Place Attachment and Place-Protective Behaviour in Renkum, the Netherlands

Bond suggests action

Place Attachment and Place-protective Behaviour in Renkum, the Netherlands

Adriaan Prins 860929.671.030 Wageningen University Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group Supervisor: dr. M. de Groot December, 2012

Preface

This thesis is the concluding piece of my master study ‘Forest and Nature Conservation’at Wageningen University. In this thesis, I want to put my specialisation ‘Policy and Society’ in the spotlights. I found a case in the municipality of Renkum, where people became active in favour of their environment. I wanted to know more about the reasons why they became active, and started to do my research in that area.

I want to thank the people whose help was indispensable in conducting my research. First, I want to thank dr. Mirjam de Groot, whose patience and corrections sent me in the right direction, forward. I want to thank the members of Foundation A50dB for the interviews I could take. They provided me lots of important information. Of course, I want to thank all the people who took the time to complete the survey. Finally, I want to thank the chair group ‘Forest and Nature Conservation Policy’ of Wageningen University, who made this research possible.

Abstract

Title: Bond suggest action Place Attachment and Place-protective Behaviour in Renkum, the Netherlands

Author: Adriaan Prins BSc Institute: Wageningen University

Keywords: Natural Place Attachment, Place Identity, Place Satisfaction, Affective Connection, Place-protective Behaviour, Foundation A50dB, Policy, Rijkswaterstaat

Summary: The problem that is investigated in this research is the relation between the bond that people have with their environment and their willingness to become active in favour of their environment. This is done by means of a case study, the broadening of the highway A50 in the eastern part of the Netherlands, a highway that crosses a nature area. Citizens organised themselves in a foundation to get involved in the planning process. The foundation negotiated with the ministry of spatial planning and environment, commissioned a research by Wageningen UR, organised a conference and arranged the information supply towards the citizens.

Based on theories on place attachment, a tool is developed to predict place- protective behaviour as a result of place attachment. In this research, both qualitative (interviews with members of the foundation) and quantitative (survey among citizens that live nearby the highway) research methods are used.

The analysis of the survey data showed that respondents have a strong bond with their environment. This bond can be described as an emotional bond with the natural (physical) environment and is therefore called affective natural place attachment. This turned out to be a predictor for place-protective activities that can be undertaken when the opportunity arises. Activities that are intensive cannot be predicted by affective natural place attachment. The degree of opposition to the proposed plans, the announced landscape change, predicts both types of activities. In contrast to this, respondents’ rating of the environment before the broadening and their demographic characteristics are no predictors of place-protective behaviour.

III

List of tables and figures

Tables Table 1 Categorization Interviews ...... 15 Table 2 Characteristics of respondents ...... 18 Table 3 Levene's test for equality of means in Heelsum and Wolfheze ...... 20 Table 4 Comparison of the villages Heelsum and Wolfheze ...... 20 Table 5 Rule of thumb Cronbach's α (George & Wallery, 2003) ...... 21 Table 6 Factor analysis question 1 to 12 (Place Attachment), Eigenvalue > 1 ...... 29 Table 7 Factor analysis question 1 to 12 (Place Attachment), fixed number of factors: 2 ...... 30 Table 8 Mean and standard deviation of affective natural place attachment ...... 30 Table 9 Factor analysis question 14 to 27 (Activity), Eigenvalue > 1 ...... 32 Table 10 Factor analysis question 14 to 27 (Activity), Eigenvalue > 0,95 (fixed: 2) ...... 32 Table 11 Mean and standard deviation of Intensive Activities (I_Act) Occasional Activities (O_Act) .. 33 Table 12 Regressions on affective natural place attachment and place-protective behaviour ...... 34 Table 13 Correlation between affective natural place attachment (NPA_Affect), citizen’s rating and opposition ...... 34 Table 14 Multiple regressions on predictors of place-protective behaviour ...... 35 Table 15 Correlations between demographic characteristics ...... 35 Table 16 F-tests of demographic predictors of place attachment and place-protective behaviour .... 36 Table 17 Differences between Heelsum and Wolfheze ...... 36

Figures Figure 1 Research area: the highway A50 along Heelsum and Wolfheze (Rijkswaterstaat, 2010) ...... 2 Figure 2 Sequential Mixed Method Design (from: Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003: 688) ...... 5 Figure 3 Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behaviour ...... 9 Figure 4 Public Support Matrix (Buijs, 2009) ...... 10 Figure 5 Predicting Environmental Behaviour ...... 12 Figure 6 Boxplot ‘Age’ ...... 19 Figure 7 Boxplot ‘Length of Residence’ ...... 19 Figure 8 Scree Plot questions 1 to 12 (Place Attachment) ...... 28 Figure 9 Scree Plot questions 14 to 27 (Activity) ...... 31

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 1 1.2 Research Objective and Research Questions...... 3 1.3 Scientific Relevance ...... 4 2. Theoretical Framework: Place and Participation ...... 6 2.1 The concept of Place ...... 6 2.2 Bond with a Place ...... 6 2.2.1 Sense of Place ...... 7 2.2.2 Place Attachment: Civic and Natural ...... 7 2.2.3 Place Identity: Affective Connection ...... 8 2.2.4 Place Satisfaction ...... 10 2.2.5 Landscape Change ...... 10 2.2.6 Environmental Quality ...... 11 2.2.7 Summary ...... 12 2.3 Conclusion and Hypothesis ...... 12 3. Methodology ...... 14 3.1 Interviews ...... 14 3.2 Survey ...... 16 3.3 Secondary sources ...... 17 3.4 Analysis ...... 18 3.4.1 Sample ...... 18 3.4.2 Statistics ...... 20 4. Results ...... 23 4.1 Case Reconstruction ...... 23 4.1.1 Broadening of the A50 ...... 23 4.1.2 Impact on questionnaire ...... 27 4.2 Survey ...... 27 4.2.1 Place Attachment ...... 28 4.2.2 Place-protective behaviour ...... 31 4.2.3 Affective Natural Place Attachment and Activity ...... 34 4.2.4 Additional tests ...... 35 5. Discussion ...... 37 5.1 Research Questions ...... 37 5.2 Reflection on results ...... 38 5.3 Research Method and Technique ...... 40 5.4 Further Research ...... 42 6. Conclusion ...... 44 References ...... 45 Appendices ...... 50 Appendix 1a: Interview guide ...... 50 Appendix 1b: Timeline ...... 52 Appendix 2: Questionnaire ...... 53 Appendix 3: Factor Analysis ...... 56 Appendix 4: T-tests ...... 61

1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the cause and the goal of this research. It starts with a problem statement (section 1.1), in which the case that is subject of this study is problematised. Section 1.2 continues with the objective and questions of this research. The chapter ends with a description in which way this research contributes to science.

1.1 Problem Statement

In the Dutch Nature Policy Plan ‘Nature for people, people for nature’, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fishery (2000, translation AJP) emphasizes the involvement of citizens with nature (policy):

‘The responsibility for a greener and more beautiful Netherlands is a shared responsibility of governments, organizations and individuals.’ (p. 1) ‘Encouraging citizen’s involvement in local nature policy.’ (p. 3) ‘Municipalities and provinces have the best view of local needs and are therefore the most able to organize involvement of citizens in nature policy.’ (p. 42)

A government that is willing to stimulate citizen’s involvement needs to give space to citizens to participate actively. This is only possible under conditions of self-governance of citizens (Klundert, 2004). That means that governments are subject to political changes, reflected by the concept of governance, which is a combination of four trends: globalisation, privatisation, decentralisation and participation (Arts & Visseren-Hamakers, 2012). This study focuses on the case of the redesign of the highway A50. Citizens organised themselves in a foundation, and wanted a voice in the plans that were made. That is were this study is about: the participation of citizens. Arnstein (1967) constructed a ladder of participation, consisting of eight rungs: from manipulation (stair 1, low degree of participation) to citizen control (stair 8, high degree of participation). Citizen’s involvement does not necessarily mean a substantively consensus, but an active role of the participants in the policy process. That means that the decision making power must be distributed to the citizens, or even more, that the citizens are in control of the policy: self- governance (Klundert, 2004). This description comes close to stair 7 (delegated power) and stair 8 (citizen control) on the ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1967).

