Redefining community based on place attachment in a

connected world
Georgina G. Gurneya,1, Jessica Blythea,b, Helen Adamsc, W. Neil Adgerd, Matthew Curnocke,f, Lucy Faulknerd,
Thomas Jamesd, and Nadine A. Marshallf
a
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia; bWorldFish, Honiara,
Solomon Islands; cDepartment of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom; dGeography, College of Life and Environmental
Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom; eGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia; and
f
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Land and Water, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia

Edited by Anthony J. Bebbington, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved August 10, 2017 (received for review July 11, 2017)

The concept of community is often used in environmental policy to context of environmental policy and management, community
foster environmental stewardship and public participation, crucial tends to be defined by residential location or resource use (5, 6).
prerequisites of effective management. However, prevailing concep- However, prevailing approaches to conceptualizing community in
tualizations of community based on residential location or resource environmental policy and management are problematic (5), espe-
use are limited with respect to their utility as surrogates for commu- cially given current global change, particularly increasing social and
nities of shared environment-related interests, and because of environmental connectedness. A well-recognized critique of con-
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

the localist perspective they entail. Thus, addressing contemporary ventional location and use framings of community is that they are
sustainability challenges, which tend to involve transnational social not effective surrogates for communities of shared environment-
and environmental interactions, urgently requires additional ap- related interests, and are thus rarely the cohesive entity often as-
proaches to conceptualizing community that are compatible with sumed in environmental policy (6). Studies show that even when

SUSTAINABILITY
current globalization. We propose a framing for redefining commu- people have a shared use or history in relation to a resource, their

SCIENCE
nity based on place attachment (i.e., the bonds people form with interests and preferences in regard to that resource are often het-
places) in the context of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, a World erogeneous (7, 8). This heterogeneity will only increase as con-
Heritage Area threatened by drivers requiring management and temporary social and cultural change ensures that the boundaries
political action at scales beyond the local. Using data on place that historically tied people to a single location or occupation are
attachment from 5,403 respondents residing locally, nationally, waning (9, 10). Poor understanding of people’s values regarding
and internationally, we identified four communities that each natural resources and misconceiving a collection of individuals as a
shared a type of attachment to the reef and that spanned conven- homogeneous entity with shared environment-related interests have
tional location and use communities. We suggest that as human– been shown to significantly hinder the success of community-
environment interactions change with increasing mobility (both oriented public participation and management (11, 12).
corporeal and that mediated by communication and information Community-oriented public participation is further limited by the
technology), new types of people–place relations that transcend localist perspective taken to community in environmental policy and
geographic and social boundaries and do not require ongoing di- management (6), which neglects the social and environmental con-
rect experience to form are emerging. We propose that adopting nections with distant places that are characteristic of many modern
a place attachment framing to community provides a means to
capture the neglected nonmaterial bonds people form with the
Significance
environment, and could be leveraged to foster transnational en-
vironmental stewardship, critical to advancing global sustainability
in our increasingly connected world. Effective environmental policy requires public participation in
management, typically achieved through engaging community
|
community telecoupling | place identity | public participation | defined by residential location or resource use. However, current
social and environmental change, particularly increasing con-
stewardship
nectedness, demands new approaches to community. We draw
on place attachment theory to redefine community in the context
T he notion of community is often invoked in environmental
policy and management to foster environmental stewardship
and public participation in management. Public participation [i.e.,
of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Using a large dataset on place
attachment, our analysis of local, national, and international
stakeholders identified four communities differing in their at-
the processes of consulting, involving, and informing the public to tachment to the reef and spanning location and use communi-
allow those affected by a decision to have input into that decision ties. Our results suggest that place attachment can bridge
(1)] is widely advocated as critical for achieving social and envi- geographic and social boundaries, and communities of attach-
ronmental gains. It is increasingly embedded in environmental pol- ment could thus be leveraged to foster transnational steward-
icy, although it is important to note that the actual power afforded to ship, which is crucial to addressing modern sustainability
the public through such processes can vary (2). Current emphasis on challenges in our globalized world.
public participation arose primarily because of the widespread fail-
ure of entirely top-down exclusionary approaches to management, Author contributions: G.G.G., J.B., H.A., W.N.A., M.C., L.F., T.J., and N.A.M. designed re-
search; G.G.G., M.C., and N.A.M. performed research; G.G.G. analyzed data; and G.G.G.,
subsequent recognition of the need to gain public support for
J.B., H.A., W.N.A., T.J., and N.A.M. wrote the paper.
management, and, more importantly, the ethical imperative, at the
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
very least, to “do no harm” to citizens (3). Community is the unit of
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
social organization most often engaged with to promote public
Data deposition: The data reported in this paper are available at the Social and Economic
participation and stewardship, in part, because it tends to be thought Long Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP) for the Great Barrier Reef, seltmp.eatlas.org.
of as existing among individuals who “share common interests and au/seltmp/survey-data.
common identification” (ref. 4, p. 38). This property is particularly 1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
attractive to policy makers, not least because it can facilitate col- This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
lective action in relation to management and stewardship. In the 1073/pnas.1712125114/-/DCSupplemental.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712125114 PNAS | September 19, 2017 | vol. 114 | no. 38 | 10077–10082

