeasure impacts ofchanges in theenvironment on sense ofplace and PA. Placeattachment was used as adependent variable.

The study examined theimpact of climate changeon place attachment.

Qualitative resultsshowed that the impact ofclimate change on land(weather patterns, snowquantity and quality,hunting, etc.) wasconsidered, (by localresidents), as a possiblefactor negatively affectingtheir place attachment.However, despite thenegative perceptions andfeelings expressed, therewas a negative correlationbetween placeattachment andwillingness to relocate.If PA is high, thenrelocation willingness islow.

Manning, (2005). Master'sThesis. Louisiana StateUniversity.

Coastal community inSoutheastern Louisiana.

Tropical storms andhurricanes, erosion, oiland gas activities.

PA emerged fromqualitative data analysis(focus groups andinterviews).

The study investigatedwhy do these alreadyvulnerable people havesuch a strong attachmentto a place thatcompromises them evenfurther.

Citizens reported thatgeographicaldisplacement is a greater‘risk’ than living in an areaburdened with continualenvironmental and socialthreats.If PA is high, thenrelocation likelihood islow.


Table3

Review

edstud

iesan

dtheirde

scriptionin

term

sof

placeattach

men

trelatedto

pollu

tion

relatedrisk

(oilsp

ill,a

irqu

ality,

nuclea

rpo

wer,lym

edisease).

Pollu

tion

relatedrisk

(oilsp

ill,a

irqu

ality,

nuclea

rpo

wer,lym

edisease)

Stud

yCu

ltural

contex

tEn

vironm

entalr

isktype

Placeattach

men

tde

finition

and

mea

suremen

tRe

search

design

Mainresu

ltswithrelation

ship

type

anddirection

Gallin

aan

dW

illiams(201

4).

Internationa

lJou

rnal

ofSo

cial

Scienc

eStud

ies.

Immigrant

andCa

nadian

-born

wom

enin

Northea

stCa

nada

Ham

ilton

.

Airqu

ality.

PAis

operationa

lized

assens

eof

place,

mea

suredthroug

hho

useh

old-ba

sedteleph

one

survey

.

Thestud

yex

amined

individu

alpe

rcep

tion

sof

airqu

alityam

ongst

Cana

dian

-bornan

dim

migrant

wom

enin

Northea

stHam

ilton

,Ontario,C

anad

a.

Ahigh

ersens

eof

place(amon

gCa

nadian

-bornwom

en)was

associated

withhigh

erleve

lsof

conc

ernab

outairqu

alityissu

esin

theirne

ighb

ourh

ood.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nco

ncernab

outa

irqu

alityis

high

.Ven

ableset

al.(20

12).Journa

lof

Environm

entalP

sych

olog

y.Co

mmun

itieswithin8mile

sto

the

nuclea

rpow

erstations

atBrad

well,

Oldbu

ry,a

ndHinkley

Point,UK.

Nuc

lear

power.

PAis

operationa

lized

assens

eof

place.

Therelation

ship

betw

eenpu

blic

percep

tion

sof

risk,sen

seof

place,

andreside

ntialp

roximityto

anestablishe

dnu

clea

rpo

wer

station

wereex

amined

.

Highrisk

percep

tion

decrea

sed

withprox

imityto

therisk

source;

while

sens

eof

placeincrea

sedwith

prox

imityto

therisk

source.N

oassociationwas

observed

betw

een

Power

Station-

relatedsens

eof

placean

dprox

imity.

Sens

eof

place

med

iatedtherelation

ship

betw

een

prox

imityto

therisk

source

and

perceive

drisk.

Ifprox

imityto

therisk

source

ishigh

,the

nPA

ishigh

,the

nrisk

percep

tion

islow.

Marcu

etal.(20

11).Hea

lth&

Place

Sitesinclud

edRich

mon

dPa

rk(a

peri-urban

park),New

Forest

(exa

mpleof

‘accessible

coun

tryside’),an

dEx

moo

rin

Englan

d,UK.

Risk

ofLy

medisease.

PAis

operationa

lized

asattach

men

tto

theco

untryside.

Thestud

yfocu

sedon

peop

le's

reason

ingab

outen

vironm

ental

risk

inrelation

toun

familiar

risks

enco

unteredin

theco

untryside,

aplacetypically

perceive

das

risk-

free

.

Placeattach

men

twas

relatedto

lower

Lymediseaserisk

percep

tion

,yet

positive

lyrelated

withva

lues

andsocial

practices

attach

edto

theco

untryside.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nrisk

percep

tion

islow.

Kaltenb

orn(199

8).A

pplie

dGeo

grap

hy.

Archipe

lago

ofSv

alba

rdin

the

Norweg

ianhigh

Arctic.

Oilsp

ill.

PAis

operationa

lized

assens

e-of-

place,

mea

suredby

anex

ploratory

instrumen

tde

velope

dby

Sham

ai(199

1).

Thestud

yex

plores

theco

ncep

tof

sens

eof

placeam

ongreside

ntsof

theSv

alba

rd(Spitsbe

rgen

)arch

ipelag

oin

theNorweg

ianhigh

Arctic.

Thestrong

sens

e-of-place

grou

pis

less

likelythan

theothe

rtw

ogrou

psto

choo

seothe

rlocation

sin

Svalba

rdforrecrea

tion

alactivities.

Thereareno

sign

ificant

differen

ces

inho

walargeoilspillwou

ldaffect

theov

erallrecreationa

luse

ofthe

threesens

e-of-place

grou

ps.

How

ever,p

eopleex

pressing

astrong

ersens

eof

placesh

owstrong

erinterest

orwillingn

essto

contribu

teto

solution

sto

environm

entalp

roblem

s.IfPA

ishigh

,the

nrelocation

ofrecrea

tion

alactivities

inriskyarea

islow,y

etwillingn

essto

solve

environm

entalissue

s(i.e.,pro-

environm

entalb

ehav

iours)

ishigh

.Bo

naiuto

etal.(19

96).Journa

lof

Commun

ity&

AppliedSo

cial

Psycho

logy

.

Seasideresortsin

theUK:po

lluted

andun

pollu

tedbe

ache

s.Po

llution

(defi

nedin

term

sof

the

EUcriteria).

PAis

mea

suredwithprox

yva

riab

les,su

chas

placeiden

tity

andna

tion

aliden

tity.

Thestud

yex

amined

theinflue

nce

oflocala

ndna

tion

aliden

tity

inthe

percep

tion

ofbe

achpo

llution

intheUK.

Participan

tswho

weremore

attach

edto

theirtownor

their

nation

tend

edto

perceive

their

locala

ndna

tion

albe

ache

sas

less

pollu

ted.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

npe

rceive

dpo

llution

islow

atlocala

ndna

tion

alleve

ls.


Table4

Review

edstud

iesan

dtheirde

scriptionin

term

sof

placeattach

men

trelatedto

volcan

ican

dea

rthq

uake

risk.

Volcanican

dea

rthq

uake

risk

Stud

yCu

ltural

contex

tEn

vironm

entalr

isktype

Placeattach

men

tde

finition

and

mea

suremen

tRe

search

design

Mainresu

ltswithrelation

ship

type

anddirection

Ruiz

andHern" a

ndez

(201

4).

Journa

lofE

nviron

men

tal

Psycho

logy

.

Island

ofEl

Hierroin

theCa

nary

Island

s,Sp

ain.

Risk

offalling

rock

s,su

bmarine

trem

ors,an

drisk

oftoxicga

ses

released

bythevo

lcan

o.

PAis

mea

suredby

thesh

ort-scales

ofplaceattach

men

t(5

item

s)an

dplaceiden

tity

(3item

s),v

alidated

inRu

iz,H

ern" a

ndez

,and

Hidalgo

(201

1).P

Awas

used

asa

depe

nden

tva

riab

le.

Thestud

yex

amined

whe

ther

place

attach

men

twas

affected

bya

volcan

icep

isod

e.

Theresu

ltssh

owed

decrea

sed

placeattach

men

tforreside

nts

closer

tothene

wvo

lcan

o,while

theleve

lofplaceattach

men

tremaine

dun

chan

gedforthe

reside

ntsof

theothe

rarea

s.Ifprox

imityto

therisk

ishigh

,the

nPA

islow.

Don

ovan

etal.(20

12).

Environm

entalH

azards.

Mt.Merap

iinCe

ntralJav

a,Indo

nesia.

Pyroclasticflow

s(i.e.,frag

men

tsof

volcan

icorigin)an

dlaha

rs(i.e.,a

land

slideof

wet

volcan

icde

bris).

PAis

operationa

lized

aslocal

culturean

dattach

men

tto

the

volcan

oan

ditsregion

.

Thestud

yinve

stigated

how

differen

tsu

b-cu

ltures

may

impa

ctlocalc

ommun

ities'action

srelated

totheMt.Merap

ivolcanicactivity.

Cultural

intens

ity(e.g.,attach

men

tto

thevo

lcan

o'ssymbo

licpo

wer,

thepractice

ofha

zard

focu

sed

ceremon

ies,be

lieve

sin

spirit-

relatedstories,an

dtrus

tin

spiritua

llea

ders)was

associated

withlow

hazard

awaren

essan

dhigh

evacua

tion

failu

re.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nev

acua

tion

from

riskyarea

sis

low.

Tann

er(201

2).R

esea

rch

Dissertation.

Universityof

Canterbu

ry,N

ewZealan

d.

Kaiap

oi,a

North

Canterbu

ry,N

ewZe

alan

d.Ea

rthq

uake

risk.

PAis

mea

suredthroug

hda

tafrom

interviews.PA

was

used

asa

depe

nden

tva

riab

le.

Thestud

yex

plored

how

the

Canterbu

ryea

rthq

uake

sim

pacted

reside

nts'co

nnection

san

dfeelings

abou

ttheirho

mes

andco

mmun

ity

(bothforgree

nzo

nean

dredzo

nereside

nts).

Redzo

nereside

ntsex

perien

ced

sign

ificant

chan

gesin

attach

men

tbe

caus

eof

damag

ean

drelocation

,while

gree

nzo

nereside

nts

maintaine

dstrong

conn

ection

totheirho

mes.

