Urbanization is a worldwide megatrend that has drastically changed people–environment interactions in the last decades and is expected to remain one of the main drivers of global change in the future. Whereas in 1900 only 15% of world’s population lived in cities, its share reached 50% in 2007 and is predicted to reach between 70% and 80% by 2050 [
1]. The term urbanization means the complex process of extension of urban life styles [
2] that includes the growth of cities or towns (physical urbanization) as well as the intensification of interrelations and diffusion processes between the urban and the surrounding rural areas (functional and social urbanization) [
3]. Urbanization is also expected to result in a change or loss of social pattern language through more restrictive building regulations and thus less options to shape and appropriate the place, as well as a poorer sense of place [
4,
5,
6]. Urbanization is considered to be a very complex phenomenon with strong potential impacts on the physical and social environment [
7].
Already in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, theorists of the Chicago school of urban sociology were concerned with the consequences of increasing urbanization on social processes and people’s place-based behaviour [
8]. Tönnies [
9] hypothesized that urbanization altered the mode of social cohesion: shifting from communal attachment based on natural will to associational attachments based on rational will. Simmel [
10] suggested that urbanization of suburban regions would have negative effects on people’s mental health including a diminished relationship to the local environment and a loss of sense of community. Finally, Wirth [
11] postulated in his theory on urbanism that three structural conditions of urbanization, settlement size, settlement density, and heterogeneity of the population, eroded people’s socio–psychological connection to the residential environment. Other members of the Chicago school, including Park and Burgess [
12], resisted this negative view of urbanization by emphasising the on-going role of socialization processes in creating social networks within local communities, irrespective of the character of the place. Rather than structural aspects of urbanization they accordingly expected that length of residence, position in the social structure, and stage of life cycle mainly shaped people’s relationship with their local community [
13].
In the last decades, and particularly between 1970 and 1990, a number of studies have been conducted to examine the role of urbanization in inhabitants’ relationship with their local environment, but the findings have been inconsistent [
14]. These inconsistencies can be attributed to differences in national contexts [
15,
16], but also to different conceptualizations and measurements of the target variable and the relationship to the local community or the environment [
17,
18]. Whereas some used scales of place attachment [
8,
19,
20,
21], others used the broad Guttman scale of community sentiment, which includes the community’s prospect, community pride or opportunity for membership in community organizations [
22], and some measured sense of community using a one-item assessment [
17]. Only one of these studies [
21] used items explicitly measuring spatial aspects, which is an essential component of the local environment when effects of urbanization are considered. Furthermore, the existing studies investigated study areas with different ranges of urbanization degrees, with some mainly including urban communities (e.g., [
20]), and others mainly concentrating on rural contexts [
8]. Finally, all of these studies used simplified conceptions of urbanization and mainly focused on characteristics of physical urbanization, such as size and density and in few cases also social heterogeneity, with only one that also included functional aspects [
8].
To achieve a more profound and robust understanding of the effects of urbanization on people’s relationship to their local environment, a) all relevant dimensions of this people’s place relationship have to be involved and b) a more comprehensive conceptualization of urbanization needs to be adopted. Place attachment is probably the most widely used and acknowledged concept to describe people’s bond to places [
23,
24,
25,
26]. Recently, Scannell and Gifford [
27] suggested a comprehensive, tripartite framework of behaviour-related aspects of place attachment, including social, spatial, and process aspects, that should embrace the existing breadth of definitions of this construct. A very broad conceptualization of people–place relationships is a strength, as this transactional perspective complies with the very nature of this phenomenon [
28]. However, incorporating all aspects of people–place relationships in one construct inhibits the understanding of the dynamic interactions between these aspects, which constitute the development of place attachment [
29]. The broad conceptualizations in classic scales of place attachment might therefore explain why there is still little knowledge about the dynamic character of place attachment [
30].
In our study, we therefore adopted a two-level approach to measure people’s relationship to their local environment, combining a classical scale of place attachment with scales measuring constitutive aspects of place attachment such as social ties, residential satisfaction, proximity leisure behaviour, and civic participation. With this approach, we aimed to systematically determine the influence of urbanization on inhabitants’ relationships with their residential environment and to reveal the influence of relevant constituting factors of inhabitants’ place relationship. The findings provide insights and directions as to how to enhance inhabitants’ relationships with their local environment under conditions of on-going urbanization.