 sustainability problems (13). Emerging literature on place attach- attachment is an important element of human well-being (19),
ment suggests that increasing mobility (both corporeal and that individuals’ bonds with a place shape their evaluations of change to
mediated via information and communication technology) allows that place (20), influencing how they are affected by environmental
people to form bonds to places other than those in close proximity management and how they engage with it. Indeed, studies have
(10), suggesting that nonlocal people can be affected by change (e.g., demonstrated the link between place attachment and pro-
degradation) of distant places. Further, a localist perspective of environmental attitudes and behavior (e.g., ref. 21), and suggest
community precludes public participation and stewardship of non- that shared person–place bonds may foster collective action
local people, the engagement of whom is particularly important, (e.g., ref. 22). Thus, understanding place attachment provides
given that many drivers of current environmental change originate an important means by which policymakers and managers can
and require management and political action at scales beyond the identify and engage stakeholders in public participation.
local (14). For example, addressing climate change, a key driver of The vast majority of literature on place attachment has focused
environmental change globally, requires reduction of greenhouse gas only on local stakeholders [i.e., relations with proximate areas
emissions, which people across the world can contribute to by par- (23)]; thus, place relations can be associated with forms of paro-
ticipating in climate policy lobbying and reducing their household chialism and are often assumed to be negatively associated with
consumption, for example. Thus, people living far from a particular mobility (10). The few studies (24, 25) examining cross-scale place
place can increasingly affect and be affected by management and attachment have tended to examine individuals’ attachment to
policy influencing that place, yet the localist perspective taken to places of increasing scale; for example, Gustafson (25) compared
community ensures that community-oriented public participation Swedish individuals’ attachment to their residential area, region,
excludes these nonlocal stakeholders. Addressing contemporary Sweden, and Europe. Studies have also compared place attach-
sustainability challenges urgently requires new approaches to de- ment to a particular place between permanent residents and
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

fining community that are not only consonant with our increasingly nonpermanent residents (e.g., ref. 26) or tourists (e.g., ref. 27) and
connected world but also remain place-based. between distant and proximate visitors (e.g., ref. 28). However, our
Here, we draw on place attachment theory to propose a framing study explicitly examines attachment to a particular place among
for redefining community in environmental policy and management people living locally, nationally, and internationally to that place. A
that puts people’s shared emotional and functional attachments to a further research gap we fill is quantitatively identifying different
natural resource at its core. We use cluster analysis to examine if types of attachment (10). Although a number of studies have
place attachment can serve as a common ground for local, national, identified types of attachment qualitatively [e.g., Hummon’s (29)
and international stakeholders, and therefore as a basis for com- five types of sense of place], existing quantitative analyses tend to
munities spanning spatial boundaries, a framing of community in compare attachment dimensions between groups identified a priori
line with Webber’s seminal proposition of “communities without (e.g., refs. 24, 26, 28) or to segregate respondents post hoc based
propinquity” (15). We do not propose that conventional use and on the magnitude of a single composite attachment measure (e.g.,
location framings of community are redundant, rather that multiple ref. 27). These types of analyses do not assess whether individuals
forms of community are constituted across different people and can be grouped based on similar levels of different dimensions of
nature relations and can play complementary roles in environ- attachment, and therefore do not allow identification of types of
mental policy. Although the literature on community in environ- attachment. Quantitatively identifying types of attachment (rather
mental management has long emphasized the fallacy of assuming than magnitude of attachment only) requires multivariate classifi-
that use and location communities share environment-related in- cation analyses that segment data into homogeneous groups (e.g.,
terests, little attention has been given to how the notion of com- cluster analysis); such analyses have had limited application in the
munity can evolve to meet the challenges of modern sustainability place attachment literature (but ref. 30, which was in relation to
problems, particularly the transnational social and environmental local residents only). Therefore, our study extends existing research
connections they entail. Thus, finding solutions to modern sustain- on cross-scale place attachment (e.g., refs. 24–28) by examining
ability problems requires examination of new framings of commu- whether types of attachment (i.e., emergent attachment commu-
nity and how they relate to conventional use and location framings. nities) can be identified among individuals residing locally, na-
To this end, we investigate multiple framings of community in tionally, and internationally to a particular place.
relation to the iconic Great Barrier Reef (GBR), a World Heri- We classified our respondents using cluster analysis based on
tage Area in Australia, which is critically threatened by drivers place identity and place dependence in regard to the GBR, which
requiring civic, management, and political action at scales ranging we operationalized with 10-point Likert scale statements. We dis-
from local to global. Indeed, recent climate change-induced coral tinguish two subdimensions of place dependence, namely, direct
bleaching in the GBR, which is an unprecedented event (16), and indirect dependence. This distinction reflects Rivlin’s pro-
highlights the pressing need for engaging nonlocal stakeholders in posed dichotomy of place meanings based on the nature of peo-
public participation and transnational stewardship. Using data on ple’s place experience (31). She suggests that place meanings can
place attachment from 5,403 respondents surveyed adjacent to the arise either through ongoing direct experience and “personal life
GBR but residing locally, nationally, and internationally, we (i) history” in an area or through indirect experience (e.g., exposure
identify whether respondents form homogeneous emergent com- via media) and the “qualities of the place.” Capturing these two
munities based on multiple dimensions of place attachment and forms of place dependence, thus recognizing that people may in-
(ii) examine how resulting attachment communities relate to the strumentally value a place irrespective of their level of direct ex-
communities of use and communities of location typically used in perience with it, is increasingly relevant in our highly mobile world
environmental policy and management. and is of particular relevance to our study, given the iconic status of
the GBR. Further, these two forms of place dependence allowed
Place Attachment us to include functional attachment associated with fulfillment of
Place attachment describes the bonds people form with places both activity-specific goals (i.e., direct dependence measure) and
and the meanings they ascribe to them (17). It is often concep- more general well-being goals (i.e., indirect place dependence).
tualized as having two dimensions (e.g., ref. 18), comprising
emotional (place identity) and functional (place dependence) Results
attachments. Place identity captures how places offer individuals Our cluster analysis based on 5,403 respondents’ reported levels of
the opportunity to express and affirm their identity, while place place identity and place dependence (direct and indirect) revealed
dependence refers to attachment to a place because of its in- four distinct clusters (Fig. 1A). Each cluster represents a group of
strumental value in achieving a desired goal. Given that place stakeholders who share similar levels of place identity, direct and