Ifhigh

hazard

impa

ctis

expe

rien

ced,

then

PAde

crea

ses.

Bird

etal.(20

11).Bu

lletinof

Volcan

olog

y.Hazardzo

nesof

" Alftav

er,

Með

alland

,S" olhe

imar

andVík

inIcelan

d.

Hazards

from

Katla

and

Eyjafjallaj€ oku

llvo

lcan

ose

erup

tion

,tsu

nami,lig

htning

and

teph

raha

zards.

PAis

operationa

lized

asbo

thfamily

-an

decon

omically-based

agricu

ltural

ties,w

hich

aroseas

keythem

esin

thesu

rvey

analysis.

Thestud

yinve

stigated

reside

nts'

know

ledg

ean

dpe

rcep

tion

ofvo

lcan

oha

zardsan

dem

erge

ncy

resp

onse

proc

edures.

Forbo

thurba

nan

druralc

itizen

s,placeattach

men

twas

positive

lyrelatedto

risk

percep

tion

.How

ever,for

ruralresiden

ts,h

igh

attach

men

tis

associated

with

lower

coping

beha

viou

rs.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nrisk

percep

tion

ishigh

butacceptan

ceof

evacua

tion

plan

sis

low.

Lavign

eet

al.(20

08).Journa

lof

Volcan

olog

yan

dGeo

thermal

Research

.

Four

volcan

oesin

CentralJav

a,na

melySu

mbing

,Sindo

ro,D

ieng

,an

dMerap

i(Java

,Ind

onesia).

Pyroclasticflow

sha

zards.

PAis

mea

suredas

aform

ofcu

ltural

belie

fs,a

ssessedin

three

differen

tcase

stud

ies.PA

was

used

asade

pend

entva

riab

le.

This

stud

yex

plored

therole

ofthreefactorsin

shap

ingpe

ople's

beha

viou

rin

theface

ofvo

lcan

icha

zards:

risk

percep

tion

,cultural

belie

fsan

dsocio-econ

omic

cons

traints.

Attachm

entto

thevo

lcan

icen

vironm

ente

both

inecon

omic

andcu

ltural

term

s(e.g.,erup

tion

sseen

aswarning

sfrom

God

)e

influe

nces

peop

leto

livein

hazard-

pron

earea

s,to

bereticent

toev

acua

tean

d/or

inahu

rryto

come

back

homeafterha

ving

being

mov

edby

thelocala

utho

rities.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nrelocation

likelihoo

dis

low.

Arm

as(200

6).R

iskAn

alysis.

Reside

ntsin

Buch

arest,Ro

man

ia.

Earthq

uake

risk.

PAis

mea

suredas

feelings

and

affectivebo

ndtowards

the

reside

ntiala

rea.

Thestud

yex

amines

theattitude

san

dpe

rcep

tion

sof

peop

leliv

ing

withtherisk

ofan

earthq

uake

hazard

inBu

charest.

Astrong

affectivebo

ndoffers

afeelingof

safety

andlead

sto

neglecta

ndev

entotald

enialo

fthe

hazard.

IfPA

ishigh

,the

nha

zard

denial

ishigh

.


Churchill).A positive correlation between place attachment and environ-

mental risk perceptionwas also found in the context of air pollutionin Ontario (Canada). Gallina and Williams (2014) showed that ahigh sense of place was associated with higher levels of concernwith air quality issues. Compared to immigrant women, Canadian-bornwomen held a stronger sense of place and were also more riskawaredperceiving the health risks of air pollution for theirneighbourhood.

Other studies show similar, thoughmore articulated, patterns ofresults. For example, Bonaiuto, De Dominicis, Fornara, GanucciCancellieri, and Mosco (2011) examined the relationship betweenneighbourhood attachment and residents’ perceptions of flood risk.They found that people scoring high in place attachment also re-ported higher perceived risk of flooding, but only for those living inlow magnitude risk areas (vs. areas where the risks have highmagnitude, even if they are not frequent).

However, in the Portuguese context, Bernardo (2013) found thatplace attachment contributed to amplifying the perception ofhighly probable risks (multiple risks, such as pollution, desertifi-cation, and global warming) and attenuating the perception of lessprobable risks (e.g., war, earthquake and terrorism). That is, forhighly probable risks (less dangerous but more frequent), attach-ment to place increased risk perception.

Bonaiuto et al. (2011) compared the same risk (flood) in two

different places with different levels of risk occurrence (high/low)while Bernardo (2013) compared different kinds of risks (multiplerisks) in one location (Portugal) by categorizing them into differentlevels (greater and lesser probability of occurrence). In both studies,higher place-attached inhabitants perceived higher risk in the caseof frequent occurrence, and apparently less dangerous risk. Whenthe risk was less frequent but apparently more dangerous, thispositive relationship was no longer significant.

In sum, eight studies have been found which presented a posi-tive relation between place attachment and environmental riskperception.

3.2. Negative relationships between place attachment andenvironmental risk perception

Other studies showed an opposite relationship between placeattachment and environmental risk perception: in these cases,higher place attachment led to lower risk perception and aware-ness. For example, the city of Bucharest was chosen as the studyarea to examine perceived seismic risk exposure in Romania(Armas, 2006). Interviewed respondents’ attachment to their resi-dential area correlated with a feeling of safety, which led them toignore and even deny the seismic risk by stating that they did notthink their household would be affected or that, if affected, thedamage would be minimal.

Table 5Reviewed studies and their description in terms of place attachment related to water resources-related risks (hydro-power, wetland loss, drought).

Water resources-related risks (hydro-power, wetland loss, drought)



Pirta et al. (2014).Psychological Studies.

Peasants (re-settlers andnon-displaced peasants)in Himachal Pradesh,India.

Induced displacement(Dam building).

PA is operationalized asmemories related to theloss of home measured byin-depth interviews.

The study investigated theeffects of a hydro-powerproject (the constructionof the Bhakra Dam) onexperiences ofdisplacement, attachmentand loss.

Results showed thatpeople still had a strongattachment to their placesin western Himalaya eventhough they had beendisplaced nearly 50 yearsago due to the BhakraNangal Project. It wasfound that greater overallretrieval of the memoriesof loss of home among thedisplaced individuals (byscripts of low and highanger), re-activated placeattachment, resulting inexploration of, andfulfilment of, returning tothe proximity of the nativehabitat.If PA is high, then thepossibility of returning tothe native place is high.

Stain et al. (2011). SocialScience & Medicine.

New South Wales,Australia.

Drought. PA is operationalized assense of place, measuredas individuals' connectionwith local environmentand landscape(Higginbotham et al.,2006).

This research examinedwhat were the factorsassociated with droughtimpact and whether agreater sense of placewould increase levels ofdrought concern and itsperceived impact.

A greater sense of placewas associated with anincrease in people'sdrought related worry andin their perceived droughtimpact.IF PA is high then droughtrelated worry andperceived impact are high.

Burley et al. (2007).Organisation &Environment.

Louisiana's coastalcommunities, U.S..

Coastal wetland loss. PA was measured byinterviews, whichcaptured residents'narratives of placeattachment. Placeattachment used as adependent variable.

This qualitative studyinvestigates howcommunity residentsperceive environmentalchange.

Attachment to placesincreases for those whoperceive threat for aparticular environment.If environmental threat inhigh, then an awarenessand PA are high.


Table 6Reviewed studies and their description in terms of place attachment related to wildfire risk.

Wildfire risk



Nawrotzki et al. (2014).Society & NaturalResources: AnInternational Journal

Residents in Boulder andLarimer counties,Colorado, two monthsafter the devastatingFourmile Canyon fire.

Residential loss anddamage related toprevious wildfires.

PA is measured ashomeownership andlength of residence (inyears).

The study examinedwhether migrants (peoplewho intend to leave thecommunity) differed fromnon-migrants (those whointend to stay) in terms ofwildfire concern.

There were no differencesbetween wildfire migrantsand non-migrants interms of place attachment.Also, fire migrantsintended to relocatewithin a short distancefrom the risk area.No relationship betweenPA and intention torelocate.

Bihari and Ryan (2012).Landscape and UrbanPlanning

Six fire-pronecommunities across theUSA (Montana, Colorado,New Mexico, California,Florida and New Jersey).

People's perceptions offire risk and preparedness(e.g., clearing vegetation,thinning brush and trees).

PA is assessed by askingrespondents to describetheir association and tiesto surrounding naturalareas in terms of theirfondness for naturalamenities.

The study examined if pastexperience with wildfires,place attachment, lengthof residence and affiliationwith local organizationspositively affectedresidents' perception ofsocial capital in theircommunity, and if higherlevels of social capitalincreased wildfirepreparedness.

Results showed that placeattachment significantlypredicts social capital,which in turn is a strongpredictor of riskpreparedness. People withgreater place attachmentwere more involved inlocal associations andconsequently more awareof the wildfire risk.Social capital mediates thepositive relationshipbetween PA and wildfirerisk preparedness.

Cox & Perry. (2011).American Journal ofPsychology.

Ethnographic study of tworural communities inBritish Columbia, Canada(Louis Creek and Barriere).

Wildfire risk. PA is measured by a multi-sited ethnographicapproach.

The study examined thesalience of place, identity,and social capital to thedisaster recovery processand community disasterresilience.

A sense of disorientation,distress, bewilderment,and grief, affected people(those affected and thosenot affected by materiallosses) evacuated andforced to flee their homes.Re-greening and re-planting were used togenerate a sense of placeand bring things to“normal” after the fires.If PA is high, then distressis high after wildfire.

Paton, Bürgelt & Prior(2008). The AustralianJournal of EmergencyManagement.

Residents in Hobart at thecommencement of the2004/2005 bushfiresseason.

Bushfire risk andpreparedness (no specificmention of type ofdamages).

PA is measured in terms ofsense of place (attachmentto home and property)and sense of community.

This qualitative studyexamined processes thatinfluence people'spreparedness actions incase of bushfire hazards.