The highway A50 is situated in the eastern part of the Netherlands and runs from north to south. It crosses a natural area, the Veluwe. The part where this study is about (route node Grijsoord – node Valburg, Gelderland) runs along some villages in the municipality Renkum (Figure 1): Heelsum (3800 inhabitants) and Wolfheze (1600 inhabitants).

Figure 1 Research area: the highway A50 along Heelsum and Wolfheze (Rijkswaterstaat, 2010)

In October 2005, the ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) decided to broaden the highway (Algemeen Dagblad, 2005). In March 2006, a local department of GroenLinks (political left wing party) from Renkum organised a meeting for citizens and after that, the inhabitants organized themselves in a foundation: A50dB (A50 sustainable better). This foundation did not want to block the broadening of the highway. Instead, they wanted to make the highway fit in the environment (Stichting A50dB, 2008). To reach this goal, the foundation commissioned (students of) Wageningen UR to write a report on the situation, which resulted in a more expensive, alternative idea by Kooij et al. (2008). In this plan, the highway was largely embedded in the environment. The study argued that the moment of redesigning the A50 was an exquisite moment to “leave the sectorial approach from the infrastructure to an integral approach, in which the traffic flow improvement goes hand in hand with the improvement of the living environment” (Kooij et al., 2008:V, translation AJP). The alternative idea, however, did not become reality. This frustrated the foundation, as they articulated after the decision of the State Council: “It is painful to note after four

2 years working on better solutions for the integration of the A50, that even the State Council declared everything unfounded on some minimum grounds of appeal after all” (Stichting A50dB, 2010, translation AJP).

At the beginning, the citizens had an open, positive attitude to the plan of broadening the highway. It seems that the government aims at this kind of participation: the citizens wanted to take responsibility for their environment. Looking at the classification of Arnstein (1967), it might be that de villagers wanted to become partners of the government (rung 6 on ‘his’ ladder of citizen participation). That means that power is distributed between citizens and power holders and therefore, the citizens need well-organised representatives of the village (Arnstein, 1967). In the case of the A50, the citizens were organised: there was a foundation, a research was carried out by professional organisations (e.g. Wageningen UR) and they were assisted by several lawyers. So, the citizens were prepared to become partners. On the one hand, this is what the government wants. On the other hand, it appears that the use of this local innovative power to improve governmental policy lags behind (Buizer, 2008). To improve the use of local initiatives, it is important to know why citizens want to become partners. One reason can be found in the bond that people have with their environment, to what extent they attach to a place.

This research zooms in on this bond and investigate citizen’s place attachment and its relation to the the willingness to participate. The case of the A50 shows a large involvement of people with their environment. They are willing to undertake action to influence and have a say in the planning decisions that are taken on their living environment. In the case of the A50, the foundation showed a positive attitude at the beginning. Later on, they became frustrated. A lack of public support for the proposed plan on the one hand and attachment to the living environment on the other hand existed side by side.

1.2 Research Objective and Research Questions

This research tries to get a clear view on the relation between citizen’s place attachment and citizen’s willingness to become active in a decision making process on local landscape planning, to protect their own environment. The objective of this research is to determine the predictive power of citizen’s place attachment towards active involvement by making a quantitative analysis of characteristics of place attachment and actions that people say they have undertaken, in order to

3 get a clear view on the reasons why people become active in favour of their environment. This can help governments in involving citizens in planning processes.

To reach this objective, a number of questions need to be answered. These questions are the guide for the research.

1. What is the nature of attachment that the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze have with their environment? 2. What kind of actions did the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze undertake to become involved in the policy process? 3. What is the relation between place attachment and actions that citizens have undertaken?

1.3 Scientific Relevance

This research builds upon the work of other authors who tried to find a relationship between place attachment and citizen involvement. Some authors say that there is a clear relation under certain conditions (e.g. Scanell and Gifford, 2010), others say that there is no or hardly any relation (e.g. Uzzell et al., 2002). Many of these studies are based on hypothetical cases. People are asked how they would behave with respect to the environment. That is valuable information, for example for constructing models on this issue. In contrast to that, this is an ex post study. Based on knowledge of the past, it investigates how people say they did behave. So, this study provides additional information on the relation between place attachment and self-reported behaviour and may contribute to the on-going research on this relation.

This study uses triangulation of methods, which means in this case, that two methods are used to answer the research questions. The core of the research is a quantitative analysis of data received from questionnaires. Qualitative data gained from interviews are used to design the questionnaire in order to make it fit to the situation of the case and to provide an answer to the research questions.

Figure 2 Sequential Mixed Method Design (from: Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003: 688)

Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003) call this a Sequential Mixed Method Design (Figure 2). The second, quantitative phase of the research, emerges from the first, qualitative part of the research, but is about the same set of research questions. The analysis of the data finally leads to one conclusion.

The use of both methods provides more information on the case than the use of one method. The qualitive information adds the dynamics of the planning process to the static statistical data of the survey. Each type of data can be in used to verify the results from the other type of data, and reinforce or criticise each others outcomes. The credibility of the research enhances by using this mixed method, because it reduces methodological restrictions. It improves consistency and makes generisability of quantitative research outcomes more reliable (Hussein, 2009).

2. Theoretical Framework: Place and Participation

In this chapter the theoretical framework is built on which the research is conducted. Section 2.1 provides an introduction on the concept of Place. Section 2.2 contains a theoretical exploration on and application of the relation between place attachment and citizen’s participation . Section 2.3 is the conclusion of this chapter, and draws the theoretical borders of this research.

2.1 The concept of Place

In many studies a distinction is made between two types of landscape perception or experience: landscape as space and landscape as place. In the ‘space mode’, landscape perception focuses on the use of the landscape. The biological needs of people are central in this view. In the ‘place mode’, landscape is perceived in terms of self-reflection and social integration. Experiences, meanings and values are included in this view (Hunziker et al., 2007). This means that place is not only a background to everyday life. It becomes part of the identity of an individual, and can also influence the relation of an individual with the environment (Devine-Wright and Clayton, 2010). So, the place can be important in itself for individuals (Korpela, 1989). This research is not about the use of a landscape, but about how people relate to the landscape. Therefore, ‘place’ is the central concept. Different concepts are used in this study. A distinction can be made between place and environment, in line with Devine-Wright and Clayton (2010). Place refers to a specific location, e.g. the residence of an individual, is unique and meaningful to individuals. Place can be described or defined very precise. The (natural) environment is a broader concept, refers to terms like ‘nature’ and ‘life’ and it is hardly possible to describe its physical borders. Landscape can be on both sides of the scale ‘specific-general’. It can be used as an element of place, but also as a term where environment refers to.

2.2 Bond with a Place

In this research, the general question is if there is a relation between the bond that people have with their environment and their willingness to act in favour of that environment. This section gives meaning to these concepts. According to different authors, the relation exists: “Expressions of involvement can be motivated by the strong bond or emotional involvement that people feel with nature or a certain area” (Turnhout and Elands, 2009:10, translation AJP).

