Cities 41 (2014) 20–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

Interrelations between sense of place, organizational commitment,and green neighborhoods

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.0080264-2751/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University ofVictoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada. Tel.: +1 (250) 8930603.

E-mail address: lindsayjmccunn@gmail.com (L.J. McCunn).

Lindsay J. McCunn ⇑, Robert GiffordPsychology Department, University of Victoria, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 January 2014Received in revised form 13 April 2014Accepted 27 April 2014

Keywords:Organizational commitmentSense of placeSustainabilityNeighborhoodsGreen

a b s t r a c t

Does the notion of organizational commitment apply to neighborhoods? Typically, sense of place isexamined in relation to belonging and identification in communities, whereas organizational commit-ment is traditionally investigated in work settings. Based on apparent commonalities between the twoconstructs, we hypothesized that (a) neighborhood residents would experience them similarly, (b) thetwo constructs would be similarly associated with a physical variable (‘greenness’) and (c) individuals liv-ing in neighborhoods with more sustainable attributes would experience greater neighborhood (organi-zational) commitment, and a stronger sense of place. Neighborhood commitment and sense of place weresignificantly correlated, with moderate shared variance. Neighborhood commitment was significantlyassociated with the number of ‘green’ neighborhood attributes. Thus, neighborhood commitment andsense of place appear to be similar but not identical constructs, suggesting that neighborhood commit-ment has distinct value as an environmental construct in community research.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Neighborhood residents often experience a sense of place – astrong, emotional connection to the physical surroundings of theirneighborhood. But might residents also feel a form of organiza-tional commitment to their neighborhood? If so, to what extentare these constructs experienced similarly? Might organizationalcommitment add independent value to understanding socialfunctioning in communities?

The construct of organizational commitment resides in theliteratures of business and organizational/industrial psychologyas an attitude based on the degree of identification with, or attach-ment to, the organization for which one works (Schultz & Schultz,1998). It is ‘‘the relative strength of an individual’s identificationwith and involvement in a particular organization’’ (Mowday,Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226).

Whereas, theoretical (Cresswell, 2009; DeMigilo & Williams,2008; Foote & Azaryahu, 2009; Relph, 1976, 1997, 2008; Tuan,1974, 1980) and empirical studies (Derr, 2002; Eyles, 1985; Eyles& Williams, 2008; Hay, 1998; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001, 2006;Kaltenborn & Williams, 2002; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Manzo,2005; Shamai, 1991; Ulrich, 1981, 1984, 1986; Ulrich et al.,

1991; Williams, 1998, 1999) explain sense of place as a multidi-mensional construct that describes an emotional connection to ageographical environment, as well as to the values, symbols, andcultural meaning given to the setting.

To clarify the construct of sense of place, Shamai (1991) arguedthat it could be thought of as an umbrella term under which severalplace dimensions reside. Because numerous similar place dimen-sions exist in place literature, Jorgensen and Stedman (2001,2006) put forward a three-dimensional theoretical model of senseof place that is individualistic in focus, treating places as attitudeobjects while differentiating between the cognitive (i.e., percep-tual), affective (i.e., emotional), and conative (i.e., behavioral)domains.

Arguably, forming a ‘sense of place’ about an environment andits meaning is an instinctive and phenomenological human experi-ence (Relph, 1976; Seamon, 2012; Stefanovic, 1998). Indeed,through this humanistic and phenomenological connectionbetween perception and meaning, researchers in a variety of disci-plines (e.g., human geography, environmental and social psychol-ogy, sociology, health studies, urban planning, and urban design)have investigated the notion of sense of place. Generally, thosewho experience a strong sense of place toward a neighborhooddo not want to leave it because of the emotional, cognitive, andconative elements of the relationship between themselves andthe setting (Casakin & Billig, 2009; Corcoran, 2010; Jorgensen &Stedman, 2001, 2006; Williams & Stewart, 1998). This relationshipinvolves both the physicality of an environment, as well as the

L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29 21

familiar social interactions that occur within it (e.g., Fried, 1963;Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001).

The ways in which residents experience sense of place towardtheir neighborhood may be similar to how committed employeesfeel toward an organization. Arguably, organizationally commit-ted individuals wish to be active, impactful players in their orga-nization and contribute beyond what is expected, whether thenotion of ‘organization’ represents a workplace or a neighbor-hood. Although organizational commitment and sense of placehave been studied in different environments, the two constructsappear to be grounded in similar conceptual frameworks. Intrigu-ing analogues exist between the three components of organiza-tional commitment (affective, continuance, and normativeorganizational commitment; Allen & Meyer, 1987) and the threecomponents of sense of place (place attachment, place depen-dence, and place identity; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001, 2006).Thus, the hypothesis that organizational commitment overlapswith sense of place, as experienced by neighborhood residents,seems reasonable. However, the overlap may not be perfect; orga-nizational commitment may be somewhat distinct, and thereforeadd value to community research. The aim of this study is to takethe first step in exploring the interrelations between these twoconstructs.

Do the constructs of organizational commitment and sense ofplace overlap?

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment refers to how strongly an individ-ual identifies with, and becomes involved in, an organization(Mowday et al., 1979). The construct is correlated with motivationand satisfaction at work, and is characterized by acceptance of thevalues and goals of an organization, willingness to exert effort foran organization, and having a strong desire to remain affiliatedwith an organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

To further clarify organizational commitment, Allen and Meyer(1987) developed a three-component model composed of affective,continuance, and normative commitment dimensions. Affectiveorganizational commitment is defined as an employees’ emotionalbond to the organization and is influenced by personal characteris-tics and experiences at work (Allen & Meyer, 1987). Those whoexperience this component of organizational commitment acceptand identify with the organization’s goals and values (Bogler &Somech, 2004).