10078 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712125114 Gurney et al.

 A 2000 national and/or international communities (Table S2). These
results indicate that perceptions of place do not differ between
communities of location within the GBR region but that the
prevalence of each community of place attachment differs be-
Height

1000
tween communities residing locally and those located further
afield. As expected, a lower proportion of stakeholders residing
outside the GBR region are located in the Reef Connected
0 community than in the Reef Disconnected community. Never-
theless, almost 30% of international stakeholders and more than
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
B 10 DPD 47% of national stakeholders (residing far from the GBR) are in
5 the Armchair Enthusiast community, which is characterized by
0
the second highest level of place identity and indirect place de-
pendence of all four place attachment communities.
IPD Armchair PI Reef Reef Reef
enthusiast connected user disconnected Discussion
Prevailing conceptualizations of community in environmental policy
Fig. 1. Results from cluster analysis showing classification of respondents and management, based on residential location or resource use, are
(n = 5,403) based on three dimensions of place attachment. (A) Dendrogram
limited with respect to their utility as surrogates for communities of
reveals respondents form four distinct clusters, representing four emergent
communities based on place attachment. Height refers to dissimilarity based
shared environment-related interests and, in particular, the localist
on Euclidean distance. (B) Spider diagrams show mean level of indirect place perspective of community they entail. Given current social and
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

dependence (IPD), direct place dependence (PD), and place identity (PI) per environmental change, particularly increasing connectedness, new
cluster. Cluster names are based on type of place attachment as indicated by approaches to community are critically needed to address con-
the level of each attachment dimension. High values on spider diagram axes temporary sustainability challenges. We examined an alternative

SUSTAINABILITY
represent high levels of the relevant place attachment indicator. framing for community based on place attachment in the context of