PA is positively relatedwith bushfire riskpreparedness. However,negative outcomeexpectancy beliefs (i.e.,people believe thatbushfires are toocatastrophic oruncontrollable forpersonal actions to makeany difference) wereassociated with “notpreparing” forenvironmental risk.If PA is high, thenpreparedness is high; yet,if negative outcomeexpectancy is high, thenpreparedness is low.

Collins (2008). TheProfessional Geographer.

Wildfire Risks in Arizona'sWhite Mountains, U.S.

Wildfire damagesincluded burning oftimber and propertydamages.

PA is operationalized aspart of the broader placedependency concept (thedegree to which one'seconomic and social lifewas rooted in a particularlocation), measured by asurvey administrated tohouseholds.

The study examined thefactors affecting hazardmitigation and if placedependency wasassociated with higherlevels of wildfire hazardmitigation.

Longer term, full-time,and resource-dependentresidents (economicallyand socially) implementedmore mitigation measuresthan shorter term, part-time, and resource-independent residents.If PA is high, thenmitigation is high.


A negative relation was also found in the context of volcano riskin Indonesia. Donovan et al. (2012) found that attachment to thevolcanic area, which was measured as cultural intensity (e.g.,attachment to the volcano's symbolic power, the practice of hazardfocused ceremonies, beliefs in spirit-related stories, and trust inspiritual leaders), was associated with low hazard perception. Thisstudy showed the relevance of volcanic culture at Mt. Merapi inorder to understand residents' place attachment and their experi-ence of risk. The authors used GIS codedmaps to show the differentspatial patterns and the sub-divisions of cultural intensity. Theyfound that residents in the most remote regions (as compared toresidents in other locations) had a stronger animistic belief systemas well as a high disbelief that hazards could impact their region(thus a negative relation between high attachment and riskperception).

Working in a very different context from that of Indonesia, astudy in the UK context (Bonaiuto et al., 1996) focused on beachpollution threat and obtained a negative relationship such thathigher local identity led to lower risk perception of local beachpollutants, at least within contexts where local identity was salient.

In this section, four studies taking place in various culturalcontextsdthat of Romania, Indonesia, UK and in relation todifferent kinds of risksdshowed a negative relationship betweenplace attachment and environmental risk perception.

4. Place attachment and risk coping

This section addresses how place attachment affects risk copingstrategies to assess if the literature to date shows a positive,negative or lack of relationship between these two variables. Theterm “risk coping” is used in a very broad way, encompassingdifferent ways of conceiving and measuring how inhabitants facean environmental risk and the adaptation strategies they use.Adaptation could include proactive action and coping by remainingin the risky area, or different types of action, such as being displacedelsewhere. The existence of individual vs. collective activities andstrategies involving distancing one's self from the risk (instead ofresponding with panic and outrage) has also been noted in thesestudies.

4.1. Positive relationships between place attachment andenvironmental risk coping

The study by Zhang et al. (2014) (See also section 3.1) on placeattachment among Chinese residents living in Great Jiuzhai tourismarea showed that residents' awareness of flooding consequences,values and place attachment were positively related to place-protective and pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., protection andre/construction of touristic sites, recycling, etc.). The study did notaddress intention to relocate in case of a disaster, but showed thatstrong place attachment was related to strong acceptance? of re-sponsibility and personal norms to protect the environment,including work involved in the reconstruction of the touristic sites.

The active coping style of highly attached individuals asdemonstrated in behaviour patterns such as engaging in the solu-tion of environmental risks, was also supported in an area prone tooil spills in the archipelago of Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic(Kaltenborn, 1998). It was found that residents with a strong senseof place were more active than moderate- and less-attached resi-dents. they reported being (?)more engaged andwilling to clean upthe beaches and collect litter.

In relation to wildfire in Arizona's White Mountains, Collins(2008) investigated whether place dependency (length of resi-dence) was associated with higher levels of wildfire hazard miti-gation. The author found that place dependency was a catalyst for

longer term, full-time, and resource-dependent residents toimplement more mitigation measures than shorter-term, part-time, and resource-independent residents. The household mitiga-tion measure was the sum of home structure, defensible space,landscape, and fire suppression hazard adjustments that wereimplemented during the time that households occupied their homesites.

Silver and Grek-Martin (2015) examined the F3 tornado in arural community in Ontario, Canada in 2011. This is a tornadoscoring a level 4 in severity on the 6-point Fujita Tornado DamageScale and indicates “Severe damage: Roofs and some walls torn offwell-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forestuprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown”; Marshall,2001). The goal was to learn how residents' sense of place andplace attachments influenced both short- and long-term disasterrecovery. The findings indicated predominantly positive impacts ofsense of place on coping. The tornado seemed to strengthen senseof community and the willingness to contribute to the recoveryprocess. For example, highly attached community membersworked on a tree-planting project to re-green the town.

This section therefore shows a total of four studies revealing apositive relationship between place attachment and risk coping.

4.2. Negative relationships between place attachment andenvironmental risk coping

There are several studies that found a strong negative rela-tionship between place attachment and environmental risk coping,mostly in the sense that displacement from the risky area wasnegatively associated with place attachment. Pirta, Chandel, andPirta (2014) found that peasants in the western Himalayaseewhowere displaced nearly 50 years ago due to the Bhakra NangalProjecteeoften return to their native habitat, even if they are awarethat these areas are at risk (i.e., located in dangerous zones wherewater level often fluctuates). This pattern was also observed in astudy that investigated New Orleans residents pre- and post-hurricane Katrina (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2009). This studyfound that residents in post-hurricane Katrina considered theirattachment to the place and the uniqueness of the setting as rea-sons to return to post-hurricane New Orleans. Place attachmentwas therefore an important factor motivating people to return topost-disaster environments, even though these environmentsmight still be subject to high environmental risk.

In the context of flooding risk, a study in India (Mishra,Mazumdar, & Suar, 2010) found that reverence to nature andbelief in fate (considered as religious attachment) led rural Hindusto take little action in coping with floods, even though the researchalso indicated that people having genealogical and economic placeattachment prepared for floods. The same pattern of results wasfound in highly attached flood victims from diverse states in theU.S. (Kick, Fraser, Fulkerson, McKinney & De Vries, 2011) and alsofromAustralia (Boon, 2014). For example, Boon (2014) tested beforeand after flood disaster perceptions in rural Australia and foundthat residents were unwilling to relocate even though they hadrepeated experiences with floods. Flooding research has alsoshown that the more strongly attached flood victims are to their‘place’ (attachment to the home and attachment to the commu-nity), the more difficult it is for them to accept relocation. Otherresearch found that attached people have been unwilling to relo-cate also in contexts of oil spill risks (Kaltenborn, 1998).

The results found in relation to flooding have also been observedin the context of volcanic risks in southern Iceland. Bird et al. (2011)(See also section 3.1) found that lower acceptance of evacuationplans was related to attachment to place and livelihood connec-tions; this was true for rural residents. Urban residents reported a


willingness to accept mitigation measures. Rural residents withaccurate knowledge of the risk in areas of volcanic activity dis-played a great sense of community and attachment to place butlower coping behaviours. The results also indicated that family-based agricultural ties influenced decision of whether or not toabandon their livestock and property, and consequently influencedtheir decision to evacuate in case of an eruption. A significantpattern in the data is that highly place attached residents did notperceive evacuation plans as appropriate and would rely on theirown evaluations to decide on a course of action.

Predictors of evacuation failure are also related to attachment toplace in the form of “cultural intensity” (e.g., attachment to thevolcano's symbolic power, the practice of hazard focused cere-monies, beliefs in spirit-related stories, and trust in spiritualleaders). Place-specific cultural intensity was associated with highevacuation failure in Mt Merapi, Indonesia (Donovan et al., 2012).This result was also confirmed by Lavigne et al. (2008), who foundthat Indonesian people living on the slopes or near active volcanoeswere reticent to evacuate and would have been willing to return tothe hazardous area after having being moved by the local author-ities. Lavigne et al. (2008) concluded that attachment to place in theform of cultural beliefs influenced these Javanese communities toremain or to return to hazard-prone areas. Thus, as found in thesethree studies addressing volcanic risks, the development of volca-nic sub-cultures may act as a motivator for highly attached resi-dents to reject evacuation plans and to remain in their risky areas.

Kaltenborn (1998; see section 4.1) studied the relation betweenattachment and willingness to relocate in case of an oil spill amongpeople pursuing recreational activities in the Norwegian highArctic. Despite a positive association between place attachment andsome coping behaviours, Kaltenborn also reported that highly-attached residents with a strong sense of place were less likelythanmoderate- and low-attached residents to relocate in case of anoil spill. This study is a good example of how ambivalent people arein their coping strategies and behaviour: within the same groupand place of residence, coping behaviours can be either positively(taking care of the environment) or negatively (relocating) relatedto place attachment. .

A negative relationship also exists between place attachmentand environmental risk coping in the context of multiple risks.Manning (2005) explored the risk perceptions of a small-unincorporated coastal community in South-eastern Louisiana.This community had experienced social and environmental changedue to events including tropical storms, hurricanes, erosion, sub-sidence, oil and gas activities, development, and the impact ofglobal seafood markets. Manning clearly stated that geographicaldisplacement was seen as a greater risk than living in an area withcontinual environmental and social threats.

Willox et al. (2012) undertook a qualitative case study toexamine the connections among climate change, a changing senseof place, and health in the Inuit community of Rigolet, Canada.Climatic change and consequent environmental disruption ofhunting, fishing, foraging, trapping, and traveling were reported toimpact mental and emotional health. Moreover, individuals re-ported that climate change could impact their place attachment.However, despite the negative perceptions and feelings expressed,Rigolet's residents showed strong place attachment especially totheir home environment and land, and indicated no desire to moveaway.