Second, continuance organizational commitment is an employ-ee’s perception of costs associated with leaving their workplaceand is based on the magnitude and number of investments theemployee has in the organization, together with a perceived lackof alternatives (Becker, 1960; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Meyer,Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Rusbult & Farrell,1983). The greater an individual’s perceived chances of obtaininga different job, and the greater desirability of that alternative posi-tion, the lower an individual’s continuance organizational commit-ment tends to be (Bateman & Strasser, 1984). Although this mayseem like a negative aspect to the overall construct of organiza-tional commitment, employees with strong continuance organiza-tional commitment do experience a willingness to involvethemselves with, and invest effort on behalf of, the organization(Bogler & Somech, 2004).

Third, normative organizational commitment is an employee’slevel of motivation or obligation to remain working with an orga-nization. This component is based on feelings of loyalty, developedthrough experiences prior to, and following, entry into an organi-zation (Meyer et al., 2002; Wiener, 1982).

The three components of organizational commitment are inter-related: employees with strong affective organizational commit-ment remain working for an organization because they want to,those with strong continuance organizational commitment remainbecause they feel they need to, and those with strong normativeorganizational commitment stay because they feel they ought to(Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Sense of place

Like organizational commitment, sense of place includes threecomponents: place identity, place attachment, and place depen-dence (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001, 2006). Place identity is definedas individuals’ perceptions of their identity in relation to the phys-ical environment (Proshansky, 1978). This component is generallyformed through patterns of conscious and unconscious ideas,beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals, and behavioral tenden-cies relevant to the environment (Proshansky, 1978). Later,Proshansky and his colleagues further explained that individualsincorporate places into their larger self-concept during the devel-opment of place identity (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983).

The second component, place attachment, has been defined asthe affective relationship between people and a place that goesbeyond cognition, preference, or judgment (Altman & Low, 1992;Riley, 1992; Scannell & Gifford, 2010; Williams, Patterson,Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992; Williams & Stewart, 1998). Placeattachment can also refer to the richness of meaning that comeswith familiarity (Gold & Burgess, 1982).

Third, place dependence is an individual’s perceived association(either positive or negative) between him or herself and a particu-lar place (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). This component has beenreferred to as a person–place connection based on specific activi-ties afforded by a setting (Schreyer, Jacob, & White, 1981). Often,place dependence is formed after an individual evaluates how wella setting might assist in goal achievement, given a range of alterna-tives (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Thus, place dependence hasmore to do with whether an environment allows for behavioralgoals to be attained, rather than whether strong emotions are felttoward a place.

Like the three-component model of organizational commit-ment, the three sense of place components noticeably overlap,but contain distinguishable elements (Bonnes & Secchiaroli,1995). Interrelations among them are not fully understood(Brown & Raymond, 2007; Hammitt & Stewart, 1996; Jorgensen& Stedman, 2001, 2006; Kaltenborn, 1997) but several attemptsto articulate their links have been made. Jorgensen and Stedman(2001, 2006) assert that place identity, place attachment, and placedependence can be thought of singularly as ‘‘sense of place,’’ butothers posit that place attachment may subsume place identityand place dependence (Altman & Low, 1992; Brown & Raymond,2007; White, Virden, & van Riper, 2008). Jorgenson and Stedman’sarguments in favor of their multidimensional framework of senseof place appear strong and statistically viable. As they point out,understanding the cognitive, affective, and conative framework ofsense of place can allow researchers to better ‘‘explore the poten-tial for complexity in the concept’’ (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006, pp.317). Thus, for the purposes of this study, the three-componentmodel put forward by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001, 2006) is usedto conceptualize sense of place.

Complementary components of the two constructs

That both organizational commitment and sense of place con-sist of three components does not mean that the two constructsare equivalent. However, their components appear sufficiently

22 L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29

similar that an examination of their links seems warranted, andthis exam follows.

Place identity and normative organizational commitmentappear to be parallel components. Both result in a strong desireto remain in a place because of socialization, obligation, and iden-tity-forming experiences in that setting. For example, employeeswho feel normative commitment toward an organization may doso because a family member stresses job loyalty and a connectionbetween their identity and their profession. Similarly, someonewhose family has lived in a particular neighborhood for many gen-erations may develop place identity toward that neighborhoodbecause of familial socialization, loyalty, and obligation.

Second, place attachment may be analogous to affective organi-zational commitment. Both serve as the emotional component intheir respective three-component models. Just as those who expe-rience affective organizational commitment accept the values,goals, and nuances of their organization, those who experienceplace attachment accept the values, goals, and nuances of the placeto which they are attached. This is partly why residents of dam-aged or contaminated communities do not move away from thearea more often than residents of undamaged or uncontaminatedcommunities (e.g., Hunter, 1998).

Moreover, both place attachment (Manzo & Perkins, 2006) andaffective organizational commitment seem to manifest themselvesbehaviorally in participation. People who experienced more placeattachment toward their neighborhoods interacted more withother residents and watched over their communities more often(Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). Similarly, those who experiencestrong organizational commitment engage in more voluntary par-ticipatory behaviors at work (Boiral, 2009; Bolino, Turnley, &Bloodgood, 2002). Arguably, considering the emotional aspects ofsense of place and organizational commitment in neighborhoodresearch may help planners encourage residents to positively com-municate, participate, and act upon community initiatives (Manzo& Perkins, 2006).