SCIENCE
the highly threatened GBR. We identified four emergent com-
munities that differed in the strength and nature of their attach-
indirect place dependence, and therefore type of attachment to the ment to the GBR and that spanned conventional communities of
GBR. The four clusters indicate four emergent communities based location and use. In this section, we discuss the four emergent at-
on place attachment, which we named based on their type of place tachment communities, the processes underpinning the formation
attachment as indicated by the level of each of the attachment di- of each type of attachment, and how this study contributes to ad-
mensions (Fig. 1B). Cluster 1 (n = 2,314) is composed of individuals vancing theory on place attachment. We then outline how this
who have low direct place dependence, but the GBR is important for approach contributes to conceptualizations of community in envi-
their identity and they value the way of life it supports. In other ronmental policy and provide explicit recommendations for how a
words, stakeholders in cluster 1 value the GBR from a distance; thus, place attachment framing to community may be used to strengthen
we named this cluster the Armchair Enthusiast community. The public participation and stewardship.
second cluster (n = 839) is characterized by high values on all three Grouping of respondents in communities of place attachment
dimensions of place attachment, and we therefore named it the Reef reveals that people’s bonds to the GBR manifest in four distinct
Connected community. Cluster 3 (n = 1,096), the Reef User com- types. Further, the distribution of communities of use and loca-
munity, is characterized by high levels of direct and indirect place tion between attachment communities suggests that multiple
dependence but low place identity. Place identity and indirect and processes underpin the formation of those bonds. The Reef
direct place dependence are lowest for the fourth cluster (n = 1,154), Connected community, which has the highest levels of attach-
which we labeled the Reef Disconnected community. ment, contains the most commercial fishers and tourism opera-
Members of each key community of use currently engaged by tors and the least tourists of all attachment communities. This
GBR managers (i.e., commercial fishers, residents, tourists, finding lends support to traditional perspectives on place at-
tourism operators, indigenous residents) are present in all four tachment, which argue that attachment forms through ongoing
emergent communities of place attachment (Fig. 2). However, direct (i.e., firsthand) experiential and interactive processes that
the distribution of stakeholders between attachment communi- may involve physical and social dimensions (e.g., refs. 32, 33).
ties differed significantly between all communities of use [χ2 (12, These processes reflect those that underpin the rationale of use
n = 5,403) = 567, P = 2.2e-16], except commercial fishers and and location framings of community, namely, that commonalities
tourism operators (Table S1). Together, these results indicate in how individuals use a resource leads to shared environment-
that communities of use are heterogeneous in terms of attach- related interests and values. Such perspectives on the formation
ment to the GBR but that some communities of attachment are of person–place bonds are further supported by the composition
more prevalent in some communities of use than others. For of the least attached community, the Reef Disconnected
example, although commercial fishers and tourists are present in
each of the attachment communities, the Reef Connected and
Reef User communities account for most of the fishers inter-
Residents Indigenous residents Tour operators Commercial fishers Tourists
viewed (36% and 31%, respectively), while the majority of 50
interviewed tourists are in the Armchair Enthusiast and Reef
% of use community

Disconnected communities (40% and 31%, respectively).

Members of each of the 14 communities of location that we 25
examined (i.e., one international, one national, and 12 coastal
regions adjacent to the GBR) are present in each emergent
community of place attachment (Fig. 3). However, the distribu- 0
tion of stakeholders between clusters differed significantly by Armchair Reef Reef Reef
enthusiast connected user disconnected
community of location [χ2 (39, n = 5,403) = 625, P = 2.2e-16],
with pairwise comparisons revealing significant differences be- Fig. 2. Distribution of communities of use between emergent communities
tween almost all pairs of location communities that include of place attachment identified in the cluster analysis.

Gurney et al. PNAS | September 19, 2017 | vol. 114 | no. 38 | 10079
 International National Local being “meaningful as expressions of a person’s individual trajectory
% of location community

50
and identity” (ref. 10, p. 39).
Our results challenge prevailing approaches to framing community
25
in environmental policy and management, and suggest that catego-
rization of stakeholders needs to go beyond location and use to also
consider the nature of individuals’ attachment to place. Our findings,
0 specifically that communities framed by location or use were highly
Armchair Reef Reef Reef heterogeneous in terms of individuals’ bonds to the GBR and that
enthusiast connected user disconnected
nonlocal stakeholders can form emotional and instrumental bonds
Fig. 3. Distribution of pooled location communities between emergent with the GBR, support the localist critique of conventional concep-
communities of place attachment identified in the cluster analysis. Given tualizations of community, as well as the concern that these fram-
that the distribution of stakeholders between clusters does not significantly ings of community are ill-suited as proxies for groups with shared
differ among the 12 local communities of location (Table S2), data were environment-related interests. Nevertheless, we are not advocating
pooled to ease interpretation. that use and location framings of community be abandoned. Indeed,
these types of community are integral to on-ground management of
proximate drivers (e.g., fishing, tourism, pollution) and will continue
community, which contains the fewest local respondents and the to be important entry points for public participation also because they
most individuals residing overseas. are easily identifiable and often form political units. Rather, we
However, contrary to traditional perspectives on place attach- suggest, together with current community scholars (5), that the
ment, our results also suggest that ongoing direct experience does multiple forms of community that are constituted across the varying
not always lead to emotional bonds with place nor is it a pre-
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