2.2.1 Sense of Place A theory that applies on the relation between people and a landscape/place is needed. A general concept which describes this relation is Sense of Place. Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) divide this broad concept in three more specific concepts: place attachment, place identity and place dependence. They define these three concepts as follows (with a certain degree of overlap): - Place attachment refers to a positive bond that people have with a certain area. The content of this bond is emotional, and occurs between individuals or groups/communities and their environment. - With place identity those dimensions of an individual are meant, that describe one’s identity in relation to the natural or physical environment. This is a complex construct of ideas, values, feelings and symbolic meanings. - Place dependence is about the fulfillment of people’s desires by a place, amongst a range of alternatives. The bond with the place depends on a comparison of alternative places and can be determined by behavioural goals of the individual. Satisfaction with the place is relative, which means that it is related to the extent to which people can reach their individual goals in other places (Walker and Ryan, 2008).

However, the dimensions of Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) may show different behaviours as a result: people with a high place identity might be opposed to changes in the natural environment, while people with a high place dependence may welcome certain changes (development) in the same region. Both groups of people are attached to the same environment (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). Other authors use place attachment as an umbrella term for place identity and place dependence.

The construction of the theoretical framework starts with the three elements of Jorgensen and Stedman and eliminates the concepts that apply on the case of the broadening of the A50.

2.2.2 Place Attachment: Civic and Natural Scannell and Gifford (2010:289) describe the relation very general: “One’s connection to a place (or lack thereof) influences one’s willingness to protect it”. They focus on the varying aspects of place. To make this clear, they distinguish two types of place attachment: - Civic place attachment: the emphasis is on social characteristics and interactions. The place is related to the symbolic meanings of a group in a city. - Natural place attachment: the attachment is based on natural aspects of the environment, on physical features in the environment, for example forests.

Scanell and Gifford (2010) selected two villages, with total different environmental reputations (aim of city I: “a reputation of friendliness and civic pride”; city II: history of environmental problems, but famed for its pristine location”). They did a survey on civic and natural place attachment, pro- environmental behaviour and sociodemographic characteristics. Their conclusion was that place attachment in the civic sense of the word cannot be used as a predictor of pro-environmental behaviour, while the natural meaning of place attachment supports this behaviour (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). Civic attachment can only be used as an indicator for pro-environmental behaviour when the values of a community as a whole can be described as ‘environmental’. It should be observed that Walker and Ryan (2008) noticed that people would not separate community from place. Hence, this distinction may be an analytical distinction. Section 2.2.5 elaborates on the research of Walker and Ryan (2008). In the villages around the A50, both type of attachments may be found. Civic place attachment may be found, because the villages are small and well-organised. Natural place attachment may be found because the villages are situated in a valuable nature area. The type of behaviour that Scannell and Gifford (2010) aimed at, is quite broad. They used the general ecological behaviour scale, which uses 40 ecological behaviours, distributed over seven domains: pro-social behaviour, ecological garbage removal, water and power conservation, ecologically aware consumer behaviour, garbage inhibition, volunteering in nature protection activities and ecologically automobile use (Kaiser, 1998). Most of these concepts are not applicable in the case of the A50, only ‘volunteering in nature protection activities’ comes close. Though, this volunteering is described as ‘talking about environment-related problems’ and ‘contribute financially to or be a member of an environmental organization’ (Kaiser, 1998:405).

2.2.3 Place Identity: Affective Connection Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour (TPB) states that people behave in line with their intentions, which can be predicted by attitude, a subjective norm and perceived behavioural control (schematised in Figure 3). The intention to behave in a certain way can be predicted by the attitude towards the behaviour, to what extent it is compatible with social approval and if it is in one’s personal control (Ajzen, 2006).

Behavioural ↔ Normative ↔ Control Beliefs Beliefs Beliefs

↓ ↓ ↓

Attitude Perceived Subjective toward the Behavioural Norm Behaviour Control

↘ ↓ ↙ ↑

Actual Intention Behavioural

↓ ← Control

Behaviour

Figure 3 Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behaviour

Hinds and Sparks (2008) add affective connection and identity to this theory. With affective connection, they mean the “subjective experience of an emotional attachment with the natural environment” (Hinds and Sparks, 2008:112). With environmental identity, they mean the “meanings that one attributes to the self as they relate to the environment” (Hinds and Sparks, 2008:110). By adding these concepts, they come close to the dimensions of Sense of Place as inventoried by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001), but they do not clearly define their extended TPB in line with the categories of Stedman (2001). So, the extended TPB cannot be replaced directly by Sense of Place. Hinds and Sparks (2008) selected social science students at a University, and did a survey on the concepts of their extended TPB and the engagement with the natural environment (described as “being in and actively participating in areas and settings produced by nature”; Hinds and Sparks, 2008:112,114). Affective connection proved to be an independent predictor of engagement with the natural environment. Identity was not proved to be an independent predictor. A possible reason for this finding is that certain elements of identity were incorporated in the affective connection (Hinds and Sparks, 2008:116). It is important to stress that these authors deal with the intentions to behave, not with actual (self-reported) behaviour. Hinds and Sparks (2008) use the term ‘engagement with the natural environment’, defined as ‘being and actively participating in natural areas’. They assume that this participation will lead to more pro- environmental behaviour, which they describe in more or less the same way as Scannell and Gifford (2010).

2.2.4 Place Satisfaction Stedman (2002) found a positive relation between place attachment and willingness to engage in place-protective behaviour. The type of attachment he investigated can be described as natural place attachment, and exists of place identity and place satisfaction. People with a high attachment to a place who are not satisfied, are willing to defend their places against negative, external interventions. That means that both elements of attachment (identity and dependence) are important for the people, but that they have a different effect. Because they identify themselves with a place and because they depend on a place, but are not satisfied with the degree of the performance of the place, they are willing to take action on behalf of that place. This means that Sense of Place is not an end in itself, but it can be a predictor of place-protective behaviour (Stedman, 2002). It should be noted that this quantitative research was based on a series of hypothetical changes to the environment. Respondents did not report what they did, but what they would do when the changes proposed by Stedman would become reality. In the present study, both domains, citizen’s place identity and citizen’s place satisfaction, will be investigated. A strong place identity and low place satisfaction may lead to strong engagement with place-protective behaviour: the willingness to defend their places against environmental changes (Stedman, 2002:575). This relation between the perception of an area as important (place attachment) and threatened, and affective place-protective behaviour, fits probably well in the case of the A50. This type of relation is also described by Buijs (2009). He constructed a public support matrix (Figure 4) to make societal protest understandable.

Correspondence goals and means Low High

High Protest Enthusiasm

Bond Low Resignation Acceptance Figure 4 Public Support Matrix (Buijs, 2009)

People who have a strong bond with their environment, and who are very dissatisfied with the proposed plans (goals and/or means), will sooner undertake action than people who have a weak bond with their environment or who are very satisfied with the proposed plans.

2.2.5 Landscape Change Walker and Ryan (2008) did their research in a fast growing town, and developed a survey on attachment to the rural landscape and attitudes towards land use planning and conservation. The

10 survey existed of two parts: a written questionnaire and a booklet with 24 photos of the environment whereof respondents had to say which photo they liked most. Walker and Ryan (2008) discovered a relation between place attachment and protecting high valuable landscapes. They make no clear distinction between civic or natural place attachment (instead, they cite Bell (2003) when they suggest that people will not separate ‘place’ from ‘community’). Strong bonds within the community of the municipality may contribute to environmental sustainable behaviours, because social cohesion can strengthen place identity, one of the Sense of Place elements (Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). Walker and Ryan (2008) also asked the participants to give an indication of their sense of change in the town’s landscape, and combined that with willingness to consider land use planning strategies and other types of conservation. The study shows that people who observe more changes over time than people who are relatively new, have stronger support for landscape preservation and planning. Simultaneously negative landscape change is an important mechanism (catalyst) for revealing place attachment (Walker and Ryan, 2008). People who observe significant negative changes to the area have stronger support for landscape preservation. The type of behaviour, discussed by Walker and Ryan (2008), approaches the type of behaviour as exposed by the foundation A50dB and the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze: strong support for conservation, landscape preservation and planning strategies. So the relation between place attachment, revealed by negative landscape changes, and support for proactive planning measures is an important given in this research on the broadening of the A50.