Third, place dependence and continuance organizational com-mitment appear similar. Both constructs denote a perceived costassociated with leaving a place or an organization. For example,someone who feels place dependence toward a neighborhood con-taining amenities that offer goal attainment and behavioral satis-faction may assess the costs of leaving the area because of a lackof a better alternative. This scenario is similar to believing thatthe costs of leaving their organization outweigh the benefits. Bothdimensions incorporate reliance for reasons that are not altogethergermane to that environment. Clearly, these two components rep-resent some negative aspects in the larger constructs of sense ofplace and organizational commitment. A person who experiencesplace dependence does not necessarily feel positively about a set-ting, just as someone may experience continuance organizationalcommitment because of a lack of alternatives combined withfeelings of investment.

Can organizational commitment be experienced at theneighborhood level?

If organizational commitment can be experienced at the neigh-borhood level, then residents must in some way perceive theirneighborhood as comparable to an organization. Although the typ-ical conceptualization of a neighborhood may not be similar to anorganization (e.g., individuals are not often remunerated for workdone in the neighborhood), perhaps residents experience a formof organizational commitment when they identify with the valuesand goals of the neighborhood. This may occur if residents noticeways in which a neighborhood orders itself like an organization(e.g., neighborhood advisory committee meetings, formal

discussions about planning issues and initiatives, social events,fundraising initiatives, or dedicated positions that liaise with a lar-ger municipal body).

More specifically, factors that influence the development ofaffective organizational commitment in the workplace (e.g., inter-personal interactions, work experiences) have the potential to bepresent in both workplace and neighborhood settings. Interper-sonal interactions undoubtedly influence whether an individualaccepts, and fits in with, an organization or neighborhood (andthe social communities within it). An individual’s previous experi-ence living in other neighborhoods could also align with the ante-cedent factor of previous work experiences. Similarly, continuanceorganizational commitment may be experienced in a neighbor-hood setting as a willingness to exert effort toward the neighbor-hood because of felt investment. A resident might becomeinvolved in a community event, pick up litter, or use leisure timeto serve on a local committee. In these ways, continuance organi-zational commitment could be similarly experienced at work andin the neighborhood. Normative organizational commitment mayalso occur in a neighborhood setting if a resident strongly desiresto remain affiliated with the area because of personal, familial,cultural, or organizational socialization similarly experienced inan organization.

Given these analogies, something akin to organizational com-mitment is likely experienced by neighborhood residents to vary-ing degrees, just as it is within organizations. Commonalitiesbetween neighborhoods and work settings that foster strong orga-nizational commitment support this argument. For example, orga-nizations that encourage autonomy and engagement by providingopportunities for employees to use their strengths or special abil-ities are more likely to have organizationally committed employ-ees (Schultz & Schultz, 1998). Similarly, neighborhoods that offeropportunities for residents to become involved and use their skillstoward making their neighborhood better (perhaps through com-munity gardens, markets, or advisory committees) may fosterorganizational commitment toward the neighborhood.

Participation in neighborhood activities is voluntary, but volun-teerism is often found in the workplace as well. Strong organiza-tional commitment experienced by employees has beenunderstood as a measure of psychological ownership for a place(Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003) and can predict pro-social behaviorin work settings, specifically organizational citizenship behaviors(OCBs) (Boiral, 2009; Organ, 1988). Characterized as discretionaryactions that promote effective functioning of an organization, OCBsare not recognized by formal awards (Organ, 1988; Organ,Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). They may include attendance atnon-mandatory meetings, becoming informed about organiza-tional issues, and participating in social activities at the workplace(Bolino et al., 2002). The greater an individuals’ organizationalcommitment at work, the more effort he or she will be willing toinvest (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000; Saal & Knight, 1988).Thus, the positive correlation between organizational commitmentand OCBs may indicate that residents who experience organiza-tional commitment for their neighborhood may also exert moreeffort in performing OCBs in the area, although perhaps these arebetter described as neighborhood commitment behaviors (NCBs)in this context.

Neighborhood greenness as a test variable

Many researchers have examined physical features of urbansettings that might affect resident well-being (e.g., Fried, 1984;Giuliani, 2003; Hur, Nasar, & Chun, 2010; Jirovec, Jirovec, &Bosse, 1985; Kellert, Heerwagen, & Mador, 2008; Kweon, 1999;Lord & Rent, 1987; Mason, 2010; Moser, 2009). In this tradition,

L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29 23

we chose to test the hypothesis that a form of organizationalcommitment and sense of place are experienced similarly inneighborhoods that vary in sustainable or ‘green’ designattributes.

Large-scale organizations, such as Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED), the Green Building CertificationInstitute (GBCI), and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpora-tion (CMHC) use the word ‘‘green’’ to refer to housing, commercialbuildings, and neighborhoods that utilize eco-conscious practicesand emphasize occupant comfort and health. Why might‘‘greenness’’ be associated with experiences of either organiza-tional commitment or sense of place? Green design elements inneighborhoods are known to affect attitudes and behaviors(Beatley, 2008; Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997; Hur et al., 2010;Kweon, 1999). For example, residents’ neighborhood satisfactionincreases with the amount of actual and perceived greenness inthe area (Hur et al., 2010). Parks and open spaces in neighborhoodscan build trust and social capital among neighbors (Mason, 2010).In addition, neighborhood residents have reported stronger placeattachment with access to a garden (Sime & Kimura, 1988), andresidents who live on a quiet street are more likely to feel attachedto their neighborhood than residents living on a busy street (Pinet,1988). These design aspects (e.g., traffic calming and access togreen space) and others are included in the present study’s defini-tion of a green neighborhood and may assist in the likelihood thatthose in our sample will report some degree of neighborhood com-mitment and sense of place.