ways in which people and nature relate are relevant to environmental

requisite for the formation of such bonds. For example, more than policy. More specifically, we posit that managers and policymakers
30% of commercial fishers in our sample were in the Reef User may simultaneously draw on use, location, and attachment framings
community, which was characterized by low place identity despite of community, and that the role of each framing will depend on the
high levels of direct and indirect place dependence. Further, our purpose and nature of the public participation initiative.
findings point to additional processes underpinning person–place The concept of communities of place attachment outlined here
bonds that, rather than being driven by direct ongoing experience, contributes to advancing theory on community in environmental
are facilitated by mobility (including corporeal and that mediated policy, and may aid policymakers and managers in public partici-
by information and communication technology). The attachment pation and fostering environmental stewardship in three ways. First,
community that is characterized by the second highest levels of directly ascertaining and accounting for communities of attachment
place identity and indirect place dependence, the Armchair En- may help managers understand and respond to the intangible, but
thusiasts, contains the most tourists and national residents, as well supremely important, emotional, cognitive, and instrumental bonds
as almost 30% of international residents interviewed. This profile people have with place. A more nuanced understanding of the
suggests that people can form emotional bonds with the GBR and importance of place may aid in predicting how people will react and
assign instrumental value to it in terms of general well-being goals be impacted by policy change (20), understanding why people
without ongoing firsthand experience and fulfillment of activity- participate or not in management (22), building trust with stake-
specific functional goals (which was captured by our direct holders, and communicating effectively (38). This would contribute
dependence indicator). to overcoming the critique that communities of use or location are
Our study therefore makes two important contributions to ill-suited to serve as surrogates for groups with shared environment-
advancing the literature on place attachment. First, our study related interests. In terms of communicating with relevant com-
breaks new ground by examining attachment to a particular place munities in the GBR region, for example, accounting for people’s
among people residing locally, nationally, and internationally. bonds with the GBR could take the form of tailoring communica-
Our results inform recurrent debates as to whether place at- tion material to each of the four attachment communities. Tailoring
tachment implies parochialism (10), showing, instead, that it can communication material to the interests and values of specific au-
provide a means to transcend geographic and social boundaries. dience segments increases the likelihood that the material will be
Second, our inductive approach (based on cluster analysis), read, understood, and recalled, and thus be effective in influencing
which has had little application in the place literature (but ref. attitudes and behavior (39). Although the benefits of targeting
30), revealed several types of attachment facilitated by mobility communication via audience segmentation are well recognized (40)
processes (e.g., Armchair Enthusiasts). and have long been used in business advertising and social mar-
The multiple types of place attachment revealed by our anal- keting (particularly in the health sector), such approaches have yet
ysis suggest that the nature of place attachment has evolved, to be widely applied in environmental management (41).
whereby people without ongoing direct experience can form A second approach to using communities of place attachment in
bonds with a place. Indeed, it is increasingly recognized that public participation involves policymakers and managers pur-
place attachment may form due to cultural and symbolic posefully fostering attachment communities rather than just ac-
meanings that are not based only on experiential meanings but counting for them. As suggested by Wynveen et al. (38), to
also wider sociocultural institutions and identities (34). The generate broad civic support for management, managers can take
GBR is often described as possessing unique “Australianness” an active role in contributing to conversations that help shape the
(35) and plays an important role in the individual identity of thoughts and feelings that give rise to place attachment. Given that
Australians despite their limited direct experience of it (36). The the communities of attachment we identified transcend use and
GBR is also of international significance and may resonate with location communities, individuals’ bonds with the GBR could
other identities (e.g., tropical person, environmentalist) that are provide a common ground with which to unite individuals who
not related to the GBR as a specific place, but rather as a type of have previously been treated separately by GBR managers. This
place. This form of generalized attachment to place type is sug- could be particularly important in regard to communities that have
gested to be on the rise as society becomes increasingly mobile and a history of conflict, for example, commercial fishers and tourism
connected across spatial scales (9, 34) and the factors influencing operators (e.g., ref. 42). Indeed, a number of studies advocate the
identity shift from “roots” in place to “routes” of expression (37). utility of highlighting and fostering shared place attachment (9), as
In other words, conceptualization of attachment has evolved from well as other subjective connections with nature, such as environ-
the emphasis on a single long-term place of residence to places mental values (e.g., ref. 12), for conflict resolution.

10080 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712125114 Gurney et al.

 Lastly, fostering transnational communities of attachment could people’s values in managing the GBR. A particularly important
provide a means to engage and facilitate stewardship among consideration in extending the notion of community is the nor-
nonlocal individuals who are strongly attached to the GBR (i.e., mative question of the appropriate balance between local and
those belonging to the Reef Connected and Armchair Enthusiast nonlocal stakeholders’ values, attachments, and power in de-
communities). These communities of attachment would reflect cision making. While this is beyond the scope of our paper, it
“imagined communities” (43) and, more particularly, “imagined represents an important area of future research.
cosmopolitan communities of global risk,” Beck’s (44) develop-
ment of Anderson’s seminal proposition that extends the concept Conclusion
from nations to transnational social constellations that form This research advances and integrates concepts of both place
through shared awareness of global risk and responsibility. These attachment and community public participation in environmen-
communities are imagined in the sense that members “will never tal policy, with important implications for environmental manage-
know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of ment policy and practice. We examined how types of attachment to
them, yet in the minds of each, lives in the image of their com- a particular place vary among people residing locally, nationally,
munion” (ref. 43, p. 6). Sociocultural and political symbols play an and internationally, thus informing recurrent debates regarding how
important role in the construction of imagined communities and, place attachment is affected by mobility and whether it implies
consequently, these forms of community are reliant on “worldwide parochialism. Our key findings, that ongoing direct experiential
communications and mobility processes” (ref. 44, p. 1353). processes do not always lead to the formation of emotional bonds
Transnational imagined communities in relation to the GBR are and that such bonds can form without ongoing firsthand experience,
already emerging online, in the form of Twitter communities (45) challenge traditional perspectives on place attachment that em-
and various online advocacy groups, such as “Fight for the Reef” phasize the central role of direct experience with a place. Our re-
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