2.2.6 Environmental Quality Uzzell et al. (2002) focused on place identity, social cohesion, residential satisfaction and pro- environmental behaviours. They compared two proximate villages, with different histories. One village was very organized, the other village was not. They did interviews with 90 inhabitants of each village and found stronger support of environmental behaviour in the village with a smaller sense of identification with the neighbourhood and less support for pro-environmental behaviour in the village with a high-quality environment and large satisfaction (Uzzell et al., 2002). There were no real differences in behaviour between the two villages. Note that the type of attachment to the place in this research is mainly civic: Social cohesion and identification are in this case the predictors of place identity, which in turn can be a predictor of environmental sustainability attitudes and behaviours (Uzzell et al., 2002). Uzzell et al. (2002) argues that there is no direct relation between place attachment and place- protective behaviour. When an environment is qualitatively poor, people will not attach to it. And when an environment is qualitative good, there is no need to protect it. In both situations there will

11 be a negative relation between attachment and place-protective behaviour. At this point, the notion of Walker and Ryan (2008) is important: the quality of the environment can change.

2.2.7 Summary This outcomes of the researches discussed, are schematized in Figure 5. This can be used as a tool to underpin expectations related to place attachment and environmental behaviour.

Place Attachment Yes No Scannell/Gifford (2010): If attachment is

Natural Place Attachment. Hinds/Sparks (2008): Insight in affective connection and identity needed to understand environmental behaviour Yes Walker/Ryan (2008): Negative landscape change can reveal place attachment and be a catalyst for residents’ support for new proactive planning measures. Stedman (2002): “Important but threatened”. Satisfaction. Uzzell (2002): No need to protect the environment in a qualitative good environment. Uzzell (2002): People do not attach to

Occurrenceof environmental behaviour No Scannell/Gifford (2010): If attachment is Civic qualitative poor environment. Place Attachment. Figure 5 Predicting Environmental Behaviour

In the case of the A50, environmental behaviour must be specified. The case is about activities in favour of the environment. The term of Stedman (2002) can be used: place-protective behaviour. In the case, the citizens felt that the broadening in the way Rijkswaterstaat proposed it, was a disturbance of their living environment. This might have revealed the attachment of the people in the municipality. It is impossible to determine the place attachment before the plans of Rijkswaterstaat, but the observed landscape changes by the citizens can be investigated.

2.3 Conclusion and Hypothesis

In the present study, the relation between place attachment and place-protective behaviour will be investigated. Place attachment has different dimensions. The place dimension can analytically be divided in natural and civic place attachment. Civic place attachment is often linked to pro- environmental behaviour (Scanell and Gifford, 2010), while in the cases of place-protective behaviour, natural place attachment is often found as a predictor (Stedman, 2002). Because the

12 behaviour of the foundation A50dB and the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze can be described as place-protective, natural place attachment is used. In theory, natural place attachment is the strongest predictor of place-protective behaviour.

This leads to the hypothesis: Natural place attachment is a predictor of place-protective behaviour.

In general, place attachment is expected to be found, because the people live in a valuable nature area and because they live in the place, they are dependent on it to a certain extent. This type of attachment can be broader than natural place attachment. The ongoing research (section 4.1.2) may give reason to use additional concepts from Figure 5. There will be differences on the individual level in degree and nature of the attachment. There will also be differences in the degree of activity between individuals. But given the activities of the citizens, it is obvious that some type of behaviour will be found.

3. Methodology

To reach the research goals, the research is executed as described in this chapter. The core of the research is a survey amongst citizens (section 3.2), but prior to that interviews are held to gather information on the functioning of the foundation to get a clear view on what happened in the process and to design the questionnaire (section 3.1). Section 3.3 describes how secondary sources are used in this research. The chapter ends with a explanation of how the data from the survey are analysed (section 3.4).

3.1 Interviews

In-depth interviews produce accounts of how people perceive the world, about their beliefs and behaviour (Green and Thorogood, 2009). It is a suitable method to gain relatively personal information and it is important to emphasise this personal character of the information gained by the interview. Because of the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee, interviewing provides the possibility to get information on complex situations (Kumar, 2005). The interviews consisted of open-ended questions. This gave room for precise answers and the story of the interviewee, they were able to express themselves freely. In the interaction, it is possible to explain the questions and to add new questions that rise from the interview (Kumar, 2005), using probes to encourage elaboration (Green and Thorogood, 2009). The interviews were guided by a interview guide (appendix 1a), that steers in the specific direction by pre-formulated questions (Green and Thorogood, 2009).

Representatives of the foundation A50dB are designated as research objects. The board of the foundation consists of three members: a chairman, a secretary and a treasurer. All three were interviewed. The aim of the interviews was twofold. First, the interviews are used to answer the research questions and second, the interviews are used to get information in order to construct the questionnaire. The interviews are recorded and not literally transcribed.

The interviews consisted of three themes: attachment, behaviour and reconstruction of the process. In Table 1Table 1 Categorization Interviews, a number of topics is presented per category, some of them are more or less interrelated with each other.

Table 1 Categorization Interviews Reconstruction Attachment Behaviour Environmental changes Environmental changes Inspiration Activities Place Activities Communication Community Negotiations Research Satisfaction Conference Involvement and/or support other parties Symbolic meanings/Values Research (politicians, citizens, researchers) Childhood

Reconstruction The category ‘reconstruction’ is used to get an idea of how the interviewees perceived the process of the broadening of the A50. It complements the information that is obtained by studying secondary sources (section 3.4) with personal experiences from the interviewees. For this part of the interview, a timeline (appendix 1b) will be presented to the interviewees with some events added on it. They will have the opportunity to complement it with other events. The aim of this tool is to elicit new information by reminding people what happened broadly. - Environmental changes: What changed in the environment due to the broadening, how was the situation before and afterwards? - Activities: What did the interviewee do from the moment that the broadening was announced until the final decisions were made? - Communication: How was communication with Rijkswaterstaat and other actors organized? Did the communication satisfy the different actors? - Research: Which role was assigned to (scientific) research during the process? - Involvement/support: Which other actors were involved? How did the interviewee interact with these actors?

Attachment The theme ‘attachment’ is about how the interviewees relate to their place. Different elements from the theoretical framework are discussed with the interviewees. - Environmental changes: What kind of changes in the environment did the interviewee observe in the past? - Place: What does the place where the interviewee lives means to him? What is his place? - Community: How strong is the social cohesion among citizens in general in the village(s)? How does the interviewee contribute to this cohesion? - Satisfaction: How satisfied is the interviewee with his environment? Why? - Meanings: What does the environment mean for the interviewee?

- Childhood: In what sort of environment did the interviewee grow up? (This information will be obtained in the acquaintance part of the interview.)

Behaviour The category ‘behaviour’ aims at getting information on how interviewees look back at what they did in the process. This category has an individualistic character. It is not about what happened in general, but what political action the interviewees say they have personally taken. This is necessary to make a linkage to the category ‘attachment’ possible. The emphasis on the personal actions distinguishes the category ‘behaviour’ from the category ‘reconstruction’. - Inspiration: What is, according to the interviewee, the main reason for his involvement? Why did he choose to get involved? - Activities: What did the interviewee do exactly? Did he do everything within the foundation or also personally? - Negotiations: In what negotiations did the interviewee take place? Who was invited by who to have a say? - Conference: What was the role of the interviewee in the conference the foundation organized? What did he do with the outcomes of the conference? - Research: What was the role of the interviewee in the research that has been done, commissioned by the foundation? How did the interviewee use the results of the research?