To summarize, the construct of organizational commitmentdoes not reside in the research fields of either environmental psy-chology or urban planning. However, Manzo and Perkins (2006)point out that an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to studyingneighborhoods is ‘‘critical for successful planning and communitydevelopment efforts since community phenomena happen at allof these levels simultaneously’’ (p. 336).

Our study first focuses on whether the construct of organiza-tional commitment (adapted as neighborhood commitment) andsense of place are perceived similarly on – and across – threeseemingly parallel dimensions by neighborhood residents. Giventhe parallels between their components, we hypothesized thatneighborhood commitment and sense of place would be positivelycorrelated. Second, as further evidence of the relation between thetwo constructs, we hypothesized that both neighborhood commit-ment and sense of place positively associate with the number ofgreen design attributes in several neighborhoods. Through this lineof enquiry, we also intended to offer a better understanding of howpsychological constructs can inform the field of urban planningwith respect to encouraging resident participation and engage-ment in local planning efforts.

Method

Participants

Eighty-four residents (26 males and 58 females, average age of53 years) of three neighborhoods (Neighborhood 1: n = 24;Neighborhood 2: n = 33; Neighborhood 3: n = 27) in a mid-sizedCanadian city were asked to complete a questionnaire about theirneighborhood organizational commitment and sense of place. Par-ticipants were recruited by sending 900 questionnaires, as unad-dressed admail (a mailing format in which a return address isincluded but mail is addressed to a ‘‘resident’’), to various lettercarrier routes within each neighborhood.

The average number of months participants had lived in theirneighborhood was 144.74, or 12 years, (SD = 122.85). Most partic-ipants owned their home (63%). An average of 2 other people

resided in participants’ households (SD = 1.37) and the averageannual income of participants was C$78,500 (SD = $56,782).

One-third of participants reported a bachelor’s degree or a tech-nical/vocational degree as their highest completed level of educa-tion. Eighteen percent had a Master’s degree, 17% had completedsome college, technical/vocational school, or university education,13% had a PhD or professional degree, 12% reported having com-pleted part of a post-bachelor’s degree, and 7% had a secondaryschool diploma (see Table 1 for demographic differences betweenneighborhoods).

Neighborhood detailsAccording to census data, total population estimates for each

neighborhood (within the boundaries defined by our study) werequite different. Five-thousand one-hundred and seventy-sevenpeople resided in Neighborhood 1 at the time of data collection,while 2353 lived in Neighborhood 2, and 744 in Neighborhood 3.While a similar range of housing types (e.g., single-family dwell-ings, townhomes, condominiums, duplexes) existed in the threeneighborhoods, the number of single detached houses, townhous-es, duplex, and apartments in each neighborhood differed. Neigh-borhood 1 (the most green neighborhood) had the most peopleliving in apartments (5290 residents), while Neighborhood 3 (theleast green neighborhood) had the lowest number of apartmentdwellers (110 residents).

Perhaps not surprisingly, Neighborhood 1 had fewer people liv-ing in single-detached homes (445 residents) than Neighborhood 3(1170 residents). These data align with other census informationstating that 30% of all residents in Neighborhood 1 were propertyowners and 70% were renters, whereas 38% of all those living inNeighborhood 2 were owners and 62% were renters. In all ofNeighborhood 3, 92% owned their residence and only 8% rented.

Materials

Adapting organizational commitment to the neighborhood contextWe adapted the Organizational Commitment Scale (Allen &

Meyer, 1990) to assess affective, continuance, and normative orga-nizational commitment in neighborhood residents. In the newNeighborhood Commitment Scale (see Appendix A), the 8-itemAffective Commitment Scale (ACS) assessed residents’ emotionalattachment to, identification with, and involvement in their neigh-borhood. Similarly, the 8-item Continuance Commitment Scale(CCS), and the 8-item Normative Commitment Scale (NCS)assessed residents’ feelings of investment and loyalty toward theirneighborhood, respectively. One item from the original CCS andone item from the original NCS were removed because of a lackof relevance to neighborhood settings.

The word ‘‘organization’’ was replaced with the word ‘‘neigh-borhood’’ in all three scales. For example, the first question of theoriginal ACS asks participants to agree or disagree with the state-ment, ‘‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my life in thisorganization;’’ in the adapted scale, the word ‘‘organization’’ wasreplaced with ‘‘neighborhood.’’ Responses on the revised scaleswere made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree (7), as in the original scales.

Measuring sense of place in neighborhoodsThe questionnaire included a modified version of the 12-item

Sense of Place Scale (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001), which was orig-inally used to measure participants’ thoughts, feelings, and behav-ioral commitments toward their residential lakeshore properties.This scale is composed of 3 sub-scales for each component of senseof place: a Place Identity Scale (PIS), a Place Attachment Scale(PAS), and a Place Dependence Scale (PDS). The items were alteredto include the word ‘‘neighborhood’’ instead of the words

Table 1Demographic differences between neighborhoods.