Coping by leaving the risky area in case of disaster has beenshown in Paton, Bürgelt & Prior's study (2008) on bushfire pre-paredness in Australia, who found that low-attached individuals(i.e., people with a low sense of belongingness and sense of com-munity) had a stronger intention to leave if fire occurred (ascompared to high-attached individuals), thus indicating a negative

relation between place attachment and environmental risk coping.They also showed that if people believe that bushfires are toocatastrophic or uncontrollable for personal actions to make anydifference (i.e., negative outcome expectancy beliefs), peoplewouldnot prepare for them, showing that in this case, outcome expec-tancy had a direct influence on both intentions and actionsregardless of their place attachment.

In sum, this section shows ten studies which depicted a negativerelationship between place attachment and risk coping intentions.

4.3. Moderation and mediation effects between place attachmentand environmental risk perception and between place attachmentand risk coping

Only a few studies targeted a different kind of relation amongplace attachment and risk perception and/or copingdthat ofmoderation and mediation (e.g., Winkel et al., 2009). In brief, amoderation effect occurs when a third variable modifies a causaleffect: A moderator may increase the relationship strength be-tween place attachment with risk perception or coping, or decreasethe strength of such a relationship, or it may change its direction(i.e., positive or negative) (Baron& Kenny, 1986). A mediation effectoccurs when a third variable links a cause and an effect (e.g., if wewant to test a causal relation among place attachment and riskperception or coping). Mediators usually refer to psychologicalprocesses and individual traits, such as emotions, beliefs, and be-haviours (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Very few studies had been provided about possible mediationmechanisms. For example, Bihari and Ryan (2012) studied howhigher social capital (defined as the “economic and non-economicbenefits that individuals, groups and communities get throughthe structure of their relationships”; Agrawal & Monroe, 2006, p.163) can act as amediator in the relationship betweenplace-relatedvariables (e.g., place attachment, past experience with risk, length/type of residence) and environmental wildfire risk preparedness.They measured social capital as community cohesion (close knit,community groups and activities, local leadership, local sponsors,volunteering activities, community social support and aid,involvement in government and civic groups). They found thatsocial capital mediated the relationship between place attachmentand wildfire preparedness. Thus, place attachment is related toinvolvement in local organizations, which in turn is related togreater awareness of wildfire risk, thus showing the underlyingmediation process played by social capital on preparedness.

Venables, Pidgeon, Parkhill, Henwood, and Simmons (2012)examined communities who had been living within eight milesof nuclear power stations at Bradwell (U.K.) for a prolonged periodof time. They investigated the relationship between sense of placeand support for the new nuclear power station. The results showedthat stronger sense of place mediated the relationship betweenproximity to the power station and the amount of perceived nu-clear disaster risks: the closer the proximity to the nuclear powerstation, the stronger the sense of place which in turn decreases theperceived related risks.

In the context of flooding in Italy, Bonaiuto et al. (2011) definedrisk coping as intention and action towards preventive behaviours.They found that people scoring high in place attachment showedhigher preventive intentions and behaviours in advance of a flood(e.g., collecting useful items to face an impending flood such ashouse key, documents, medicines, water, food, etc.), but onlyamong those living in low risk areas (see also, De Dominicis et al.,2014).

To better understand if place attachment could itself be anegative moderator between risk perception and action, but onlyunder condition of high objective risk levels, a further Italian study


was undertaken by De Dominicis, Fornara, Ganucci Cancellieri,Twigger-Ross, and Bonaiuto (2015) in the context of both highand low objective flood risk. Testing the moderating roles of bothplace attachment and objective risk level over the risk perception-action link, results show that only in higher objective risk contexts,risk perceptionwas more positively correlated with risk preventivebehaviours for lower levels of neighbourhood attachment. Whilefor higher levels of neighbourhood attachment, risk perception hada weaker positive relation to risk preventive behaviour. Therefore,here place attachment negatively moderates the risk-perceptionand risk-coping relationship, but only in a context of high objec-tive flooding risk. This moderation effect disappears in a lowobjective risk context. Therefore, place attachment seems toimpede the basic adaptive link among risk perception and riskcoping, but only within chronically objective high-risk contexts.

In sum, this section showed that when place attachment isconsidered as a mediator or moderator, it can be a barrier to anadaptive perception and action of natural occurring risks. As amediator, place attachment explains the process by which prox-imity to a risk source prevents risk perception; as amoderator placeattachment weakens the relationship between risk perception andcoping, but only under objective risk stress. Even fewer analysesfocused on place attachment's effects in mediation: apparently,place attachment can have positive effects on preparedness, andthis is mediated by social capital.

4.4. Lack of relationships between place attachment andenvironmental risk perception or environmental risk coping

Only two studies report a lack of relationship between placeattachment and either risk perception or coping. Groulx et al.(2014) found that place attachment was related to experienceswith global climate impacts (i.e., sensitivity to changes in the iceconditions in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada), yet it was relatedneither with concern for local climate change (measured as concernfor community's tourism industry, shipping industry, access tofood, community's cultural traditions and opportunities for socialrelations), nor with an increased perception of climate change risks.In another study, place attachment (as homeownership and lengthof residence) had no effect on intention to move after a wildfire inColorado (Nawrotzki, Brenkert-Smith, Hunter, & Champ, 2014).

However, it is important to remember that place attachment isonly in part a function of proxy variables such as homeownershipand length of residence (Shklovski, Burke, Kiesler, & Kraut, 2010)and therefore the results from studies using place-attachmentpredictors or proxies (for example the study by Collins, 2008)should be interpreted with caution. Specifically, some of place at-tachment's proxies, such as, homeownership and length of resi-dence, could be indicators of economic resources invested in theplace, rather than a pure psychological bond with the place.Therefore, the effects of pure psychological bonds with placesremain to be fully understood. eeee. In fact, from a theoreticalperspective, it is important to highlight that these proxy variablesof place attachment could represent this variable either realisti-callyeee.g., when individuals are strongly attached to their housesin threatened contexts (Anton & Lawrence, 2014)eeor deceptive-lyeee.g., among non-natives of a given place where place attach-ment tends to develop faster than place identity and thus could bemore linked to non-psychological bonds to the place (Hern"andez,Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007).

Finally, it should also be noted that the extremely low frequencyof studies reporting a lack of relationship could simply suffer frompublication bias.

5. Discussion

In this article, three aims have been pursued, namely: 1) reviewof a positive or negative relation among place attachment andnatural environmental risk perception and coping; 2) review ofmoderation or mediation patterns; 3) review of the lack of such arelation. Results show some recurrent patterns which are of acomplex nature.

5.1. Place attachment and natural environmental risk perception

There are two most frequently observed patterns: (1) a positiverelationship between place attachment and environmental riskperception; that is, in general and across cultures, highly attachedindividuals (vs. less attached ones) who are exposed to differenttypes of natural environmental risks have stronger awarenessregarding the objective natural environmental risk to which a placeis subject; (2) a negative relationship between place attachmentand natural environmental risk coping; that is, in many cases,highly attached inhabitants (vs. less attached ones) are less prone toengage in coping behaviours, especially if coping involves difficultand demanding behaviours, such as relocation from the risky area.Thus a consistent pattern in the literature addressing placeattachment and natural environmental risk is that of inconsistencybetween perception and action in strongly attached persons.

Focusing on the positive relationship between place attachmentand risk perception, the present review highlights that naturalenvironmental risk perception has been operationalized andmeasured in different ways, for example, in terms of perception,knowledge, concern, and awareness. Despite the different oper-ationalization and measurements, however, the results overallpoint to a positive relationship between place attachment and riskperception. Another important pattern in the results refers to theconfirmation of this positive relationship, evenwhen the risk's levelof occurrence, and/or its severity, changes. For example, Bonaiutoet al. (2011) examined different settings subject to different levelsof flood risk (i.e., low flood risk area vs. high flood risk area); whileBernardo (2013) examined multiple risks in the same setting, butwith variation in their occurrence levels (i.e., low probability risksvs. high probability risks). Yet, both studies reached the sameconclusion: regardless of risk area or risk type, highly (vs. less)attached individuals strongly perceive natural environmentalrisk(s) to which they are exposed.

In addition, though less frequently, other studies pointed to anegative relationship between place attachment and risk percep-tion. This negative relationship was found regardless of the level offamiliarity of the individuals with the risks. In other words, for bothfamiliar environmental risksdsuch as beach pollution (e.g.,Bonaiuto et al., 1996)dand non-familiar environmental risksdsuchas Lyme disease (e.g., Marcu, Uzzell, & Barnett, 2011)da negativerelationship was found. Thus, regardless of individuals' familiaritywith a risk, high- (vs. low-) attachment individuals frequentlyshowed less concern for the risk and, thus, underestimated it. Re-searchers sought to understand this negative relationship in depthby using qualitative methods, and found that place attachment islinked closely to place identity and to what has been defined ascultural intensity, which involves a strong sense of attachmentrelated to the symbolic value of the place (Donovan et al., 2012).Indeed, in the context of seismic and volcanic risk (Armas, 2006;Donovan et al., 2012), high- (vs. low-) attachment residents un-derestimate or deny the probability that these events will affecttheir communities. This negative relationship between placeattachment and risk perception (despite risk familiarity) takes usback to Relph's (1976) concept of insideness, which suggests that ifone feels inside a place, one feels safe rather than threatened,


enclosed rather than exposed, at ease rather than stressed. Closeparallels can be drawn between cultural intensity and inside-nessdthe higher an individual's cultural intensity towards a place,the stronger will be her or his identity with that place.

5.2. Place attachment and natural environmental risk coping

A different point of discussion emerges when considering therelationship between place attachment and environmental riskcoping. Only a few studies showed a positive relationship betweenthese two variables. In those cases, coping behaviours involvedpreventive and pro-active behaviours, such as: using mitigationmeasures for wildfire prevention (e.g., changing the home structureand the landscape around the home; Collins, 2008), and acting pro-environmentally and sustainably (e.g., cleaning up beaches andreconstructing post-disaster areas; Bonaiuto et al., 1996) and tree-planting (Silver & Grek-Martin, 2015). In these cases, the positiverelationship between place attachment and risk coping behavioursoccurs when one stays in the risky place and takes action toimprove or protect it.