(fightforthereef.org/), which presently has over 250,000 members. sults suggest that as human–environment interactions change with
In particular, the soon-to-be launched “Citizens of the GBR” ini- increasing mobility and globalization, new types of people–place
tiative (https://www.fightforourreef.org.au), self-described as a relations that span geographic and social boundaries are emerging.
“global social purpose movement founded to empower individuals

SUSTAINABILITY
While conventional framings of community according to use and
from every place. . .to collectively. . .protect and enjoy our greatest

SCIENCE
location provide important entry points for public participation, we
natural inheritance, the GBR,” embodies the concept of trans- suggest that using a communities of attachment approach has the
national imagined communities of attachment to the GBR. Thus, potential to strengthen public participation and promotion of stew-
GBR managers have an opportunity to foster transnational com- ardship. A place attachment framing of community provides a means
munities of attachment via social media and other forms of internet through which to understand the critical and largely neglected non-
communication by using imagery and discourse targeted to appeal material bonds people form with places and offers a common ground
to people’s shared bonds to the GBR, particularly emotional bonds to unite members of traditionally separate communities of use and
related to identity. Such an approach is likely to be particularly location, including, importantly, nonlocal stakeholders. Thus, a
successful, given the major damage sustained to the GBR by recent communities of attachment approach could contribute to overcoming
coral bleaching (16); threats to identity are often an important the localist critique of prevailing conceptualizations of community in
catalyst for individuals to collectively organize and engage in actions environmental policy, enabling policymakers and managers to better
to protect their shared identity (46). address many key drivers of current environmental change that re-
There are multiple existing pathways through which nonlocal quire management, civic, and political action at scales beyond the
stakeholders belonging to transnational imagined communities of local. In conclusion, using a place attachment framing to community
GBR attachment could be engaged in stewardship in relation to in environmental policy and management offers opportunities to le-
the GBR. In an era of globalization, proximate environmental verage local to global stewardship, which is critical to advancing
drivers (e.g., fishing) are increasingly influenced by processes that global sustainability in our increasingly connected world.
operate beyond the local (e.g., international market demand), thus
providing opportunities for nonlocal stakeholders to contribute to Methods
stewardship of distant places. These opportunities include the The Great Barrier Reef. The GBR is the world’s largest coral reef system, spanning
following: (i) sustainable individual consumption (e.g., reducing 2,300 km along the east coast of Queensland, Australia. However, this World
individual carbon emissions, buying sustainably sourced fish); (ii) Heritage Area is under threat from a myriad of drivers, including climate
lobbying national governments (e.g., in regard to climate change change, poor water quality, and fishing (16). In 2015, the GBR’s management
policy), international organizations (e.g., World Heritage Com- body [the GBR Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)] released a 35-year manage-
mittee), or transnational corporations [e.g., in regard to corporate ment plan that highlighted the importance of understanding stakeholders’
social responsibility (6)]; and (iii) supporting relevant non- values for the GBR and a strong reliance on stakeholder stewardship and
management support. The GBRMPA tends to engage civil society via commu-
government organizations that operate at local to global scales to,
nities of location (e.g., local marine advisory committees, which are associated
for example, monitor implementation and compliance with envi-
with 12 coastal regions) and communities of use (key groups include com-
ronmental commitments (14). However, engaging nonlocal stake- mercial fishers, tourism operators, and coastal residents). Although the value of
holders in public participation in relation to the GBR will require a the GBR to national and international residents is certainly recognized by the
transformation in governance. Indeed, it is increasingly recognized GBRMPA, these nonlocal stakeholders tend not be the target of public
that addressing contemporary sustainability challenges requires participation activities.
establishing multilevel global institutions (e.g., ref. 47) that enable
transnational public participation (e.g., ref. 48). Sampling. We collected data on place attachment in regard to the GBR through
Redefining types of community relevant to a resource and semistructured surveys with 5,403 individuals. Our respondents could be des-
enabling transnational public participation have important ignated as belonging to one of five key communities of use that the GBRMPA
consequences for power dynamics in environmental decision identifies and engages with, including the following: coastal residents of the
GBR region (n = 2,693), indigenous coastal residents (n = 99), tourists (domestic
making. Indeed, given the “all-affected principle” of deliberative
and international who reside outside the GBR region) to the GBR marine park
democracy, that “all those people who are affected by a partic-
(n = 2,305), GBR tourism operators (n = 113), and fishers with a commercial
ular law, policy or decision ought to have a voice in making it” license to operate in the GBR (n = 193). Further details are provided in SI
(ref. 49, p. 16), naming types of affected communities, in itself, Sampling. This sampling protocol was reviewed and approved by the Com-
represents an exercise in framing power (50). The very act of monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Social Sci-
designating the GBR as a World Heritage Area is an example of ence Human Research Ethics Committee. All respondents gave informed
framing power that makes claims to the importance of nonlocal consent to participate in the voluntary survey.