Demographic variable N1 (n = 24) N2 (n = 33) N3 (n = 27)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Year Born 1956.13 16.35 1961.24 13.64 1959.48 13.84Gender 1.75 (F) 0.44 1.73 (F) 0.45 1.59 (F) 0.50Education 4.29 (BD) 1.37 4.67 (SPB) 1.41 4.67 (SPB) 1.66Months Lived in Neighborhood 162.96 146.05 156.47 110.44 114.22 113.36Residential Arrangement 1.33 (Renter) 0.48 1.94 (Owner) 0.43 1.74 (Owner) 0.53Residential Description 4.92 (Condo) 2.19 2.64 (PH) 1.45 2.59 (PH) 1.22Number of Residents 1.83 1.13 2.67 1.43 2.67 1.39Annual Household Income $46,312 $27,966 $87,045 $46,654 $96,666 $57,428

Note: N = Neighborhood; n = Number of participants who responded per neighborhood; SD = Standard deviation; F = Female; BD = Bachelor’s degree, Vocational/Technicaldegree or diploma); SPB = Some Post-Bachelor’s degree; PH = Part of a house.

24 L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29

‘‘lakeshore property,’’ and were measured on the same 5-point Lik-ert scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’ Forexample, one question asks participants to agree or disagree withthe statement ‘‘My lake property says very little about who Iam.’’ In this study’s revised version, the item states ‘‘My neighbor-hood says very little about who I am.’’

Measuring neighborhood greennessTo objectively measure environmental and social sustainability

in a neighborhood setting, we created the Green NeighborhoodScale (GNS) (see Appendix B). Its 18 attributes reflect characteris-tics of green neighborhoods taken from the United States GreenBuilding Council, CMHC, and Kellert et al. (2008). Points on thescale were awarded for each attribute the trained observersnoticed in each neighborhood. For example, 1 point was awardedif the existence of a community market event was clearly commu-nicated through signs. A neighborhood could score above 18 on thescale if several of one particular attribute was observed.

In many communities, residents have a regular meeting placethat incorporates social interactions such as eating, drinking, andselling goods and services (Bechtel, 1987). Thus, green attributeswere counted inside a radius of a half-mile, or 800 m (approxi-mately 10 min walking distance), from a chosen central meetingplace in each of the three neighborhoods. Each landmark servedas the neighborhood’s behavioral focal point (the behavior settingmost accessible to the largest number of people in a geographicalarea) (Bechtel, 1987).

People often disagree about the boundaries of their neighbor-hood (Guest & Lee, 1984). To avoid responses pertaining to an areaoutside a neighborhood’s boundaries, the questionnaire included astreet map of the appropriate neighborhood illustrating its behav-ioral focal point. Questionnaires also included instructions toanswer by visualizing the neighborhood as ‘‘spanning a 10-minutewalk from the central point indicated by the ‘A’ on the map.’’

Procedure

Initially, six urban neighborhoods were observed by two trainedresearchers to determine the number of green attributes in eacharea. They walked for 10 min in four directions from an obviousbehavioral focal point in each neighborhood and used the GNS toassign points. Observers agreed on the number of attributes in eachneighborhood after discrepant observations were discussed andreconciled in the field. Thus, no inter-rater reliability measureswere necessary because both observers agreed upon each neigh-borhood’s score on the GNS. The two neighborhoods with the high-est and lowest number of GNS points were included in the analyses(referred to as Neighborhoods 1 and 3, respectively; see Figs. 1–3).The neighborhood with the third-highest number of green attri-butes (referred to as Neighborhood 2) was chosen to represent a

middle level of greenness. Neighborhood 1 scored 25 on the GNS,Neighborhood 2 scored 19, and Neighborhood 3 scored 12.

After the neighborhoods were chosen, questionnaires were sentto residents with an implied consent form and a self-addressedpostage-paid envelope to return the completed questionnaire.

Results

Scale reliability

The new Neighborhood Commitment Scale and the Sense ofPlace Scale both had very good internal consistency, a = .84 anda = .87, respectively. The neighborhood commitment sub-scales(ACS, CCS, and NCS) were also reliable (a = .83, a = .85, anda = .76, respectively). The reliabilities of the sense of placesub-scales (PAS, PDS, and PIS) were a = .83, a = .79, and a = .67,respectively (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).

Relations between Neighborhood Commitment and Sense of Place

As predicted, the overall Neighborhood Commitment Scale andthe overall Sense of Place Scale were significantly correlated(r = .61, p < .001). Thirty-seven percent of their variance wasshared. This suggests that residents experience neighborhood com-mitment and sense of place in statistically significant ways, withmoderate substantial overlap.

At the subscale level, place attachment and affective neighbor-hood commitment were positively associated (r = .65, p < .01) andplace dependence was positively associated with continuanceneighborhood commitment (r = .30, p < .01), as expected. However,place identity was not strongly associated with normative neigh-borhood commitment (r = .18, p > .05).

Relations with objective neighborhood greenness

Pearson correlations were also performed to learn whetherneighborhood commitment and sense of place were similarly asso-ciated with an objective physical variable, neighborhood green-ness. As hypothesized, neighborhood commitment significantlyassociated with the number of green neighborhood design attri-butes (r = .25, p < .05). Sense of place was not significantly associ-ated with neighborhood greenness (r = .20, p > .05), but the twocorrelations are quite similar and not statistically different fromeach other (t = 0.53, p > .05).