3.2 Survey

A survey is a data collection method that generates data against relatively low inputs (Kumar, 2005), ‘labour extensive data generation’ as Verschuren and Doorewaard (1999:149) call it. Other characteristics are a large number of research units, more breadth than depth, a random sample, quantitative data and analysis and mostly remote, closed data generation (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 1999). In this research, a survey is used to get information on the relation that citizens have with an area and their willingness to undertake action to protect their environment.

The research objects in this research are individual citizens of Heelsum (3800 inhabitants) and Wolfheze (1600 inhabitants), living close to the highway. According to the ‘Wet Geluidhinder’ (which is a law on the regulation of noise), article 74, section 1.b.1. (Ministry of Public Health and Environmental Protection, 1979, subsequently amended), the noise limit in rural areas with regard to homes is 53 dB (article 83.1) at a distance of 600 meters of the highway (consisting of five or more

16 lanes, to both sides of the road). In this research, this area will be used as sample area, so the research objects are citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze, living within a distance of 600 meters to both sides of the A50. This area is drawn on maps of Rijkswaterstaat Oost-Nederland (2009: attachments, figure 2.2 & 2.3). All houses in this area got an ID-number, the addresses are known. From this list of 697 adresses, 300 adresses were randomly selected. That’s done by assigning every adress a random number between 0 and 1 by Microsoft Excel, and order that numbers ascending. The first 300 adresses are the adresses used for the questionnaire. These are 210 (70%) adresses in Heelsum, and 90 (30%) in Wolfheze. There is the risk within this way of sampling. Participating is voluntary so non-random drop-outs (attrition) can occur (self-selecting bias). There can be a certain reason why people do not participate. That means that all the people who do not return the questionnaire can have something in common. That can result in a biased sample, which limits the scope of the research (Kumar, 2005). In order to avoid biases on household level (e.g. gender), the receivers of the questionnaire were asked to let the next one having his birthday (older than 18) fulfill the questionnaire.

The questionnaire is added as appendix 2. The first twelve questions include 3 x 4 questions about the different types of Place Attachment, according to the theory: Natural and Civic Place Attachment and Place Identity. Question 13 is about the effects of the broadening. This is followed by fourteen questions about the activities that residents have undertaken. These questions could be answered on a Likert-scale from 1 (strongly disagree/very incorrect) to 5 (strongly agree/very correct). The questions 28 en 29 ask for a rating of the environment on a scale from 1 to 10, before respectively after the broadening. The questionnaire ends with four questions about some personal characteristics of the respondent.

Finally, the questionnaire is delivered at 296 adresses, 4 were undeliverable (in both villages 2). One week after distribution, a reminder is sent to all adresses. 124 (about 42%) completed questionnaires were returned.

3.3 Secondary sources

Secondary sources about the case are analysed to complete the information gathered by the interviews and questionnaires. Articles from newspapers, correspondence between different actors, mission statements and the judgment of the State Council/jurisprudence are examples of sources that are studied.

This provides a broad view on what happened and made it possible to give a complete case description (section 4.1.1). Furthermore, it can be used as a control mechanism (triangulation), to compare the secondary sources with the outcomes from the other research methods.

3.4 Analysis

3.4.1 Sample Before analysing the data on the research questions, the respondents will be described. Table 2 is an overview of some characteristics.

Table 2 Characteristics of respondents Residence N % Heelsum 88 71,0% Wolfheze 35 28,2% Unknown 1 0,8% Gender Male 72 58,1% Female 52 41,9% Education level* 1 1 0,8% 2 6 4,8% 3 31 25,0% 4 86 69,4% * 1 = Primary School; 2 = Lower Vocational Education / Lower Secundary School; 3 = Intermediate Vocational Education / Higher Secundary School / Pre-University Education; 4 = Higher Vocational Education / University

The average age of the respondents is 60,1 years. The dispersion of the age is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Boxplot ‘Age’

The average length of residence in the municipality Renkum of the respondents is 26,7 years. The dispersion of this ‘Length of Residence’ is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Boxplot ‘Length of Residence’

To be able to compare the two villages at a later stage of the investigation, it is examined whether the samples of the villages differ significantly. That is done by a Levene’s Test (Table 3) on the demographic characteristics, to test if equal variances can be assumed.

Table 3 Levene's test for equality of means in Heelsum and Wolfheze F Sig. Gender 2,224 0,139 Age 0,129 0,720 Length of Residence 2,175 0,143 Education level 5,531 0,020

It appears that equal variances cannot be assumed for education level, because of the significancy of Levene’s Test. Under that reservation the villages are compared in Table 4 on the demographic characteristics.

Table 4 Comparison of the villages Heelsum and Wolfheze Heelsum Wolfheze Mean Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. Difference (2-tailed) Education 88 3,580 0,6560 35 3,743 0,5054 0,1633 0,143 Age 87 60,667 14,5974 35 58,629 13,3990 2,0381 0,477 Length of Residence 87 26,885 18,4742 35 26,071 22,1725 0,8136 0,836 Gender 88 1,375 0,4869 35 1,514 0,5071 0,1393 0,160

Table 4 shows that the differences between the respondents from both villages are not significant. Differences between the villages that may be found are likely not the result of a big difference in the sample.

3.4.2 Statistics The outcomes of the questionnaire are analysed with SPSS Statistics. The number of questions are reduced to a smaller number of underlying variables by a factor analysis, by identifying groups within the data (factors). In order to be able to execute a factor analysis, three requirements must be met (Pelsmacker & Kenhove, 2006): 1. There must be measured with a ratio or interval scale 2. The sample size must be adequate 3. The correlation between the statements must not be too large, the questions should measure different things. Appendices 3.1 and 3.2 show that these three requirements are met for both the questions about Place Attachment and Activity.

The factor analysis is executed two times for the questions about Place Attachment. The first time the number of factors is determined on the basis of Eigenvalue > 1. An Eigenvalue > 1 means that an extra added variable (which adds a variance of 1, because the variables are standardised) explains more than a variance of 1. In other words: the added question to the factor explains more variance than it adds to the factor. The second time the number of factors were pre-determined at two. For the questions regarding respondent’s activity, the same method is used. On the basis of Eigenvalue > 1, one factor was found. Subsequently, the second factor analysis was executed with a pre-determined number of two factors. After this, the factors are tested on reliability. George & Mallery (2003) made this rule of thumb (Table 5).

Table 5 Rule of thumb Cronbach's α (George & Wallery, 2003) Cronbach's α Meaning > 0,9 Excellent > 0,8 Good > 0,7 Acceptable > 0,6 Questionable > 0,5 Poor < 0,5 Unacceptable

It has been assumed that a group with Cronbach's Alpha that is higher than 0,8 is regarded as reliable. A factor is accepted when it has a Cronbach’s α > 0,8.

Regressions are executed to investigate the relation between place Attachment and place-protective behaviour. Place attachment is used as predictor and behaviour is used as dependent variable. The public support matrix of Buijs (2009) is used to investigate if the combination of high place attachment and opposition to the plans of Rijkswaterstaat lead to higher activity. This is done by adding an element to the regression, namely if people are proponent or opponent of the plans. (‘agreement on goals and means’ focuses on ‘agreement on means’ here). Respondents who claim to be in favour of the plans of Rijkswaterstaat, will agree on the means chosen. Respondents who indicated their opposition to the plans, will not agree on the means. Place attachment and this agreement are used as predictors in the regression, behaviour as dependent variable.

Other regressions investigate the relation between some demographic characteristics of the respondents (predictor) and place attachment and behaviour (dependent variables). Therefore, the variables gender and education level are dummificated. Finally, some Independent and Paired

Samples T-tests are performed to the remaining questions in the survey to investigate whether there are differences between the villages Heelsum and Wolfheze or not.

