PLACE ATTACHMENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

1. PLACE ATTACHMENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Anna Maria D’Amico and Maria Vittoria Giuliani ISTC-CNR – Roma, Italy IAPS 18 – Vienna, July 2004

2. PLACE ATTACHMENT • is defined as “the bonding of people to places” (Low & Altman, 1992) • refers to “that sector of human experience represented by affect – feelings, moods, emotions, etc. – which people experience in various ways, forms, degrees, with varying awareness, with reference to the places in which they are born, live and act. Also, in relation to the other persons who live and operate in the same places” (Giuliani, 2003).

3. Open questions Place attachment is: • Dynamic and flexible or Unique and irreplaceable? • Multidimensional or Unidimensional? • etc. etc…..

4. Objective: To analyse the development over time of bonds with places, in order to: • explore to what extent the experience of a new place can promote the establishment of new attachment ties; • investigate the possible changes in the affective relationships with the home town during the same period; • explore to what extent the bonds with the home town can influence the establishment of new place relationships; • examine whether new and old bonds have a similar structure.

5. Research design The research is based on a cross sectional design involving a homogeneous sample with respect to the stage of life, socio-economic level, and the circumstances accompanying relocation Method Sample 140 university students (stratified by sex and year of course) attending different faculties, living in the university residences of Rome

6. Tool A five-section questionnaire, developed from a pilot study and, partially, from Mc Andrew (1998). The questionnaire is focused on the following topics: • Socio-demographic data, general data on family, home town and relocation to Rome • Assessment of the university residence • Relationships with the home town • Relationships with Rome • Future expectations/preferences and tendency to explore new places

7. Analyses • Factor analysis (items about Rome) • Factor analysis (items about home town) • ANOVA by • Gender • Length of residence (from 1st to 7th year of course) • Previous relationships with Rome (friends, relatives, etc.) • Experience with other places (school attendance in home town vs. other locations) • Romantic relationships (in Rome vs. home town) • Regression analysis (relationships of home town ties to attachment to Rome)

8. RESULTS 1: Bonds with Rome Factor Analysis (5-factor solution- Varimax rotation) FACTOR I (Exp. Var.: 21,28%): “Affective bond” (When I am away, I miss Rome; I love living in Rome, etc.) FACTOR II (Exp. Var.: 6,73%): “Lack of knowledge/use” (I am not able to sketch a map to show a tourist how to travel throughout Rome; When I go around in Rome, sometimes I get lost, etc.) FACTOR III (Exp. Var.: 5,65%): “Solitude&Disenchantement” (It is easy to feel alone in Rome; Rome was worst then I expected, etc.) FACTOR IV (Exp. Var.: 5,41%): “Lack of adaptation” (I cannot get used with Roman food; Since I moved to Rome I needsleeping more”) FACTOR V (Exp. Var.: 4,41%): “Social identification” (I like hearing people speaking with a Roman accent; I have chosen Rome because its university is really prestigious, etc.)

9. RESULTS 2: Bonds with Rome • Length of residence • Affective bond: newcomers < older residents (p<.001) • Lack of knowledge/use: newcomers > older residents (p<.001) • Social identification: newcomers < older residents (p<.05) • Previous relationships with Rome (friends, relatives) • Lack of Adaptation: previous relationship < no relationship (p<.05) • Experience with other places • Affective bond: school attendance in home town > school attendance in other locations (p<.05) • Social identification: school attendance in home town > school attendance in other locations (p<.05) • Romantic relationships • Lack of knowledge/use: relationship in Rome < relationship in home town (p<.001)

10. RESULTS 3: Bonds with home town Factor Analysis (4-factor solution – Oblimin rotation) FACTOR I (Exp. Var.: 24,99%): “Rootedness” * (All of my best friends live at my home town; When I am at my home town, I never feel alone; I never desired to leave my home town; I still but my stuff there, etc.) FACTOR II (Exp. Var.: 8,85%): “Ambivalence” (In my home town there is no pollution; My home town does not offer any opportunity to make me realize my goals; etc.) FACTOR III (Exp. Var.: 7,57%): “Emotional bond”*(I would like to show my home town to my new friends; All the times I see the landscape of my home town I feel a strong emotion, etc.) FACTOR IV (Exp. Var.: 5,89%): “Refusal” *(I don’t know very well the customs and the history of my home town; I am not very proud of the home town I am from, etc.)

11. RESULTS 4: Bonds with home town • Gender • Ambivalence: F > M (p<.01) • Refusal: M > F (p<.01) • Length of residence • Rootedness: newcomers > older residents (p<.001) • Experience with other places • Ambivalence: school attendance in home town < school attendance in other locations (p<.001) • Emotional bond: school attendance in home town > school attendance in other locations (p<.05) • Romantic relationships • Rootedness: relationship in home town > relationship in Rome (p<.001) • Ambivalence: relationship in Rome > relationship in home town (p<.05)

12. RESULTS 5: Predictors of attachment to Rome • Multiple linear regressions • Predictors: Length of residence and the 4 Factor scores on “Bond with home place” • Criterion (dimensions of attachment to Rome): • Affective bond (R2=.198, F(5,134)=6.63, p<.001) • Solitude&Disenchantement (n.s.) • Lack of adaptation (R2=.149, F(5,134)=4.71, p<.001) • Social identification (n.s.) • Length of residence is positively related to affective bond (p<.002) and negatively related to lack of adaptation to the new place (p<.02); • Rootedness in the home town is negatively correlated to attachment to Rome (p<.02); • Both emotional bond with home town (p<.001) and ambivalence (p<.02) are positively correlated to lack of adaptation to Rome.

13. CONCLUSIONS • Weak generalisability of results (difference between home town and Rome; phase of life of participants); • New and old attachments have different components; • Length of residence is one of the most important variable for the establishment of new ties with a place; • Affective and social ties with the new place are slower to be established than acquisition of knowledge, and are not correlated; • Staying away from the home place reduces rootedness, but it has no impact on emotional bonds; • As far as one is rooted in one place new affective ties are difficult to be stablished. • A negative attitude toward the home place has no impact on the establishment of new attachments.

14. REFERENCES • Altman, I. & Low, S. M. (Eds.) (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press. • Giuliani, M.V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M., (eds), Psychological theories for environmental issues, (pp. 137-170). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. • Giuliani, M.V., Ferrara, F., & Barabotti, S. (2003). One attachment or more? In G. Moser, E., Pol, Y., Bernard, M., Bonnes, J., Corraliza, V., Giuliani, (eds), People, Places, and sustainability: 21st Century Metropolis,(pp. 11-122). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. • Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 33, 667-686. • Hormuth, S.E. (1990). The ecology of self: relocation and self-concept change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Mc Andrew, F.T. (1998). The measurement of 'rootedness' and prediction of attachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 409-417.