Another pattern of behaviour expressed by attached individualsin relation to their place is observed when relocation and returningactions and mobility are under scrutiny. Several studies in relationto flooding in India, U.S., and Australia showed that highly attachedpeople were unwilling to relocate, even when they had previousexperience with floods. Unfortunately, when a place is threatenedby a hazard, relocation often is required to cope with that risk(Hunter, 2005). In the study in India (Mishra et al., 2010), unwill-ingness to relocate was related to religious attachment to the place,thus showing one of the possible psychological reasons for thatpattern of results. A possible interpretation could refer to the ideathat when one is confident that an attachment figure (i.e., God) willbe accessible whenever onewishes, onemay experience less fear ofrisk (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008).

Recurrent results also show that the more individuals areattached to a place, the more they are willing to return to post-disaster environments. Studies demonstrated that when in-habitants had been forced to relocate due to flooding in India (Pirtaet al., 2014) and to hurricane Katrina in the U.S. (Chamlee-Wright&Storr, 2009), they showed a desire, willingness to return, and actualreturn to post-disaster areas.

This is a solid, robust empirical pattern that holds true acrossdifferent natural environmental risks. For example, in relation tovolcanic risk, studies in Iceland and Indonesia show that highlyattached individuals are reluctant to evacuate, unwilling to complywith evacuation plans, andwilling to return to risk areas evenwhenrelocated temporarily by local authorities. These studies reveal thathigh- (vs. low-) attachment individuals' lower willingness to relo-cate is related to their social, spiritual, and economic dependenceon the place (i.e., agricultural and property ties). However, it shouldbe noted that in some cases, stand-alone relocation could notcompletely mean coping and/or resilience, because it does not ac-count for the social aspect related to people-places bonds (e.g.,O'Sullivan et al., 2012).

More generally, this phenomenon can be conceptually framedand interpreted within the broader attachment perspective: placeof attachment may play the role that the attachment figure plays ininterpersonal attachmentdthus, the place to which one is attachedmay be perceived as a haven of safety in times of threat and risk.The threat of risk may be traded in view of avoiding separation andthe stress it causes (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The tricky issue here isthat both threat and reassurance are coming from the same source(in this case, the attached place). This is similar to what occurs inIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) when the source of attachment (i.e.,the partner) has a great power both inmaintaining the perpetration

of the relational risk and, at the same time, in maintaining theinterpersonal attachment (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004).In the relational dynamic, the two partners (the perpetrator and thevictim) alternate both risky and attached styles in their social in-teractions, and these dynamics are based on a history of acceptanceof, and habituation to, the risk (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011;Dutton, 1995).

Another pattern in the data is the link between proximity to therisky area and unwillingness to relocate. Results show that placeattachment negatively relates to risk coping behaviours, such asrelocation, especially for inhabitants located closer to the risk (asdetermined by GIS data, Donovan et al., 2012): the farther awayfrom the summit of the volcano, the more likely Indonesian resi-dents were to comply with evacuation plans. The authors proposedthat it could be that seeing the hazards increases risk perception:People living in the higher slopes may have been unable to seeclearly, as these areas are more vegetated But, in general, this kindof relation and pattern could be linked to the environmental hy-peropia bias proposed by Uzzell (2000; Garcìa-Mira, Real,& Romay,2005) which states that in relation to environmental problems,people misperceive the environmental risk and show little signs ofconcern and willingness to cope with them, even when they are attheir doorstep. The spatial bias or spatial optimism in relation tolocal versus global environmental problems may also explain thispattern in the results (Gifford et al., 2009).

The spatial bias effect posits that affective variables (e.g., placeattachment) may lead to distortion that allows one to defend one'sown identity (i.e., place identity), that is, to help people maintain apositive and consistent identity. In fact, a considerable amount ofresearch (e.g., Dunlap, Gallup, & Gallup, 1993; Gifford et al., 2009;Uzzell, 2000) has shown that a specific spatial bias, based on un-realistic optimism, may occur on the perception of natural envi-ronmental risks: individuals tend to perceive naturalenvironmental risks as more serious elsewhere rather than locally.This spatial bias may arise, for example, by the local vs. global(Gifford et al., 2009) or the here vs. there (Hatfield & Job, 2001)comparison, functioning as a barrier preventing individuals fromcoping with local natural environment issues (Schultz et al., 2014).Yet, this bias may also occur at a deeper level (De Dominicis et al.,2015), because individuals strive to maintain a positive placeidentity (Brown & Perkins, 1992; Hugh-Jones & Madill, 2009;Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996) and they tend to erroneously processcorrect information due to affective biases leading to incorrectbehavioural outcomes (Radcliffe& Klein, 2002). Thus, it is plausiblethat people showing strong place attachment tend to avoid copingwith environmental risks (De Dominicis et al., 2015; Gifford et al.,2009; Radcliffe & Klein, 2002). In a similar way, the literature oninterpersonal relations attests to the link between unhealthyattachment styles (e.g., avoidant, or anxious) and coping responses,including misperception of relational cues, and difficulty in regu-lating affect (Gormley, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006; West & George,1999).

Therefore, place attachment, being strongly related to one's ownplace identity, may act as a barrier for enacting preventive behav-iours to copewith a natural environmental risk (De Dominicis et al.,2015). Indeed, similar processes are used by individuals to defendtheir own identity from external threats (Giddens, 1991), forexample, as explained by the self-affirmation theory (Sherman &Cohen, 2006). Such processes are comparable to those emergingfrom interpersonal attachment, as highlighted in the increasinglyconsistent amount of research that compares place and interper-sonal attachment (Scannell, 2013; Scannell & Gifford, 2010, 2013).And they are also comparable to the in-group bias processesobserved in the social identity and self-categorization framework(e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979), as demonstrated by Bonaiuto et al.


(1996), who have shown that individuals display favouritism to-wards their own places, when those are compared to others' places(see also Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003). Thus, at leastfor the perception of some external threats, as well as for theimplementation of some preventive and/or coping behaviours thatinclude a substantial modification of the relationship with theattachment object, place attachment may act as an automatic bar-rier variable.

5.3. Mediation and moderation effects

The last pattern in the reviewed literature cited above relates tothe mediation and moderation effects involving place attachment.Social capital mediated the relationship between place attachmentand wildfire preparedness, with highly attached individuals beinginvolved in local associations in preparing to cope with wildfire risk(Bihari & Ryan, 2012). This shows that community attachment isrooted in peoples' affective bonds to place (Manzo & Perkins, 2006;Mihaylov & Perkins, 2014). Therefore, place attachment may pro-mote the development of local social capital, which can fostercommunity mobilization in response to natural environmental risk.When both place attachment and social capital are high, the resultcan be choosing to stay in the community (rather than leaving), asshown in Bihari and Ryan's (2012) study, and the furtherstrengthening of place-related bonds. This finding points to theneed of better articulating the relationship between place attach-ment and social capital. Therefore, a community perspective canenrich place attachment models (Mihaylov & Perkins, 2014).Moreover in terms of a mediation effect, research showed thatplace attachment significantly mediated perceptions of risk incommunities near a power station in the UK (Venables et al., 2012).Specifically, results showed that proximity to the power plantpositively predicted a sense of place, which in turn negativelypredicted perceived risk. Especially in communities living close tothe source of risk, higher sense of place reduced perceived risk.Thus, sense of place significantly mediated (but not moderated)perceptions of risk in the most proximate communities. This con-firms past work showing that assessments of environmental con-ditions decreased as spatial distance increased (Gifford et al., 2009).

Following this reasoning, a recent study fromDe Dominicis et al.(2015), stresses the idea that place attachment may act as a nega-tive moderator in the environmental risk perception-risk copingrelationship to protect one's own place identity from externalthreats. The authors found that, where the objective natural envi-ronmental risk is high, the relationship between risk perceptionand coping behaviour is weakened by place attachment; while incontexts where the natural environmental risk is moderate, thisnegative moderation effect of place attachment does not occur. Infact, spatial-biases such as spatial optimism (e.g., Schultz et al.,2014) may occur because of an automatic response to defend andmaintain a positive place and social identity (Bonaiuto et al., 1996).Place attachment, being strongly related to one's own place iden-tity, may, therefore, act as a barrier to enacting preventive behav-iours that could cope with a perceived risk in the (De Dominiciset al., 2015). Thus, place attachment may be an obstacle when theperson needs to move from perception and cognition into action.This is consistent with the incongruent pattern of relations that haspreviously emerged in many reviewed studies: i.e., place attach-ment often (though not always) positively relates to risk percep-tion, but it negatively relates to risk coping behaviours.

5.4. Understanding conflicting results

It may be the case that the underlying psychological process isone of two, whereby place attachment always undermines actively

coping with risk, namely: a) place attachment prevents naturalenvironmental risk perception, and it thus weakens the consequentaction; or b) place attachment fosters natural environmental riskperception, but it then negatively moderates (reduces) the rela-tionship between risk perception and coping.

There are, however, variations in the coping behaviours found inthe reviewed studies. In fact, contradictory coping result patternscan be discerned in light of the different kinds of specific copingbehaviours considered by each different study. A good example ofthe “different coping behaviours” issue as well as for the “moder-ation effect” issue, is found in Kaltenborn's (1998) study on an oilspill in Norway, which showed how people can be ambivalent intheir coping strategies and behaviour. Their coping behaviour canbe either positively (when taking care of their environment) ornegatively (when relocating their recreational activities) related toplace attachment, even within one data set, i.e., in the very samegroup and place of residence. Risk coping behaviours can involveconfrontational (i.e., protecting the place) and cooperative actions(i.e., reconstructing and revitalising the place after a disaster). Thus,some coping strategies are geared to remain close to the risky areas,whereas other strategies are directed to out-migration strategies.This point raises conceptual considerations about the types ofcoping style strategies people use when facing disruption related toplace bonds.