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to assess the distinc-tiveness of organizational commitment and sense of place as expe-rienced by neighborhood residents. We hypothesized that the two

Fig. 1. Photograph of Behavioral Focal Point in Neighborhood 1.

Fig. 2. Photograph of Behavioral Focal Point in Neighborhood 2.

L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29 25

Fig. 3. Photograph of Behavioral Focal Point in Neighborhood 3.

Table 2Descriptive statistics.

Variable Mean Standarddeviation

Affective CommitmentScale

4.68 1.21

Continuance CommitmentScale

3.61 1.59

Normative CommitmentScale

2.25 1.01

Neighborhood CommitmentScale

3.56 0.88

Sense of Place Scale 3.53 0.71Place Attachment Scale 3.83 0.86Place Identity Scale 3.54 0.77Place Dependence Scale 3.21 0.91Year Born 1959.21 14.50Gender 1.69 (Female) 0.47Education 4.56 (Some Post-Bachelor

degree)1.48

Months Lived inNeighborhood

144.74 122.85

Residential Arrangement 1.70 (Home owner) 0.53Residential Description 3.27 (Part of a house) 1.92Number of Residents 2.43 1.37Annual Household Income $78,500 $50,249

26 L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29

constructs would be positively correlated, given the apparent com-monalities between their components. Overall, residents’ experi-ences of neighborhood commitment and sense of place appear tobe very similar, although not identical. As expected, a significantpositive association was found between them, as well as betweentwo of three pairs of components (place attachment was signifi-cantly associated with affective neighborhood commitment, andplace dependence was significantly correlated with continuanceneighborhood commitment, but place identity and normativeneighborhood commitment were not significantly associated).Reasons why this pair of components did not correlate significantly

may be rooted in the exploratory nature of the study, or a need fora larger sample size. Another possibility is that organizational com-mitment and sense of place correlate best as omnibus constructs,rather than at the level of their components.

Future investigations of subjective and objective measures ofneighborhood commitment are needed to clarify the extent towhich the construct differs from sense of place. Moreover, ques-tions should be asked in future studies about specific attitudesand behaviors that best account for residents’ experiences ofneighborhood commitment. A combination of both qualitativeand quantitative research would also offer information abouttangible implications to urban planners, designers, and policy-makers.

For example, because employees who feel strong levels of orga-nizational commitment engage in more voluntary, pro-socialbehaviors at work (OCBs), the analogous construct of neighbor-hood commitment may well have value in the search forunderstanding pro-social or pro-environmental behavior in com-munities. Similarly, an inverse relationship between organizationalcommitment and turnover intention in the workplace has beenfound (Balfour & Wechsler, 1996; Porter, Steers, Mowday, &Boulian, 1974). Perhaps a comparable association exists betweenresidents’ intentions to remain in a neighborhood toward whichthey feel strongly committed.

Thoughts and attitudes of neighborhood residents about thelocal places they interact with often can impact behavior and,subsequently, affect the likelihood of their participation in localplanning efforts (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Generally, when urbanplanners consider place meanings important to residents, planningand development initiatives are better understood or received bythe public (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). In turn, research on sense ofplace and neighborhood commitment may aid urban planners inpredicting who may become involved in civic efforts, as well aswhy residents comply with, or resist, changes to their community(Manzo & Perkins, 2006).

L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29 27

Additionally, understanding more about the antecedents andoutcomes of neighborhood commitment and sense of place mayhelp planners prioritize ideas and projects to enhance citizenengagement and suggest how resources are allocated. For example,research on urban resilience is becoming more important in plan-ning literature and policy (Desouza & Flanery, 2013; Jabareen,2013; Lu & Stead, 2013; Newman, Beatley, & Boyer, 2009;Stumpp, 2013). Resilient cities have a governance structure inplace to mitigate and adapt to infrastructural, environmental,social, cultural, and economic stressors (Desouza & Flanery,2013). Resilient cities also contain communities offering a highquality of life for residents (Newman et al., 2009). Perhaps studiesabout how and when to measure neighborhood commitment canassist in creating urban resiliency by predicting different behav-ioral outcomes (e.g., neighborhood citizenship behaviors) overand above studies that consider only sense of place.

The second purpose of this study was to use neighborhoodgreenness as an objective test variable for the hypothesis that ifneighborhood commitment and sense of place are similar con-structs, they should relate in the same way to an objective variable.

We predicted residents’ experiences of both neighborhood com-mitment and sense of place would increase as the number of greenneighborhood attributes increased. Both constructs’ correlationswith neighborhood greenness were positive, and quite similar. Thisfinding indicates that the Neighborhood Commitment Scale canoffer useful information when used alone or concurrently withthe Sense of Place Scale.

The construct of neighborhood commitment, as adapted fromorganizational commitment, has not been previously used in com-munity research. The positive association between this constructand neighborhood greenness compels further investigation abouthow this relationship can be clarified and used in urban planning.Resident involvement in neighborhood sustainability action plans,advisory committees, or perhaps more hands-on contributionssuch as a litter pick-up program, or tending to a community gar-den, may be best promoted if the influences of neighborhood com-mitment on resident behavior are better understood. For example,existing research indicating significant relations between the con-struct of sense of place and sustainable neighborhood attributescould be replicated to measure the degree to which neighborhoodcommitment is affected by specific green aspects, such as access togarden space (as per Sime & Kimura, 1988), quiet streets (as perPinet, 1988), or dwelling type (as per Riger & Lavrakas, 1981).