1.1. Place Attachment And Urbanization Processes
People’s relationship to places have been conceptualised with different constructs, such as sense of place [
31,
32], place identity [
33,
34] or place attachment [
14,
24]. To measure associations between people–place relationships and other societal phenomena such as risk perception [
35], attitudes towards renewable energy projects [
26,
36] or sustainable behaviour [
14,
37], established scales of place attachment are most commonly used. Like other people–place relationship concepts, a common understanding or definition of place attachment is missing [
21]. Originally, Altman and Low [
24] described place attachment as “an integrating concept that emphasises the affective relation to environmental settings”. In recent literature, place attachment is predominantly considered as a multidimensional concept that involves affective and cognitive connections to a place [
27]. Analysis of data from very diverse contexts furthermore provides considerable evidence that place attachment has a two-factor structure including place identity and place dependence [
38].
Whereas Scannell and Gifford suggest a broad framework of place attachment that includes all dimensions of people–place bonds, recent studies, partly from the same authors, recommend differentiating between distinct subtypes of place attachment such as civic and natural place attachment [
37] or traditional and active place attachment [
14]. To understand associations between place attachment and other factors, such as urbanization, in a robust way, measurements of the broader concept and of relevant sub-dimensions are needed because the links between these levels are relevant, as recent studies [
18,
39] have highlighted. Information on one level alone leaves too much unclarity about the interaction process because, as has been stated early in transactional place attachment research, “the same construct may have different manifestations in different times and places” [
28]. This is probably a main reason why the dynamics of place attachment are still little understood [
26].
Indeed, in spite of considerable research efforts, the findings on the interrelation between urbanization and place attachment have remained inconsistent [
14]. Only very few studies have considered the effects of changes in the place on place attachment [
21], and only one study specifically investigated the associations between urbanization-related place changes and place attachment as defined from a transactional perspective. In that study, Wirth et al. [
21] revealed that the place attachment of inhabitants of a suburban settlement was positively associated with perceived spatial changes related to recent settlement growth. This growth mainly referred to physical urbanization of a suburb of Zürich with a rather bad reputation, which explains why the change was mainly considered to be positive.
A number of older studies have found positive associations between urbanization and place bonds, although using simplified measurements of the concept. Theodori and Luloff [
8] revealed, in a study of four, rather rural counties in Pennsylvania, that community attachment was higher in the most urbanised county than in two more rural counties considering urban presence and urban pressure. They explained this inconsistency with Wirth’s theory [
11] that most Americans wish to live in small places that are also within easy reach of a larger city, which was best provided by this most urbanised county. Similarly, a large study conducted in 100 counties of North Carolina [
22] identified service quality (positive) and density (negative), and to a lower degree heterogeneity (negative), as the main predictors of community sentiment, which is an index containing items related to Wirth’s theory such as malaise, anonymity, impotence, and impersonality. This implies that people in small growth centres, which are moderately urbanised, might find “the best of both worlds”. Even more contrary to Wirth’s theory on the negative urbanization effects of urbanity were the findings of two studies that compared the development model, according to Wirth [
11], with an alternative systemic model based on Park and Burgess [
12] and focusing on on-going socialization. An earlier study, conducted throughout England [
20], had found that the length of residence (dichotomous variable “born in the place”), as one indicator of on-going socialization, was the dominant predictor of community attachment as well as of social ties, whereas the influence of settlement size and settlement density appeared to be rather insignificant. This finding was used to criticize the developmental model for its failure to consider that length of residence was related to urbanization. A quasi replication of this study conducted in 25 communities of Iowa [
13] confirmed those findings and additionally revealed that life cycle (>50 years) was a second highly relevant predictor and therefore claimed proof of the systemic model.