Gurney et al. PNAS | September 19, 2017 | vol. 114 | no. 38 | 10081
 Place Attachment Indicators. We operationalized place attachment to the GBR Data Analyses. To identify emergent communities based on multiple di-
with three indicators relating to the two key dimensions of place attachment that mensions of place attachment, we conducted an agglomerative cluster
are commonly identified, namely, place identity and place dependence (e.g., ref. analysis based on our respondents’ reported levels of place identity: direct
18). Our three indicators of place attachment were represented by 10-point and indirect place dependence (SI Data Analysis). We used χ2 analyses to
Likert scale statements. Place identity was represented by the following state- compare communities of use, location, and place attachment. All analyses
ment: “The GBR is part of my identity.” Place dependence was operationalized were conducted in R (version 3.1.3).
using two statements to capture both indirect and direct types of dependence;
these were: “I value the GBR because it supports a desirable and active way of
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank colleagues from the GBRMPA, University
life” (indirect) and “There are many other places that are better than the GBR of Exeter, and CSIRO for input during the Interdisciplinary Science of Envi-
for the recreational activities I enjoy” (direct). Direct place dependence was ronmental Change workshop; and J. Cinner, J. Álvarez Romero, and our
tailored to capture the specific activity through which each community of use reviewers for helpful comments that improved the manuscript. This study
directly engaged with the GBR. Thus, “recreational activities” was replaced by was supported by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Re-
“commercial fishing” and “tourism operations” for commercial fishers and search Program, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral
tourism operators, respectively. The indicator was reverse-coded. Further details Reef Studies, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; University of Exeter;
are provided in SI Place Attachment Indicators. and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Agency.

1. Smith LG (1983) Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management (Long- 32. Sampson RJ (1988) Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a
man, Harlow, UK). multilevel systemic model. Am Sociol Rev 53:766–779.
2. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 35:216–224. 33. Tönnies F (1957) Community and Society (Michigan State Univ Press, East Lansing, MI).
3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2008) Protected Areas in 34. Lin C, Lockwood M (2014) Assessing sense of place in natural settings: A mixed-
Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet (Secretariat method approach. J Environ Plann Manage 57:1441–1464.
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal). 35. Phillips T, Smith P (2000) What is ‘Australian’? Knowledge and attitudes among a
4. Ascher W (1995) Communities and Sustainable Forestry in Developing Countries (In-
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS on February 29, 2024 from IP address 143.106.200.110.

gallery of contemporary Australians. Aust J Polit Sci 35:203–224.