The reviewed studies revealed a tendency for highly attachedpeople to both deny the existence of, and not properly avoid, nat-ural environmental risks. Coping styles based on the coupling ofdenial and lack of avoidance may pose serious long-term healthrisks for highly attached people facing different kinds of naturalenvironmental risks. This issue needs to be explored further infuture empirical research. At the same time, there is the issue oftrade-offs and the fact that people will trade moving away forstaying close to the risky placeda place to which they are highlyattacheddif they consider their relationship with the place as themost important factor to hold on to. This result was clear inManning's (2005) studywith a coastal community in South-easternLouisiana, U.S. Despite the continued experience with naturalenvironmental risks (i.e., tropical storms and hurricanes, erosion,subsidence, oil and gas activities, etc.), relocationwas perceived as agreater risk than living in the risky area to which people wereattached.

Taken together, these findings suggest that threatening stimuliactivate proximity-seeking to valued places. This pattern in the dataallows us to draw deep parallels between the theories of placeattachment and interpersonal attachment, together with focusingon the tension between self-protection and connectedness goals(Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002), especially when threat and safetyoccur in the same attachment source. It may be that proximity-seeking to place is activated by threatening stimuli as it happensin interpersonal attachment because a place can provide a safehaven both to retreat to in case of threats, and to achieve emotionalrelief. Proximity seeking is a primary attachment strategy whichleads to actual proximity seeking behaviour and to what Bowlby(1969/1982) called hyper-activation of the attachment system(the individual intensifies their proximity-seeking).

The quality of attachment interaction can vary, but, in all cases,there is a workingmodel reflecting individuals' perceptions of theirown selves, of the other, and of the environment. In this respect, theinterpersonal relations framework may be a useful tool to guidefuture research efforts in relation to place attachment and naturalenvironmental risk perception and coping. In general, it seems thatpeoples' worldviews and cultural contexts influence how they copewith risky situations. In addition to the cultural context, ‘separa-tion-distress anxiety’ (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) may influenceindividuals to maintain proximity to a risky place to manage


distressed relationships, similar to what happens in interpersonalrelationship situations. In this literature review, a model involvinghyper-activation (rather than deactivation) of the attachment sys-tem prevailed. However, at present, the lack of studies measuringindividual differences in place attachment styles makes it difficultto further understanding of this issue. Failure of attachment be-haviours to achieve a positive adaptive result and failure to regulatestress may have serious negative implications for individuals'health and wellbeing. This model of psychological functioning,therefore, proposes a paradoxical situation inwhich the person getscloser to the source of attachment which is also the risk source. Arelated area that could be relevant to address this issue is goaltheory (Kruglanski, Chernikova, Babush, Dugas, & Schumpe, 2015;Murray, Derrick, Leder, & Holmes, 2008), since it could help toview this issue in terms of competing goals (in this specific case,those of self-protection and of connectedness).

6. Conclusions and implications for future research

The present contribution focused only on one specific class ofhuman-relevant risks, namely natural ones, based on human-environment relationships with the natural world. Of course, inprinciple, place attachment also relates to other types of risks (e.g.,war or other non-natural risks), which also imply exposure tocollective traumatic events and loss of places. Both natural andnon-natural risks depend on human perception and require humandecision-making and action. Therefore, because a complete andcomparative analysis would have been far beyond the aims, means,and constraints of the present contribution, it is left to futureresearch to elaborate more on this comparison and to deepen andclarify mediating and moderating effects therein.

In conclusion, as far as the aims of this contribution are con-cerned, researchers should refine and extend studies on placeattachment by connecting them to current natural environmentalrisks literature, but also by exploring diverse ways of linking thisliterature with scholarship outside the environmental psychologyfield, such as interpersonal attachment models or goal theory.

Two main paths could be envisioned here. First, the reportedpositive link between place attachment and risk perception couldeither be evidence for a more accurate description or, alternately,simply evidence of a stronger relationship between place attach-ment and risk perception. Reported evidence is compatible withboth interpretations. In one case, it would be an accurate realisticperception; in the other case, it would be an unrealistic one,because staying in place would magnify the risk. Also, the differ-ence could be due to different intervening factors, e.g., a matter ofattachment style, rather than simply attachment intensity. Most ofall, the crucial point here is that only good experimental researchcould clarify this issue, paying due attention to the operationali-zation of both place attachment manipulation, and natural envi-ronmental risk perception levels of measurement (Scannel &Gifford, 2016). In fact, the reviewed studies checked the correla-tion between degrees of place attachment and levels of environ-mental risk perception. Future studies should invest in ways tomanipulate place attachment andmeasure corresponding variationon risk perception levels to differentiate between a heightenedversus a realistic perception.

Second, by incorporating place attachment and interpersonalattachment frameworks, researchers may find ways to explainmediation and moderation effects in the relationships among placeattachment, natural environmental risk perception, and copingstrategies (Scannell & Gifford, 2010; see also; McBain, 2010 or;Scrima, 2015). Also, conceptual frameworks that explicitly relateplace attachment to risk behaviour will be more likely to informenvironmental problem solving. A better understanding of these

ties in the form of moderators andmediators is necessary to informrisk evacuation, relocation programs and coping interventions.

According to Bowlby (1969/1982, 1973, 1980), human beings areborn with an innate attachment behavioural system that motivatesthem to seek proximity to attachment figures as a way to protectthemselves from threats. The goal of the system is actual protection(support) and the subjective sense of safety. This double-sided(objective and subjective) goal has been shown here with respectto the literature on natural environmental risk. Future studies willneed to research the health implications and the psychopatholog-ical manifestations of long-term proximity-seeking to risky placesof attachment. Longitudinal studies and work with migrant groupscould, for example, provide a better understanding of how placeattachment may still be mentally active even long after people haverelocated.

Because it is usually the case that people fail to obtain supportand protection from risky places to which they are attached, theremay be curiosity about the types of defensive strategies developedto cope with distressdactivating and de-activating strategies. Herestyle of attachment becomes a relevant issue that has been mostlyneglected within the literature on place attachment so far (withvery few exceptions, such as Scannell&Gifford, 2010; Scrima, 2015;McBain, 2010 unpublished data set). Avoidant attachment is orga-nized around deactivating strategies of affect regulation (deem-phasizing threats and trying to cope with them alone, withoutseeking help or support from other people). Anxious attachment isorganized around hyper-activating strategies of affect regulation,which involve overemphasizing threats and becoming veryemotional and intrusive or insistent in attempts to gain protectionand support from other people. Both aremajor insecure attachmentstrategies that are not yet well understood in terms of attachmentto places. Something similar is also recently addressed within so-ciological and interdisciplinary literature: Flint, Kunze, Muhar,Yoshida, and Penker (2013) propose that human-nature relation-ship can be of different types, even contradictory ones either acrosspeople or groups or evenwithin a single individual. Moreover, theystress the importance of the specific context to frame a specificrelationship type (i.e., a socially grounded ecosystem servicesconcept).

To conclude, a paradox characterizes the current state ofknowledge on place attachment, natural environmental riskperception, and coping. Studies have shown that evaluating andtaking action in situations of natural environmental risk is associ-ated with people-place past experiences. Evacuation programs andinterventions usually have focused on the visible and economicaspects of hazards and environmental disasters. Based on thisliterature review, a historical framework of experiences and actionsrelated to natural environmental risks and natural disasters isenvisaged, as it may help to design more culturally relevant stra-tegies, evacuation plans, and relocation programs. Place attach-ments are usually taken for granted but, as this literature reviewshows, they have great implications for health and wellbeing. Placeattachment bonds do not always have a positive valence in theindividual-environment relation as emotions associated withmeaningful places may sometimes be negative (Manzo, 2005). Theconcept of “solastalgia”, with all its relations to place attachmentand place identity, may have important implications for humanhealth, although these implications have not been systematicallyaddressed by environmental psychology researchers.

Higher-order categories, such as symbolic ties coupled withother factors including social and economic ties (e.g., propertyrelated), need further investigation. Reviewed studies presentedhere in relation to volcanic risks (Bird et al., 2011; Donovan et al.,2012; Lavigne et al., 2008), for example show the need to betterunderstand symbolic attachment to place in order to provide useful


information for risk management programs. A framework toaccommodate the different definitions and dimensions of placeattachment is also needed, such as place dependence, place iden-tity, sense of place, and spiritual/religious attachment within ahistorical framework which explains how people's life span isintertwined with that of placesdin this case, those prone to naturalenvironmental risks and disasters.

Adult attachment researchers have argued that there is a ten-dency for people to have an insecure attachment style in copingwith threatening situations (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, Doron, & Shaver,2010). On the basis of the recurrently observed hyper-activationof place attachment in the literature review, it could be hypothe-sized that an insecure attachment style could be the prevalent alsoin situations of natural environmental risk. This needs to be testedempirically by future studies.

There is an urgent need to devise adaptive and reliable strate-gies to cope with the interplay among natural environmental risksand specific place attachment style(s). One step in this direction isto initiate a close dialogue among place attachment and interper-sonal attachment literature, as well as with environmental riskmanagement literature. More basic social-psychological theoriesandmodels, such as goal theory, are also needed to address the twogoals' issue, namely self-protection vs. connection. They becomecompeting goals once a natural environmental risk scenario affectsone's own place.

An important avenue for future conceptual and empirical in-vestigations is represented by the parallel that could be drawnbetween the interplay between attachment and risk within inter-personal relationships, on the one side, and within people-placerelationships, on the other side. In fact, as suggested by some ofthe reviewed empirical evidence, the role that place attachmentseems to have parallels the role that interpersonal attachment canplay in some social relations. For example, the process of denyingthe risk related to the object to which we are attached, is itself awell-known phenomenon in other fields of psychology having todo with relationship disorders: within close relationships, certainattachment styles can prevent proper or adaptive risk perceptionsand/or risk copying strategies (e.g., Craparo, Gori, Petruccelli,Cannella, & Simonelli, 2014). In a similar vein, some results (e.g.,De Dominicis et al., 2015), show that people more attached to ahighly risky place are less prone to adopt the functional copingbehaviours to face the impending risk. The same broad psycho-logical process seems to be involved here: that is, once an indi-vidual is attached to a social entity ewhether a person or a place eshe/he is less able to enact those strategies that would allow her/him to protect her/himself from the risks implied by the interactionwith her/his own beloved one e whether a person or a place.