There is, however, some empirical evidence supporting Wirth’s theory and the negative effect of urbanization on people’s place bond. Dillman and Treblay [
40] reported higher levels of satisfaction of inhabitants of more rural places summarizing a wide range of empirical research on the relationship between size/density of settlements and generalized feelings of well-being. Similarly, Wasserman [
41], in a nationwide US survey, found that size of place, age, and association membership, but not length of residence, were significantly linked to community satisfaction, with satisfaction referring to social relationships, service qualities, and place qualities. In reconsideration of the findings by Kasarda and Janowitz [
20], Buttel et al. [
42] identified, in a state-wide survey in Wisconsin, size of place (negative) and age (positive) as the strongest predictors of community solidarity (including items on community attachment, place attachment, and social ties) and community satisfaction. Furthermore, a survey study in the suburban metropolitan region of Orange County (California) determined, in three independent regression analyses, city size, city density, and social heterogeneity as significant predictors of community attachment, measured with a single assessment item [
17]. Consistent with these findings, an in-depth qualitative research of two Swiss suburban villages disclosed the alienation process promoted by urbanization [
43]. The higher commuter rate and residential mobility in the more urbanised village eroded residents’ sense of community, whereas the settlement growth affected their individual relationship to the local environment and made them escape in their leisure time to more distant recreation areas. This observation is in agreement with Simmel’s hypothesis that mobility and indirect communication increases psychological distance to physically close places [
44] and findings by Oishi and Kisling [
45] that geographic mobility leads to a greater emphasis on individualistic self-aspects. This suggests that the main research gap is the lack of systematic studies on the relationship between functional as well as social urbanization and place attachment, rather than the still unclear relationship between physical urbanization and place attachment, which probably only plays a secondary role.
In spite of more than 30 years of research on place attachment, the knowledge about other causal influential factors of place attachment is rather limited [
14,
30]. Numerous studies consistently showed that community ties [
18,
20,
46], expressing local social capital, and length of residence [
13,
46,
47] that reflects people’s exposure to local socialization positively influence place attachment. A relevant predictor of place attachment that has also rather consistently been found is people’s membership in associations [
48]. There is also some evidence about physical predictors, especially access to nature and neighbourhood quality [
49], but also perceived control over the residence area, stability of the neighbourhood, and lack of disorder [
50]. Rather little is, however, known about the relative role of the presence of cultural heritage; individual spatial experiences (appropriation) in the place, such as outdoor recreation; involvement in the development of the place; or contributions to the development of the place.
1.2. Urbanization And Civic Participation
Civic participation is a constitutive aspect of inhabitants’ relationship to their local environment (e.g., [
43,
51]), but it has not been considered as an aspect of place attachment, even in very comprehensive frameworks, such as that suggested by Scannell and Gifford [
27]. Moreover, it is still disputed how place attachment is related to civic participation [
14]. Civic participation refers to inhabitants’ social, emotional, and financial participation in civic life and involves activities such as voting, volunteerism, association membership, or political and community activism [
52,
53].
There is a lack of theory on the relationship between social environments and civic participation [
54]. Simmel hypothesized that indirect and mediated communication in more urban settings is associated with decreased motivation for action and concrete practices by inhabitants [
44]. Like other social theorists, he did not clearly refer to civic participation, while theorists of public participation focus on factors related to individuals rather than on social contexts [
54]. According to the modernization theory, a higher political interest and involvement can be expected in urban areas due to higher educational levels and higher exposure to mass media [
16]. However, more than political participation, civic participation depends, according to a model by Verba et al. [
55], not only on interest but also on individual resources and mobilization.
Empirical research on the relationship between urbanization and civic participation is rather inconclusive and predominantly dates back several decades. In some countries, such as the US, national surveys found a higher psychological involvement in politics and a higher voting turnout in urban centres [
56]. Opposite tendencies were, however, observed in other countries, such as Germany, France, Britain, and Japan [
16], suggesting that participation behaviour depends on national and regional settings. Oliver [
54] provided rather comprehensive and robust empirical evidence on the role of urbanization for civic participation using data from a US national survey. He found that, in metropolitan regions, some forms of civic participation, such as attending community board meetings or contacting local officials, systematically decreased with the increase of the municipality’s population size. In contrast, civic participation in rural areas appeared to be generally at a lower level in the smallest settlement size category and showed inconsistent tendencies with the increase of a municipality’s population size depending on the form of participation. A negative relationship between urbanization and civic participation was confirmed by an analysis of the European Social Survey that included data from 19 European countries [
57]. In this analysis, suburbs, and in particular large cities, appeared to be negative, and country villages, and in particular countryside, to be positive predictors of civic participation, which was measured by the degree of involvement in 12 types of voluntary associations. Similarly, Stadelmann-Steffen and Freitag [
58] found, based on the Swiss Volunteering Survey, that living in an urban community, as well as living in an urban canton, was a relevant negative predictor for individual voluntary work. Against these findings, a study by Hooghe and Botterman [
59], based on a national survey in Belgium, could not determine a significant relationship between population density or community size and scope or intensity of participation in voluntary organizations. Overall, the evidence for a negative relationship between urbanization and civic participation seems to be stronger than the few contradicting findings that used less comprehensive measures of the two variables and focused on more specific contexts.