stitute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco). 36. Goldberg J, et al. (2016) Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of
5. Harrington C, Curtis A, Black R (2008) Locating communities in natural resource man- Australians. Palgrave Communications 2:1–8.
agement. J Environ Policy Plann 10:199–215. 37. Gustafson P (2001) Roots and routes exploring the relationship between place at-
6. Ojha HR, et al. (2016) Delocalizing communities: Changing forms of community en- tachment and mobility. Environ Behav 33:667–686.
gagement in natural resources governance. World Dev 87:274–290. 38. Wynveen CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG (2013) Environmental worldview, place attachment, and
7. Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of com- awareness of environmental impacts in a marine environment. Environ Behav 46:993–1017.
munity in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27:629–649. 39. Kolter P, Marvier M (2011) Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for the Good
8. Waylen KA, Fischer A, McGowan PJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2013) Deconstructing com- (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).
munity for conservation: Why simple assumptions are not sufficient. Hum Ecol 40. Grier S, Bryant CA (2005) Social marketing in public health. Annu Rev Public Health
Interdiscip J 41:575–585. 26:319–339.
9. Chapin FS, Knapp CN (2015) Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating 41. Novacek MJ (2008) Colloquium paper: Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proc
potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environ Sci Policy 53:38–46. Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11571–11578.
10. Gustafson P (2014) Place attachment in an age of mobility. Place Attachment: 42. Lédée EJ, Sutton SG, Tobin RC, De Freitas DM (2012) Responses and adaptation
Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, eds Manzo LC, Devine-Wright P strategies of commercial and charter fishers to zoning changes in the Great Barrier
(Routledge, London), pp 37–48. Reef Marine Park. Mar Policy 36:226–234.
11. Gurney GG, Pressey R, Cinner J, Pollnac R, Campbell S (2015) Integrated conservation 43. Anderson B (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
and development: Evaluating a community-based marine protected area for equality Nationalism (Verso, London, UK).
of socioeconomic impacts. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 370:20140277. 44. Beck U (2011) Cosmopolitanism as imagined communities of global risk. Am Behav Sci
12. Colvin RM, Witt GB, Lacey J (2015) Strange bedfellows or an aligning of values? Ex- 55:1346–1361.
ploration of stakeholder values in an alliance of concerned citizens against coal seam 45. Jung K, No W, Kim J (2014) Who leads nonprofit advocacy through social media?
gas mining. Land Use Policy 42:392–399.
Some evidence from the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Twitter networks.
13. Liu J, et al. (2013) Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 18:26.
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 13:69–81.
14. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour
46. Polletta F, Jasper JM (2001) Collective identity and social movements. Annu Rev Sociol
31:297–325.
27:283–305.
15. Webber M (1963) Order in diversity: Community without propinquity. Cities and
47. Walker B, et al. (2009) Environment. Looming global-scale failures and missing in-
Space, ed Wirigo L (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore).
stitutions. Science 325:1345–1346.
16. Hughes TP, et al. (2017) Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals.
48. Biermann F, et al. (2012) Science and government. Navigating the anthropocene:
Nature 543:373–377.
Improving Earth system governance. Science 335:1306–1307.
17. Altman I, Low SM (1992) Place Attachment (Plenum, New York).
49. Whelan FG (1983) Democratic theory and the boundary problem. Liberal Democracy,
18. Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2002) The measurement of place attachment: Validity and
eds Pennrock JR, Chapman JW (New York Univ Press, New York), pp 13–48.
generalizability of a psychometric approach. For Sci 49:830–840.
50. Morrison TH, et al. (June 28, 2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems:
19. DeMiglio L, Williams A (2008) A sense of place, a sense of well-being. Sense of Place,
Sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. WIRES Climate Change, 10.1002/
Health and Quality of Life, eds Eyles J, Williams A (Ashgate, Aldershot, UK), pp 15–30.
wcc.479.
20. Devine‐Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place
51. Kyle G, Graefe A, Manning R, Bacon J (2004) Effects of place attachment on users’
identity in explaining place‐protective action. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 19:426–441.
perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. J Environ
21. Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place predicting behavior from
place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ Behav 34:561–581. Psychol 24:213–225.
22. Manzo LC, Perkins DD (2006) Finding common ground: The importance of place at- 52. Loo R (2002) A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. J Manag
tachment to community participation and planning. J Plann Lit 20:335–350. Psychol 17:68–75.
23. Lewicka M (2011) Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? 53. Hinojosa L, Lambin EF, Mzoughi N, Napoléone C (2016) Place attachment as a factor
J Environ Psychol 31:207–230. of mountain farming permanence: A survey in the French Southern Alps. Ecol Econ
24. Devine-Wright P, Price J, Leviston Z (2015) My country or my planet? Exploring the 130:308–315.
influence of multiple place attachments and ideological beliefs upon climate change 54. Brown BB, Perkins DD, Brown G (2004) Incivilities, place attachment and crime: Block
attitudes and opinions. Glob Environ Change 30:68–79. and individual effects. J Environ Psychol 24:359–371.
25. Gustafson P (2009) More cosmopolitan, no less local: The orientations of international 55. Buta N, Holland SM, Kaplanidou K (2014) Local communities and protected areas: The
travellers. Eur Soc 11:25–47. mediating role of place attachment for pro-environmental civic engagement. Journal
26. Stedman RC (2006) Understanding place attachment among second home owners. of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 5:1–10.
Am Behav Sci 50:187–205. 56. Hernández B, Hidalgo MC, Ruiz C (2014) Theoretical and methodological aspects of
27. Kaltenborn BP, Williams DR (2002) The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka research on place attachment. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and
National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Nor Geogr Tidsskr 56:189–198. Applications, eds Manzo LC, Devine-Wright P (Routledge, London), pp 37–48.
28. Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV (2015) Experiential benefits, place meanings, and envi- 57. Dallago L, et al. (2009) Adolescent place attachment, social capital, and perceived
ronmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a national safety: A comparison of 13 countries. Am J Community Psychol 44:148–160.
scenic trail. Environ Manage 55:1109–1123. 58. Everitt B, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D (2011) Cluster Analysis (Wiley, West Sussex, UK).
29. Hummon D (1992) Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. Place 59. Cuddy AJ, et al. (2009) Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal
Attachment, eds Altman I, Low SM (Plenum, New York). similarities and some differences. Br J Soc Psychol 48:1–33.
30. Lewicka M (2011) On the varieties of people’s relationships with places: Hummon’s 60. Fiske ST, Dupree C (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to mo-
typology revisited. Environ Behav 43:676–709. tivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13593–13597.
31. Rivlin LG (1982) Group membership and place meanings in an urban neighborhood. 61. Müllner D (2013) fastcluster: Fast hierarchical, agglomerative clustering routines for R
J Soc Issues 38:75–93. and python. J Stat Softw 53:1–18.

10082 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712125114 Gurney et al.