4. Results

This chapter presents the results of the research. Section 4.1 is a reconstruction of the case, guided by the a report of the interviews, held with the representatives of A50dB. This section ends with a description of how the outcomes of the interviews are used in the sequel of the research, the survey. Section 4.2 deals with the results of the questionnaire. Both research concepts, place attachment and place-protective behaviour, and the relation between these two, will be analysed.

4.1 Case Reconstruction

This section describes the proceedings of the activities of foundation A50dB. The citations in the text boxes are from the interviewees. The timeline that was used during the interviews, will be the guidance of this section. This section ends with a description of how the interviews influenced the questionnaire.

4.1.1 Broadening of the A50 In 2005, the plans for the broadening of the A50 are presented. In reaction on that, a group of citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze decided to react on the Environmental Impact Assessment. Around the same time, another group came together at a meeting in March 2006, called ‘Noise from Heelsum’ (Herrie uit Heelsum) to talk about the noise expected, organised by GroenLinks (a Dutch political left wing organisation). The interest of the citizens was great. There were over 100 people on this first meeting. Both groups decided to join their forces, and established a foundation: A50dB (A50 sustainable better). There were different opinions about their approach: constructive thinking along with the plans respectively more protest-oriented. Initially, the first approach was chosen. They decided to be constructive and build expertise and prevent NIMBY behaviour and image in that way.

“There were (...) voices saying: ‘The entire way should be situated underground, like the HSL.’ That would also be a way to do it. But that is absolutely not realistic. So we kept that kind of sounds internally and did not put them out, because if you do that you make yourself unbelievable. Then you are not a partner anymore.” (“Er waren (…) ook stemmen die zeiden van: ‘Die hele weg moet ondergronds, zoals de Hogesnelheidslijn ook onder het Groene Hart doorgegaan is.’ Dat zou je met een weg ook kunnen doen. Maar dat is absoluut niet realistisch. Dus

dat soort geluiden hebben we toch intern kunnen houden en niet naar buiten gebracht, want als je dat doet maak je jezelf ongeloofwaardig. Dan ben je geen gesprekspartner meer.”)

The members of the foundation were aware of the characteristics of the local residents (on average elderly, highly educated people), and adapted the activities on that. This had both advantages and disadvantages.

“The strength of neighborhoods like this is that you can quite easily collect a form of expertise (...), an environmental expert who knows all about the health effects of this and that, who came to catch up on what PM2,5 relative to PM10 meant etc. That’s a big plus. There are in this area quite a lot of people with a Wageningen background, or otherwise. So it is possible to mobilise knowledge. That’s an advantage. The disadvantage is that this is not a population that is going to organise sit-ins on the A50, with banners and stuff.” (“Het sterke van buurten als deze is dat je vrij makkelijk een vorm van deskundigheid kunt verzamelen (…), een milieudeskundige die alles weet over de gezondheidseffecten van dit en van dat die ons kwam bijpraten over wat PM2,5 ten opzichte van PM10 betekende enzovoort. Da’s een groot pre. Er zitten in deze omgeving nogal veel mensen die of een Wageningse achtergrond hebben, of anderszins. Dus er is kennis te mobiliseren. Da’s een voordeel. Nadeel is dat dit niet een populatie is die sit-ins op de A50 gaat houden, met spandoeken enzo.”)

The residents are organised in Neighborhood Associations and Village Platforms. Each of these associations had their representatives in or near the foundation, who in turn contacted their own followers and acted as a contact person. Information supply towards the citizens was an important task.

“Because we had representatives from different associations, they had their own responsibility to feed back to their followers. I regularly spoke on this subject at meetings of the residents association here, I informed people about it. And in that sense you could see a certain form of laziness arise, they thought it was just fine as it went along that way, they got their information.” (“Omdat we vertegenwoordigers hadden van verschilende verenigingen, hadden die ook hun eigen verantwoordelijkheid om terug te koppelen naar hun achterban. Ik sprak bijvoorbeeld geregeld over dat onderwerp bij vergaderingen van de bewonersvereniging hier, stelde ik mensen op de hoogte. En in die zin zag je ook wel een zekere vorm van gemakzucht ontstaan, men vond het ook wel prima als het langs die weg ging, dat ze zo hun informatie kregen.”)

After the proposal of Rijkswaterstaat was presented in March 2007, the foundation submitted an opinion letter to the Minister (Stichting A50dB, 2007). It was not just about the noise on the front

24 door. Due to the location of the highway (through a nature reserve), the foundation wanted a green starting point. In the opinion letter, the foundation announced an alternative for the plans of Rijkswaterstaat. Therefore, and to combine the constructive attitude with the green starting punt, a study by (students of) Wageningen UR was executed and presented in February 2008, called ‘A50: Deafening and Breathtaking’ (A50: Oorverdovend en Adembenemend, Kooij et al, 2008). In this alternative, the broadening was used to do something back to nature, by way of apology. The reconstruction of the road could be used to compensate the damage of the past.

“There was already a route planned. It was difficult to say: we close the road over the heathland and we are now going through the agricultural area. That road is designed approximately 35 years ago and then we have not looked closely at the nature and it was obvious that the road went through the heathland. There are a lot of people from Wageningen who have pointed out that heathland is very special, with very special biotopes. So yes, if you would choose now, then you would not go through to heathland, but yes, you are in a different situation, so it is not realistic to say: ‘move that road.’ The only thing you can do is to minimise broadening, at least, with minimal use of space, and try to counteract the negative effects as much as possible.” (“Er lag al een tracé vast. Je kon moeilijk zeggen: we sluiten de weg over de hei en we gaan nu door het landbouwgebied. Die weg is inmiddels een jaar of 35 geleden ontworpen en toen keek men nog niet zo nauw op de natuur en was het vanzelfsprekend dat die weg dwars door de hei ging. Daar zijn dus een heleboel mensen uit Wageningen die ons erop gewezen hebben dat die hei toch wel een heel bijzondere hei is, heel aparte biotopen. Dus ja, het is eigenlijk als je dus nu zou kiezen, dan zou je ‘m daar niet meer doorheen leggen, maar ja, je zit nu eenmaal aan die situatie vast, dus het is niet reëel om te zeggen van: ‘schuif maar op die weg’. Het enige wat je kan doen is zo min mogelijk verbreden, althans, met zo min mogelijk ruimtegebruik, en dan ook de nadelige effecten zoveel mogelijk tegen te gaan.“)

This point of view is also reflected by an article from a Dutch newspaper. “This road is going to be broadened without taking measures against the ecoblunder from the late sixties, when it was decided to build this road here, in the middle of nature which later became part of the National Ecological Network.” (NRC, 2009, translation: AJP)

The report got national attendance. During the treatment of the national budget of 2008, a Member of Parliament asked some questions on the situation. The minister answered: “The report “A50, deafening and breathtaking” of the foundation A50dB is known to Rijkswaterstaat. It is investigated to what extent the proposals of the foundation fit to the route decision” (Tweede Kamer, 2008: 15, translation: AJP).

The foundation felt that Rijkswaterstaat had little attention to the alternatives of the foundation. There was not enough money available. The foundation demonstrated that there were inaccuracies in the plan (e.g. the number of floors of houses), but nothing was done with that.