Another new venue for research would be to focus not so muchon place attachment relating to the residential place where therisk is experienced and from which the person has to escape;rather, to focus on place attachment referring to the target safeplace. There are very few studies about this psychologicalmechanism, which basically would guide a person escaping froma risky place to reach a safe location (for an exception, see Sime,1985). According to such a view, a way to increase risk copingwould be to adopt something similar to an attachment model,because people would tend to move towards familiar persons andplaces to whom they are affiliated. Social and environmentalpsychology should therefore develop and evaluate research andintervention possibilities in order to exploit such psychologicalmechanisms to predict and improve people's risk adaptive copingactions.

Future theoretical models and empirical investigation should bedevoted to shed light on such fascinating psychological parallelmechanisms between place and interpersonal attachment.

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to Mr Scott Roberts for the English languagerevision on the first version of this contribution. Authors wish tospecially thank Prof. Carol Werner for her terrific support andrevision on the last version of this work.

References

Acu~na-Rivera, M., Brown, J., & Uzzell, D. (2014). Risk perception as mediator inperceptions of neighbourhood disorder and safety about victimization. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 40, 64e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.002.

Agrawal, S., & Monroe, M. C. (2006). Using and improving social capital to increasecommunity preparedness for wildfire. In S. M. McCaffrey (Ed.), The public andwildland fire management: Social science findings for managers (pp. 163e167).Newtown Square, PA: U.S.: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Gen. Tech.Rep. NRS-1. Northern Research Station.

Albrecht, G. (2005). Solastalgia, a new concept in human health and identity. Phi-losophy Activism Nature, 3, 41e55. doi:1959.1/545744.

Albrecht, G. (2010). Solastalgia and the creation of new ways of living. In S. Pilgrim,& J. Pretty (Eds.), Nature and culture: Rebuilding lost connections (pp. 217e234).London: Earthscan.

Albrecht, G. (2012). Psychoterratic conditions in a scientific and technologicalworld. In P. H. Kahn, & P. H. Hasbach (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Science, totems, andthe technological species (pp. 241e264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Albrecht, G., Sartore, G. M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., Kelly, B., et al.(2007). Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. AustralasianPsychiatry, 15, 95e98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10398560701701288.

Anton, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place ofresidence on place attachment and community participation. Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology, 40, 451e461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.007.

Armas, I. (2006). Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis,26, 1223e1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatoremediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173e1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.117.

Bernardo, F. (2013). Impact of place attachment on risk perception: Exploring themultidimensionality of risk and its magnitude. Estudios de Psicologia, 34,323e329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021093913808349253.

Bihari, M., & Ryan, R. (2012). Influence of social capital on community preparednessfor wildfires. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 253e261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.011.

Bird, D. K., Gíslad"ottir, G., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2011). Different communities,different perspectives: issues affecting residents’ response to a volcanic erup-tion in southern Iceland. Bulletin of Volcanology, 73, 1209e1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00445-011-0464-1.

Bonaiuto, M., & Alves, S. (2012). Residential places and neighbourhoods: Towardhealthy life, social integration, and reputable residence. In S. Clayton (Ed.), TheOxford Handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 221e247).New York: Oxford University Press.

Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmentalthreat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beachpollution. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157e175. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199608)6:3<157::AIDCASP367>3.3.CO;2-N.

Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., & Mosco, B.(2011). Flood risk: The role of neighbourhood attachment. In G. Zenz, &R. Hornich (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium UFRIM. Urban floodrisk management e Approaches to enhance resilience of communities (pp.547e558). Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universit€at Graz.

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Ariccio, S., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., & Rahimi, L. (2015).Perceived residential environment quality indicators (PREQIs) relevance forUN-HABITAT city prosperity index (CPI). Habitat International, 45, 53e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.015.

Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (1995). Expert and layperson evaluation of urbanenvironmental quality: The “natural” versus the “built” environment. InY. Guerrier, N. Alexander, J. Chase, & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Values and the environ-ment: A social science perspective (pp. 151e163). New York: Wiley.

Boon, H. J. (2014). Disaster resilience in a flood-impacted rural Australian town.Persistent Link, 71, 683e701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0935-0.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss. In Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: BasicBooks.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. In Separation (Vol. 2). New York: BasicBooks.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. In Loss (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. In Attachment (2nd ed., Vol. I). New York:

Basic Books.Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Brown, B., & Perkins, P. (1992). Disruption in place attachment. In I. Altman, & S. Low


(Eds.), Place attachment, human behavior and environment (pp. 279e304). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Burley, D., Jenkins, P., Laska, S., & Davis, T. (2007). Place attachment and environ-mental change in Coastal Louisiana. Organization and Environment, 20,347e366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026607305739.

Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Upham, P. (2015). Inter-national trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quartercentury. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6, 35e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.343.

Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2014). Placeattachment, community identification, and pro-environmental engagement. InL. C. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory,methods, and applications (pp. 154e164). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2009). 'There's No place like New Orleans': Senseof place and community recovery in the ninth ward after Hurricane Katrina.Journal of Urban Affairs, 31, 615e634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00479.x.

Chang, K. (2010). Community cohesion after a natural disaster: Insights from aCarlisle flood. Disasters, 34(2), 289e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01129.x.

Collins, T. W. (2008). What influences hazard mitigation? Household decisionmaking about wildfire risks in Arizona's White mountains. The ProfessionalGeographer, 60, 508e526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120802211737.

Cox, R., & Perry, K. M. (2011). Like a fish out of water: Reconsidering disaster re-covery and the role of place and social capital in community disaster resilience.American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 395e411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9427-0.

Craparo, G., Gori, A., Petruccelli, I., Cannella, V., & Simonelli, C. (2014). Intimatepartner violence: Relationships between alexithymia, depression, attachmentstyles, and coping strategies of battered women. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,11, 1484e1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12505.

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., et al. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters.Global Environmental Change, 18, 598e606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013.

De Dominicis, S., Crano, W. D., Cancellieri, G. U., Mosco, B., Bonnes, M., Hohman, Z.,et al. (2014). Vested interest and environmental risk communication:Improving willingness to cope with impending disasters. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 44, 364e374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12229.

De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., Twigger-Ross, C., & Bonaiuto, M.(2015). We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental riskperceptions and preventive coping behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 43, 66e78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.010.

Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Place attachment and public acceptance of renewableenergy: A tidal energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31,336e343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.001.

Dixon, L., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and etiology ofintimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. ClinicalPsychology Review, 31, 1145e1155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.001.

Donovan, K., Suryanto, A., & Utami, P. (2012). Mapping cultural vulnerability involcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi,Indonesia. Environmental Hazards, 11, 303e323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2012.689252.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). ‘Of global concern’: Results of the

health and planet survey. Environment, 35, 33e40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1993.9929122.

Dutton, D. G. (1995). Male abusiveness in intimate relationships. Clinical PsychologyReview, 15, 567e581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(95)00028-N.

Edelstein, M. R., & Wandersman, A. (1987). Community dynamics in coping withtoxic contaminants. In I. Altman, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood andcommunity environments (Vol. 9, pp. 69e112). New York: Plenum.

Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The AttachmentParadox. How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive advan-tages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123e141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610362349.

Evans, G. W., & Stecker, R. (2004). Motivational consequences of environmentalstress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 143e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00076-8.

Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate changeadaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7, 46e59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0704.

Flint, C. G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y., & Penker, M. (2013). Exploring empiricaltypologies of human-nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem ser-vices concepts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 208e217.

Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition (pp.151e171). New York: Basic Books.

Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2010). Cross-validation of abbreviatedperceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighborhood attach-ment (NA) indicators. Environment and Behavior, 42(2), 171e196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508330998.

Gallina, M., & Williams, A. (2014). Perceptions of air quality and sense of placeamong women in Northeast Canada Hamilton. International Journal of SocialScience Studies, 2, 67e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v2i3.412.

Garcìa-Mira, R., Real, J. E., & Romay, J. (2005). Temporal and spatial dimensions in

the perception of environmental problems: An investigation of the concept ofenvironmental hyperopia. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 5e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590444000078.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modernage. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climatechange mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023566.

Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., et al. (2009).Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 1e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001.

Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes,T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp.137e170). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Gormley, B. (2005). An adult attachment theoretical perspective of gender sym-metry in intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 52, 785e795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4199-3.

Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2008). Attachment and religious representationsand behavior. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 906e933). New York, NY, US:Guilford Press.

Groulx, M., Lewis, J., Lemieux, C., & Dawson, J. (2014). Place-based climate changeadaptation: A critical case study of climate change messaging and collectiveaction in Churchill, Manitoba. Landscape & Urban Planning, 132, 136e147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.002.

Gustafson, P. (2014). Place attachment in an age of mobility. In L. C. Manzo, &P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and ap-plications (pp. 37e48). London, UK: Routledge.

Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. (1992). Attribution of responsibility and indi-vidual and collective coping with environmental threats. Journal of Social Issues,48, 101e118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01947.x.

Hatfield, J., & Job, R. F. S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation:The role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 21, 17e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0190.

Helweg-Larsen, M. (1999). (The lack of) optimistic biases in response to theNorthridge earthquake: The role of personal experience. Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 21, 119e129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BA210204.

Hern"andez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Placeattachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 27, 310e319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003.

Hester, R. T., Jr. (2014). Do not detach! Instruction from and for community design.In L. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory,methods and research (pp. 191e205). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Higginbotham, N., Connor, L., Albrecht, G., et al. (2006). EcoHealth. 3, 245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-006-0069-x.

Hugh-Jones, S., & Madill, A. (2009). ‘The air's got to be far cleaner here’: A discursiveanalysis of place-identity threat. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48,601e624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466608X390256.

Hunter, L. M. (2005). Migration and environmental hazards. Population and envi-ronment, 26, 273e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-005-3343-x.

Kallmen, H. (2000). Manifest anxiety, general self efficacy and locus of control asdeterminants of personal and general risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 3,111e120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136698700376626.

Kaltenborn, B. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmentalimpacts: A study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic.Applied Geography, 18, 169e189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(98)00002-2.