In sum, people form bonds with the meanings they have pro-jected upon places. For an objective feature of a neighborhood toaffect a resident’s neighborhood commitment or sense of place, itought to hold a positive meaning. In particular, place attachmentis not based totally on the physicality of an environment, but alsoon familiar social interactions that occur within it (e.g., Fried, 1963;Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001). Residents with more social ties intheir neighborhood feel more attached to it (Mesch & Manor,1998); this attachment is partially based on routine social neigh-boring behaviors (e.g., smiling, saying hello, Woldoff, 2002). Suchbehavior fits with this study’s definition of green neighborhoodsas amenable and village-like, affording opportunities for residentsto recognize and interact with each other. Thus, continuing toresearch the extent to which neighborhood commitment and senseof place are related to the number of green design attributes in aneighborhood may indicate to researchers and planners howresidents interpret the meaning of social and environmental sus-tainability in their community.

Limitations

One drawback to this study is the low response rate (9%) thatmay suggest the sample was biased toward residents who felt

strongly committed to their neighborhood. The extent of such abias can only be verified by supplementary work. In addition, onlythree neighborhoods were included in the analyses. Future studiesshould investigate associations between neighborhood commit-ment and sense of place with a larger sample in more neighbor-hoods with broader ranges of green attributes (e.g., areaspurposefully designed to be environmentally sustainable versusrural or suburban areas), as well as neighborhoods that presentmore socioeconomic diversity. Similarly, considering how multiplesociocultural groups experience neighborhood commitment andsense of place should be initiated in future research. Nevertheless,our aim was to explore whether the hypothesized relationshipsexisted at all, not to prove they are universal.

Conclusions

This exploratory study represents a departure from the tradi-tional approach of researching organizational commitment in theworkplace by testing whether the construct provides a uniqueand valuable contribution to sense of place literature. Sense ofplace is typically used to gauge residents’ affective, cognitive, andbehavioral experiences at the neighborhood level. Findings showthat considering neighborhood commitment, as adapted fromorganizational commitment, in addition to sense of place, is worth-while. Questions measuring both constructs appear to yield a fulleraccount of how individuals feel about their neighborhoods; theyseem to experience neighborhood commitment and sense of placesimilarly. That the two constructs are not identical suggests thatneighborhood commitment needs to be researched further.Because neighborhood residents’ willingness to participate in com-munity initiatives, as well as work to improve and protect theirneighborhood, are often influenced by their emotional commit-ment to places (Brown et al., 2003), exploring how these two psy-chological constructs enrich understanding of the neighborhoodexperience and predict other outcomes, such as pro-social andpro-environmental behaviors, seems prudent for social scientistsand urban planners.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.008.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1987). An investigation of ‘extra-role’ behaviors withinorganizations. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association,Vancouver, British Columbia, June.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affectivecontinuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum.Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and

outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review,29, 256–277.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents oforganizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95–112.

Beatley, T. (2008). Toward biophilic cities: Strategies for integrating nature intourban design. In S. R. Kellert, J. H. Heerwagen, & M. L. Mador (Eds.), Biophilicdesign (pp. 277–305). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bechtel, R. B. (1987). Ecological psychology. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W.Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research(pp. 191–215). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal ofSociology, 66, 32–42.

Bishop, J., Scott, K., & Burroughs, S. (2000). Support, commitment, and employeeoutcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113–1132.

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizationalcitizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.

28 L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29

Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and thecreation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27,505–522.

Bonnes, M., & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental psychology: A psycho-socialintroduction. London: Sage.

Brown, B. B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizingneighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 23, 259–271.

Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27,89–111.

Casakin, H., & Billig, M. (2009). Effect of settlement size and religiosity on sense ofplace in communal settlements. Environment & Behavior, 41, 821–835.

Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where does community grow?: Thesocial context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment &Behavior, 29, 468–494.

Corcoran, M. P. (2010). ‘God’s Golden Acre for Children’: Pastoralism and sense ofplace in new suburban communities. Urban Studies, 47, 2537–2554.

Cresswell, T. (2009). Place. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 169–177.DeMigilo, I., & Williams, A. (2008). A sense of place, a sense of well-being. In J. Eyles

& A. Williams (Eds.), Sense of place, health and quality of life (pp. 15–30).Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Derr, V. (2002). Children’s sense of place in Northern New Mexico. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 22, 125–137.

Desouza, K. C., & Flanery, T. H. (2013). Designing, planning, and managing resilientcities: A conceptual framework. Cities, 35, 89–99.

Eyles, J. (1985). Sense of place. Warrington, UK: Silverbrook Press.Eyles, J., & Williams, A. (2008). Introduction. In J. Eyles & A. Williams (Eds.), Sense of

place, health and quality of life (Ashgate’s geographies of health series) (pp. 1–13).Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of jobsatisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs,alternatives, and investment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,27, 78–95.

Foote, K. E., & Azaryahu, M. (2009). Sense of place. International Encyclopedia ofHuman Geography, 96–100.

Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition:People and policy in the metropolis (pp. 124–152). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Fried, M. (1984). The structure and significance of community satisfaction.Population & Environment: Behavioral and Social Issues, 7, 61–86.

Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T.Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues(pp. 137–170). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Gold, J. R., & Burgess, J. (Eds.). (1982). Valued environments. London: George Allen &Unwin.