“So we have initially ensured that we started a dialogue with Rijkswaterstaat, by sending an urgent letter. Then we were immediately told: we will have meetings to talk about your design ideas. They noted our basic ideas. We had comments on that, but they didn’t listen, or rather, hear but not really listen. Rijkswaterstaat is quite an experienced club, and also know what to do. But they do not easily adopt plans from others. So, it was difficult for us to cut in on the action.” (“Dus wij hebben in eerste instantie gezorgd dat wij in gesprek kwamen met Rijkswaterstaat, door een brandbrief te sturen.Toen kregen we onmiddelijk te horen: wij gaan met jullie gesprekken aan, om over jullie ontwerpideeën te praten. De basisideeën werden toen met ons doorgenomen. Wij hadden daar ook wel commentaar op, maar daar wilde ze wel naar luisteren, of liever gezegd, aanhoren, maar niet er echt naar luisteren. Rijkswaterstaat is toch wel een ervaren club, en weet ook wel wat ze doen moeten. Maar ze nemen niet gauw van anderen wat aan. Dus, dat was voor ons wat moeilijk om daar een voet tussen de deur te krijgen.”)

The foundation organised a conference in September 2008 on the report. Several scientists and Members of Parliament were present, to talk and think about the alternative and the planning process. The meeting gained attention by local media (WING, 2008), and contributed to the ‘serious image’ of the foundation.

The Minister of Infrastructure signed the proposal of Rijkswaterstaat in February 2009 after making a small number of adjustments. This was not enough for the foundation, so there rested only one possibility: try to cancel the entire plan by the State’s Council. At this point, the role of the foundation changed. Instead of the constructive attitude, a juridical path was chosen. The foundation tried to explain their opinion once more in an open letter to the minister (Stichting A50dB, 2009). They did not get wat they wanted. Finally, their way to court was not succesfull.

Looking back, the foundation (in collaboration with the municipality of Renkum) has nevertheless achieved the following: double-layer porous asphalt over the entire route instead of a part thereof, closing the parking Kabeljauw in Wolfheze (causing noise at night), technical modifications to the viaduct through the stream valley in Heelsum to reduce noise, a footpath at the ecoduct for recreational use and adaptation of the noise barrier at Heelsum by the municipality Renkum.

“On this side there came a noise barrier. That is 2,5 meters high. We actually thought it would be slightly higher, but I must say that 2,5 meters turns out better than I expected, concerning noise, that is drastically reduced indeed. That has clearly changed.” (“Aan deze kant is een geluidsscherm gekomen. En die is 2,5 meter hoog. We hadden eigenlijk gedacht dat ze iets hoger zouden worden, maar ik moet zeggen, die 2,5 meter valt me in werkelijkheid wel mee, wat geluidssterkte betreft, dat is nu inderdaad drastisch verminderd. Dat is duidelijk veranderd.” )

4.1.2 Impact on questionnaire Part of the elaboration of the interviews took place in the survey. First the types of place attachment that are used in the questionnaire were selected. These were: - Natural Place Attachment, because of the theoretical substantiation (section 2.3). - Civic Place Attachment, because of the organisation of the residents in village platforms. The civil organisation structure may play an important role in the involvement of the citizens by the work of foundation A50dB. By investigating both natural and civic place attachment, it is possible to check whether respondents make a distinction between these two or not. - Place Identity, because of the remorse that was one of the underlying feelings of the members of the foundation.

The citizens were informed by the foundation via the village platforms. Therefore, a question about the activity within the village platforms was added. Also other interactions of the citizens with the foundation came back in the survey, the questions about the use of the website of A50dB and if people knew what the foundation actually did. Because the foundation originated from two groups, there were questions on both ‘starting points’, the reaction on the EIA and the meeting ‘Noise from Heelsum’. Finally, the interviews gave insight into how the broadening has played a role in the daily life in the villages.

4.2 Survey

This section presents the results of the statistical analyses that are executed. It starts with the data on place attachment and place-protective behaviour separately (section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). After that the two concepts are brought together in section 4.2.3. This section ends with some additional tests to get some more information from the collected data.

4.2.1 Place Attachment A factor analysis reduces the number of observed variables (questions of the questionnaire) to a smaller number of underlying variables. As indicated in section 3.4.2, this research continues with factors when the Cronbach’s α > 0,8. In de scree plot (Figure 8) the Eigenvalues can be read on the Y-axis and the number of components on the X-axis. One criterion to get the number of factors is if Eigenvalue > 1. Another indication of the number of factors is the bending point in the scree plot.

Figure 8 Scree Plot questions 1 to 12 (Place Attachment)

The bending point in Figure 8 at two components is not very clear. Therefore the first factor analysis is based on Eigenvalue > 1. This provided four components. Table 6 shows the result and the composition of the components.

Table 6 Factor analysis question 1 to 12 (Place Attachment), Eigenvalue > 1 Factor Content Reliability 1. Beautiful Landscape 2. Environment best place to do things I like Cronbach’s 7. Unhappy degradation natural environment 1 α = 10. Feeling home depends on natural environment 0,835 11. Feel connected to nature 12. Being myself in environment 5. Recognize myself in people of the neighborhood Cronbach’s 2 6. Miss environment when long elsewhere α = 8. Miss community when long elsewhere 0,618 3. Natural environment important for who I am Cronbach’s 3 4. Facilities present α = 7. Unhappy degradation natural environment 0,034 4 9. Feeling home depends on people in neighborhood NA

Factor 1 consists of four questions on natural place attachment and two questions on place identity. This factor is about how people evaluate their natural environment, and how people see themselves in relation to that environment. It also describes how the environment influences people’s feelings. So, an emotional bond is involved in the attachment to the natural aspects of the environment. Factor 2 focusses on the social aspects of place. It is about the connection between the indivual and the community, and the intensity of that connection. ‘Missing’ expresses a strong relation to the community. The emphasis of this factor is on civic place attachment. Factor 3 is mainly on how people’s identity depends on their natural environment.

A distinction is made between natural and civic place attachment, but only factor 1 satisfies the requirement of Cronbach’s α > 0,8.

The other way to get the number of factors, is to look at the bending point. It is at two components. The factor analysis is executed again, while the number of factors is limited to two. Table 7 shows the result.

Table 7 Factor analysis question 1 to 12 (Place Attachment), fixed number of factors: 2 Factor Content Reliability 1. Beautiful Landscape 2. Environment best place to do things I like Cronbach’s 1 10. Feeling home depends on natural environment α = 11. Feel connected to nature 0,847 12. Being myself in environment 5. Recognize myself in people of the neighborhood Cronbach’s 2 6. Miss environment when longer time away α = 8. Miss community when longer time away 0,618

Factor 1 is still on natural place attachment, but the influence of identity is less. The connection of the individual to the environment is more important than how the environment influences the identity. Factor 2 has the same composition as factor 2 in Table 6. It is about civic place attachment, with an emotional element in the attachment. Again, the distinction between natural and civic place attachment rises, and again only the reliability of factor 1 is great enough to continue with.

The selection of the factor the research continues with, occurs on theoretical grounds. Factor 1 from the first factor analysis (Table 6) is about natural place attachment and identity, in relation to the natural environment. It is about how people look to their environment, and the extent to which the environment determines people’s identity. It adds and emotional element to the bond that people have with their environment. This is what Hinds & Sparks (2008) called an ‘affective connection’. According to the model of Figure 5 in section 2.2.7, the affective connection strengthens the predictive power of the place attachment towards environmental behaviour. Because this strengthening effect within the factor, the research continues with this factor. To summarize the two elements (natural place attachment and affective connection) in one name, the factor is called ‘Affective Natural Place Attachment’.

The average scores of affective natural place attachment on a scale from 1 to 5 and the corresponding standard deviation are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Mean and standard deviation of affective natural place attachment Total N 124 Mean 4,212 Std. Dev. 0,6018

The number of respondents that has a score on affective natural place attachment higher than 3 (that means: a strong bond) is 121 of 124 (97,6%). That means that the number of people that indicates to have no or a weak bond with their natural environment, is an absolute minority.