Comprehensive considerations that include further potential causal influential factors are more insightful than statistical associations between urbanization and civic participation. Richardson [
16] provides such a comprehensive analysis of factors influencing civic participation by analysing data from Japanese studies and demonstrating that the markedly higher civic participation in rural Japan had a plurality of reasons. These include the clear rural community structure that facilitates mobilization; higher density of social interaction that enables social action; stronger interest in tangible implications of electoral outcomes (rather than in abstract politics); closer contact to decision makers; lower social mobility that is associated with higher salience of community loyalty; less pronounced pessimism about political processes that are disseminated by media; and stronger norms favouring active participation. Other studies that have considered the relationship between urbanization and civic participation have only included socio demographic data and consistently highlighted the positive influence of the education level and age [
54,
57,
58,
59]. Further relevant individual predictors appeared to be home ownership [
54], fulltime employment (negative), and length of residence [
58]. The European Social Survey data that Wallace and Pichler [
57] used for their study confirmed the role of the national or cultural context in the level of civic participation They found substantial differences between countries with high civic participation, such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, and Denmark, and countries with low civic participation such as Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, and Greece, which Lewicka [
18] interpreted as a consequence of the value orientation (tradition vs. post-materialism) in these countries.
The role of place attachment in civic engagement is more frequently hypothesized but highly debated. A number of studies have determined a positive relationship between place attachment and inhabitants’ reactions to encroachments on their environment [
47,
60,
61]. A small study in an American county found a significant association between place attachment and involvement in community problem solving [
52]. The European Social Survey [
57] also disclosed a significant relationship between satisfaction with quality of life, which is considered a good indicator for place attachment, and participation in voluntary associations. Lewicka [
18], however, in a large survey study in Polish and Ukrainian cities, found that inhabitants’ neighbourhood ties, rather than their (overall) place attachment, influenced their civic involvement. In a more recent study focused on the psychological influential factors of civic participation, Lewicka [
18] revealed that people’s local civic activity in Poland could be mainly predicted by their cultural capital, whereas people’s place attachment was only relevant if they had strong neighbourhood ties or strong interest in their roots. A qualitative study in Switzerland [
43] confirmed this finding by showing that people were only motivated to participate in the development of their municipality if they identified themselves, not only collectively (as part of the village community), but also individually with the place. A meta-analysis of the relationship between sense of community as an “extra-individual connectedness observed in collective lives” and community participation [
62] found significant associations between these constructs for both civic and political forms. However, it also revealed that this association only holds true for samples of adult persons and only in some national contexts, such as the US where individualism might be more advanced.
1.3. Research Objectives
In spite of considerable research efforts made in the last decades, the interlinkages between urbanization and inhabitants’ relationships with their local environment have remained rather unclear [
30]. This is mainly because of the complexity of these two phenomena, but also due to the simplified conceptualizations and measurements that were investigated in most studies. Settlement size is an inappropriate indicator of urbanization, and place attachment is too broad a concept for exploring the social dynamics that urbanization might trigger. A further problem has been the contextual differences, especially on national [
57] and regional [
58] levels that are blurred by cross-regional studies. In our study, we aim to overcome the shortcomings in the research design of previous studies to gain a clearer understanding of the changes in inhabitants’ relationships with their local environment caused by urbanization.
To address this aim, we conceptualise urbanization in the sense of functional rather than physical urbanization and measure place attachment on two levels using a conventional, broad construct and several relevant one-dimensional sub-constructs of place attachment. We therefore adopt a two-level approach to measure people’s relationship with their local environment, combining a classical scale of place attachment with scales measuring constitutive aspects of place attachment such as social ties, residential satisfaction, proximity leisure behaviour, and civic participation. With this approach, we systematically determine the influence of urbanization on inhabitants’ relationship to their residential environment to reveal the relevant constituting factors that influence inhabitants’ place relationship.
Furthermore, we conduct our study in one transect of a metropolitan area rather than in different contexts and measure a maximum of additional social parameters that might explain the dynamics of place attachment related to urbanization. With this approach, we can learn how urbanization changes inhabitants’ relationships with their local environment; how it affects their civic engagement in their local environment, which can be seen as part or as a consequence of people’s place relationship; and determine which other factors predict these forms of relationship. The findings provide insights and directions to enhance inhabitants’ relationship to their local environment under conditions of on-going urbanization and thus provide potentials tools for planners to enhance them.