Guest, A. M., & Lee, B. A. (1984). How urbanites define their neighborhoods.Population & Environment: Behavioural & Social Issues, 7, 32–56.

Hammitt, W. E., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Sense of place: A call for construct clarityand management. Paper presented at the sixth international symposium on society& resource management, May 18–23, State College, PA.

Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 18, 5–29.

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empiricalquestions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.

Hunter, L. M. (1998). The association between environmental risk and internalmigration flows. Population and Environment: A Journal of InterdisciplinaryStudies, 19, 247–277.

Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical andperceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30,52–59.

Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for copingwith climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220–229.

Jirovec, R. L., Jirovec, M. M., & Bosse, R. (1985). Residential satisfaction as a functionof micro and macro environmental conditions among urban elderly men.Research on Aging, 7, 601–616.

Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshoreproperty owners’ attitudes toward their properties. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 21, 233–248.

Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictions ofsense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identificationwith lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 316–327.

Kaltenborn, B. P. (1997). Nature of place attachment: A study among recreationhomeowners in Southern Norway. Leisure Sciences, 19, 175–189.

Kaltenborn, B. P., & Williams, D. R. (2002). The meaning of place: Attachments toFemundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. NorwegianJournal of Geography, 56, 189–198.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kellert, R. S., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, L. M. (2008). Biophilic design. New Jersey:Wiley.

Kweon, B. S. (1999). Nature and older adults: Green common spaces, socialintegration, and important aspects of older adults’ well-being in the inner-city.Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(3B), 1012.

Lord, D. J., & Rent, G. S. (1987). Residential satisfaction in scattered-site publichousing projects. The Social Science Journal, 24, 287–302.

Lu, P., & Stead, D. (2013). Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning:A case study of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Cities, 35, 200–212.

Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of placemeaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67–86.

Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Neighborhoods as common ground: Theimportance of place attachment to community participation and development.Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335–350.

Mason, S. G. (2010). Can community design build trust? A comparative study ofdesign factors in Boise, Idaho neighborhoods. Cities, 27, 456–465.

Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and localattachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 227–245.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysisof antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,20–52.

Moser, G. (2009). Quality of life and sustainability: Toward person–environmentcongruity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 351–357.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee–organization linkages:The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: AcademicPress.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement oforganizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2009). Resilient cities: Responding to peak oil andclimate change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D., Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior:Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership:Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7,84–107.

Pinet, C. (1988). A ‘‘sense of belonging’’ in the neighborhood: The effect of traffic onspace appropriation. In Nineteenth annual conference of the Environmental DesignResearch Association, Pomona, California.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians.Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.

Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10,147–169.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physicalworld socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London, UK: Pion.Relph, E. (2008). Sense of place and emerging social and environmental challenges.

In J. Eyles & A. Williams (Eds.), Sense of place, health and quality of life(pp. 31–44). Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Relph, E. (1997). Ten geographical ideas that changed the world. In S. Hansons (Ed.),Sense of place. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and socialinteraction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology,9, 55–66.

Riley, R. B. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In I. Altman & S. M. Low(Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 13–35). New York, NY: Plenum.

Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: Theimpact on job satisfaction, job commitment and turnover of variations inrewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,429–438.

Saal, F. E., & Knight, P. A. (1988). Industrial/organizational psychology: Science andpractice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizingframework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1–10.

Schreyer, R., Jacob, G., & White, R. (1981). Environmental meaning as a determinantof spatial behavior in recreation. Proceedings of the Applied GeographyConference, 4, 294–300.

Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (1998). Psychology and work today. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Seamon, D. (2012). Place, place identity, and phenomenology. In H. Casakin & F.Bernardo (Eds.), The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, anddesign of the built environment (pp. 3–21). London, UK: Bentham.

Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22,347–358.

Sime, J. D., & Kimura, M. (1988). Home gardens: Attachment to the naturalenvironment and the experience of time from a Western and Japaneseperspective. In Nineteenth annual conference of the Environmental DesignResearch Association, Pomona, California.

Stefanovic, I. L. (1998). Phenomenological encounters with place: Cavtat to SquareOne. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 31–44.

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view ofsettings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment(pp. 441–488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stumpp, E. (2013). New in town? On resilience and ‘‘Resilient Cities’’. Cities, 32,164–166.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes andvalues. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3–8.

L.J. McCunn, R. Gifford / Cities 41 (2014) 20–29 29

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: ‘‘some psychophysiologicaleffects’’. Environment & Behavior, 13, 523–556.

Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.Science, 27, 420–421.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape andUrban Planning, 13, 29–44.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991).Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.

White, D. D., Virden, R. J., & van Riper, C. I. (2008). Effects of place identity, placedependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts ina natural setting. Environmental Management, 42, 647–657.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organization: A normative view. Academy ofManagement Review, 7, 418–428.

Williams, A. (1998). Therapeutic landscapes in holistic medicine. Social Science andMedicine, 46, 1193–1203.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyondthe commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment toplace. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29–46.

Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that isfinding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96, 18–23.

Williams, A. (1999). Place identity and therapeutic landscapes: The case of homecare workers in a medically underserviced area. In A. Williams (Ed.), Therapeuticlandscapes: The dynamic between place and wellness (pp. 71–96). Lanham, NewYork, Oxford: University Press of America.

Woldoff, R. A. (2002). The effect of local stressors on neighborhood attachment.Social Forces, 81, 87–116.