Ker"enyi, K. (1951). Die Mythologie der Griechen. Die G€otter- und Menschheitsge-schichten. Zuerich: Rhein-Verlag.

Ker"enyi, K. (1958). Die Heroen der Griechen. Zuerich: Rhein-Verlag.Kick, E. L., Fraser, J. C., Fulkerson, G. M., McKinney, L. A., & De Vries, D. H. (2011).

Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: An analysiswith communityesystem policy implications. Disasters, 35, 510e539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01226.x.

Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., Babush, M., Dugas, M., & Schumpe, B. (2015). Thearchitecture of goal systems: Multifinality, equifinality, and counterfinality inmeansdend relations. Advances in Motivation Science, 2, 69e98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2015.04.001.

Lavigne, F., De Coster, B., Juvin, N., Flohic, F., Gaillard, F.-C., Texier, P., et al. (2008).People's behaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: Perspectives from Javanesecommunities, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172,273e287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.013.

Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoringthe forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209e231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman,& S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1e12). New York: Plenum Press.

Manning, S. C. (2005). Riding out the risks: An ethnographic study of risk perceptionsin a South Louisiana Bayou community. Master’s Thesis. Lousiana State


University.Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place

meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67e86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.002.

Manzo, L. C., & Devine-Wright, P. (Eds.). (2014). Place attachment. Advances in theory,methods and applications. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance ofplace attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of PlanningLiterature, 20, 335e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160.

Marcu, A., Uzzell, D., & Barnett, J. (2011). Making sense of unfamiliar risks in thecountry side: The case of Lyme disease. Health & Place, 17, 843e850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.03.010.

Marshall, T. P. (2001). Birth of the Fujita scale. Storm Track, 24, 6e10.Masse, W. B., & Masse, M. J. (2007). Myth and catastrophic reality: Using myth to

identify cosmic impacts and massive Plinian eruptions in Holocene SouthAmerica. In L. Picardi, & W. B. Masse (Eds.), Myth and geology (pp. 177e202).London: The Geological Society.

McBain, K. A. (2010). Adult attachment theory and attachment to place: What makes ahouse a home?. Unpublished Dissertation. James Cook University.

Metha, M. D., & Simpson-Housley, P. (1994a). Perception of potential nucleardisaster: The relation of likelihood and consequence estimates of risk. Percep-tual and Motor Skills, 79, 1119e1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.3.1119.

Metha, M. D., & Simpson-Housley, P. (1994b). Trait anxiety and perception of apotential nuclear power plant disaster. Psychological Reports, 74, 291e295.http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.291.

Mihaylov, N., & Perkins, D. D. (2014). Community place attachment and its role insocial capital development in response to environmental disruption. InL. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory,methods and research (pp. 61e74). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adult-hood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 35, 53e153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(03)01002-5.

Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Place attachment and flood prepared-ness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 187e197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.005.

Mitchell, M. D., Hargrove, G. L., Collins, M. H., Thompson, M. P., Reddick, T. L., &Kaslow, N. J. (2006). Coping variables that mediate the relation between inti-mate partner violence and mental health outcomes among low-income, AfricanAmerican women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1503e1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20305.

Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing connectednessand self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processingperspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,429e459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429.

Nawrotzki, R. J., Brenkert-Smith, H., Hunter, L. M., & Champ, P. A. (2014). Wildfire-migration dynamics: Lessons from Colorado's Fourmile Canyon fire. Society &Natural Resources: An International Journal, 27, 215e225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.842275.

O'Sullivan, J. J., Bradford, R. A., Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Rotko, P., Aaltonen, J.,et al. (2012). Enhancing flood resilience through improved risk communica-tions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 12, 2271e2282. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2271-2012.

Paton, D., Burgelt, P. T., & Prior, T. (2008). Living with bushfire risk: Social andenvironmental influences on preparedness. The Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement, 23, 41e48. doi:10453/10370/1/2008004894.

Piccardi, L., & Masse, W. B. (Eds.). (2007). Myth and geology. London: GeologicalSociety (Special Publications).

Pirta, R. S., Chandel, N., & Pirta, C. (2014). Loss of home at early age: Retrieval ofmemories among the displacees of Bhakra Dam after fifty years. Journal of theIndian Academy of Applied Psychology, 40, 78e85.

Pitner, R. O., Yu, M., & Brown, E. (2012). Making neighborhoods safer: Examiningpredictors of residents' concerns about neighborhood safety. Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology, 32, 43e49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.09.003.

Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. P. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparativeoptimism: Differential relations with the knowledge and processing of riskinformation and beliefs about personal risk. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 28, 836e846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289012.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placement. London, UK: Pion.Reser, J. P., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts

of climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 277e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023412.

Ruiz, C., & Hern"andez, B. (2014). Emotions and coping strategies during an episodeof volcanic activity and their relations to place attachment. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 38, 279e287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.008.

Ruiz, C., Hern"andez, B., & Hidalgo, M. C. (2011). Confirmaci"on de la estructurafactorial de una escala de apego e identidad con el barrio. Psyecology, 2,157e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/217119711795712586.

Scannell, L. (2013). The bases of bonding: The psychological functions of placeattachment in comparison to interpersonal attachment (Thesis). Retrieved fromhttps://dspace.library.uvic.ca//handle/1828/5074.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic placeattachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 30, 289e297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.010.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change the role of placeattachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ-ment and Behavior, 45, 60e85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2014). Comparing the theories of interpersonal relationsand place attachment. In L. C. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attach-ment: Advances in theory, methods, and applications (pp. 23e36). New York, NY,USA: Routledge.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2016). Place attachment enhances psychological needsatisfaction. Environment & Behavior, 1e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916516637648.

Schultz, P. W., Milfont, T. L., Chance, R. C., Tronu, G., Luís, S., Ando, K., et al. (2014).Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of envi-ronmental problems. Environment and Behavior, 46, 267e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916512458579.

Scrima, F. (2015). The convergent-discriminant validity of the workplace attach-ment Scale (WAS). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 24e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.009.

Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3),347e358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K.

Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attach-ment & Human Development, 4, 133e161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730210154171.

Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affir-mation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183e242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5.

Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Technology adoption and usein the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. American BehavioralScientist, 53, 1228e1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764209356252.

Silver, A., & Grek-Martin, J. (2015). “Now we understand what community reallymeans”: Reconceptualizing the role of sense of place in the disaster recoveryprocess. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 32e41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.004.

Sime, J. D. (1985). Movement toward the familiar person and place affiliation in afire entrapment setting. Environment and Behavior, 17, 697e724.

Sjoberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative eval-uation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2, 113e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135753097348447.

Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Ltd.Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment:

Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21, 14e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1979.9933091.

Stain, H. J., Kelly, B., Carr, W. J., Lewin, T. J., Fitzgerald, M., & Fragar, L. (2011). Thepsychological impact of chronic environmental adversity: Responding to pro-longed drought. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1593e1599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jsocscimed.2011.09.016.

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behaviorfrom place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior,34, 561e581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001.

Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partnerphysical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analyticreview. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65e98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001.

Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. In M. R. Rosenzweig, & L. W. Porter(Eds.), Annual review of psychology (vol. 29, pp. 253e295) (Palo Alto CA: AnnualReviews).

Swim, J. K., Stern, P. C., Doherty, T. J., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Weber, E. U., et al. (2011).Psychology's contributions to understanding and addressing global climatechange. American Psychologist, 66, 241e250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023220.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. InW. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 33e47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tanner, K. (2012). Place attachment & place-based security: The experiences of red andgreen zone residents in post-earthquake Kaiapoi. Research Dissertation. Christ-church, New Zealand: The University of Canterbury.

Taylor, A., Bruin, W. B., & Dessai, S. (2014). Climate change beliefs and perceptions ofweather-related changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 34, 1995e2004.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12234.

Thordardottira, E. B., Valdimarsdottira, U. A., Hansdottirb, I., Resnickd, H.,Shipherde, J., & Gudmundsdottira, B. (2015). Posttraumatic stress and otherhealth consequences of catastrophic avalanches: A 16-year follow-up of sur-vivors. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 32, 103e111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.03.005.

Twigger-Ross, C., Bonaiuto, M., & Breakwell, G. M. (2003). Identity theories andenvironmental psychology. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psycho-logical theories for environmental issues (pp. 203e233). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Breakwell, G. M. (1999). Relating risk experience, venture-someness and risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 73e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136698799376998.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 16, 205e220. doi:0.1006/jevp.1996.0017.

Uzzell, D. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimensions of global environmental prob-lems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307e318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0175.

van der Velde, F. K., HooyKaas, C., & van der Joop, P. (1992). Risk perception and


behavior: Pessimism, realism, and optimism about aids-related health behavior.Psychology & Health, 6, 23e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870449208402018.

Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L., & Simmons, P. (2012).Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions inlocal host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 371e383.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.003.

Vitaliano, D. B. (2007). Geomythology: Geological origins of myths and legends. InL. Piccardi, & W. B. Masse (Eds.), Myth and geology (vol. 273, pp. 1e7). London:The Geological Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.01.

Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (1999). Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-culturaldifferences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bullettin & Re-view, 6, 611e617. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212969.

Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors andsusceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431e457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.3.5.431.

West, M., & George, C. (1999). Abuse and violence in intimate adult relationships:New perspectives from attachment theory. Attachment and Human Develop-ment, 1, 137e156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616739900134201.

Willox, C., Harper, S. L., Ford, J. D., Landman, K., Houle, K., & Edge, V. L. (2012). Fromthis place and of this place: Climate change, sense of place, and health inNunatsiavut, Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 75, 538e547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/2012.03.043.

Winkel, G., Saegert, S., & Evans, G. W. (2009). An ecological perspective on theory,methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 318e328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.005.

Zhang, Y., Zhang, H.-L., Zhang, J., & Cheng, S. (2014). Predicting residents' pro-environmental behaviors at tourist sites: The role of awareness of disaster'sconsequences, values, and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychol-ogy, 40, 131e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.001.


Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and … · 2019-05-31 · Review Place...

Documents

Transcript of Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and … · 2019-05-31 · Review Place...