4.2.2 Place-protective behaviour To analyse the questions on the actions that people have undertaken in favour of their environment, the same method is used as in place attachment. The scree plot is drawn (Figure 9). In this scree plot, there is a very clear bending point at two factors, but the Eigenvalue of factor 2 is < 1. Therefore, the first factor analysis is carried out, based on Eigenvalue > 1.

Figure 9 Scree Plot questions 14 to 27 (Activity)

The factor analysis, based on Eigenvalue > 1, provides one component. Table 9 shows the result and the composition of the factor.

Table 9 Factor analysis question 14 to 27 (Activity), Eigenvalue > 1 Factor Content Reliability 14. Talked with people from the area 15. Active within village platform/residents association 16. The broadening sets me thinking 18. Expressed my opinion by means of a signature or via internet 19. In touch with the work of foundation A50dB Cronbach’s 20. Contributed to reaction procedure EIA α = 1 21. Intended to protest against broadening 0,917 22. Participated actively in meeting “Noise from Heelsum” 03-2007 23. Contacted members of foundation A50dB 24. Frequently visited website foundation A50dB 25. Know a lot of research to alternatives of Wageningen University 26. Actively participated in conference 09-2008 27. Been active in other ways

This factor consists of all activities that were presented to the people. It is a very general description of what people did. Activities that people did as an individual or as a group, activities that demand initiative and activities that can be done when the opportunity arises and with a low, activities that are very intensive and activities that are very approachable. The bending point in the Scree Plot (Figure 9) is clearly visible at two components. That is a strong indication that two is a reasonable number of factors. To analyse this, the factor analysis is executed again, with a fixed number of factors of two. Table 10 shows the new factor composition.

Table 10 Factor analysis question 14 to 27 (Activity), Eigenvalue > 0,95 (fixed: 2) Factor Content Reliability 15. Active within village platform/residents association 20. Contributed to reaction procedure EIA 21. Intended to protest against broadening Cronbach’s 22. Participated actively in meeting “Noise from Heelsum” 03-2007 1 α = 24. Frequently visited website foundation A50dB 0,908 25. Know a lot of research to alternatives of Wageningen University 26. Actively participated in conference 09-2008 27. Been active in other ways 14. Talked with people from the area 15. Active within village platform/residents association Cronbach’s 18. Expressed my opinion by means of a signature or via internet 2 α = 19. In touch with the work of foundation A50dB 0,819 21. Intended to protest against broadening 23. Contacted members of foundation A50dB

Factor 1 in Table 10 is a group of activities that expresses a connection to the work where others are involved, mainly the foundation, and have a quite intensive character. People need to do something to get in touch with this activities. There is a social element in these activities. Factor 2 in Table 10 can be undertaken when the opportunity arises and are easy accessible. Although there are other people involved in these activities, there is no need for direct contact or extra initiative relative to the normal situation. For example, being active within the village platform can be part of normal daily life. It should be noticed that there is some overlap in the two factors.

Cronbach’s α of all factors is larger than 0,8. During the interviews became clear that there were two groups of participants. People who only wanted to stay informed, and people who actively participated in the activities that were organised by the foundation. Due to this distinction, this research continues with the factors from Table 10. As a result of that, with both place attachment and behaviour, rotated factors are used (the factor from Table 9 cannot be rotated, because it is just one factor). Another reason is the substantive difference between the two factors.

The first group of activities is called ‘Intensive Activities’. The second group of activities is called ‘Occasional Activities’.

The average scores of the two types of activities on a scale from 1 to 5 and the corresponding standard deviation is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Mean and standard deviation of Intensive Activities (I_Act) Occasional Activities (O_Act) I_Act O_Act N 120 120 Mean 2,042 2,698 Std. dev. 0,9913 1,0322

The number of respondents that has a score higher than 3 (that means: been active) on intensive activities is 19 of 120 (15,8%) and on occasional activities 42 of 120 (35,0%). So, the number of people that indicates to have been active is a minority. Seventeen respondents are part of both groups.

A paired samples test of both type of activities (appendix 4.2) shows that the difference of 0,6567 between these two for the entire population is significant (Sign. = 0,000). That means that respondents indicate to have been more active on occasional activities than on intensive activities.

4.2.3 Affective Natural Place Attachment and Activity As indicated in section 3.5, affective natural place attachment is used as predictor, initiative demanding and occasional activities are used as dependent variable. The significance score (2-tailed) is divided by two, because it is assumed that the level of activity will increase when Place Attachment increases. The relation is tested one-sided. Table 12 provides an overview of the regressions. The gray-shaded cell accentuate the relation that is found significant.

Table 12 Regressions on affective natural place attachment and place-protective behaviour Predictor Dependent R2 B β p (1-t.) Intensive 0,011 0,176 0,107 0,123 Affective Natural activities Place Attachment Occasional 0,035 0,321 0,187 0,021 activities

Affective natural place attachment is a significant predictor of activities with a relatively low threshold, but not of intensive activities.

In section 2.2.4 the support matrix (Buijs, 2009) is introduced. In this case, this matrix combines the bond that people have with their environment with the correspondence of (goals and) means chosen by Rijkswaterstaat with the wishes of the citizens. To investigate if the data are independent, the correlation between affective natural place attachment, the degree of opposition and the rating of the environment before the project started.

Table 13 Correlation between affective natural place attachment (NPA_Affect), citizen’s rating and opposition NPA_Affect Opposition Correlation 0,042

Opposition Sig. (2-tailed) 0,649

N 121

Rating Correlation 0,087 -0,233 Before Sig. (2-tailed) 0,342 0,010 project N 121 120

Table 13 shows that the correlation is very small and/or not significant. Therefore, the variables are included in a multiple regression. In Table 14 the results of the two regressions are presented.

Table 14 Multiple regressions on predictors of place-protective behaviour I_Acta O_Actb Variables β p (1-t) β p (1-t) (Constant) 0,184 0,257

NPA_Affect 0,106 0,227 0,183 0,040 Opposition 0,294 0,001 0,261 0,005 Rating before -0,134 0,139 -0,074 0,414 a: R2=13,4%, p(F>0)=0,001; b: R2=11,8%, p(F>0)=0,002

The composed analysis of affective natural place attachment, citizen’s opposition and their rating turns out to be a predictor for both intensive and occasional activities. But, in the case of intensive activities, this is only determined by the opposition of the citizens. In the model, affective natural place attachment and the rating of the environment do not contribute significantly. In the model of occasional activities, both affective place attachment and the opposition of citizens contribute significantly to the relation. Again, the rating of the environment is not a significant predictor. There is an indication of a lower level of activity when the rating of the environment rises, but this relation is not significant.

4.2.4 Additional tests Demographic characteristics have been examined whether they are explaining for activities that respondents have undertaken or not: gender, age, education level and length of residence. For example, Scanell & Gifford (2010) connect the elements age, length of residence, gender and education level as reinforcing elements to Place Attachment. First, a correlation is executed.

Table 15 Correlations between demographic characteristics Length of Gender Age Residence Correlation 0,063 Age Sig. (2-tailed) 0,487 N 123 Correlation 0,103 0,354 Length of Sig. (2-tailed) 0,258 0,000 Residence N 123 123 Correlation -0,178 -0,177 -0,531 Education Sig. (2-tailed) 0,048 0,050 0,000 N 124 123 123

Although some correlations are significant in Table 15, they are not very high. Therefore, all variables are putten in a multiple regression and the results of the F-tests are presented in Table 16.

Table 16 F-tests of demographic predictors of place attachment and place-protective behaviour

Affective Place-protective behaviour Natural PA Int. Act Occ. Act Demographic 0,622 0,317 0,251 variables

None of the concepts are significantly influenced by one of the demographic characteristics, as the outcomes of all F-tests are not significant.

Finally, differences between the villages Heelsum en Wolfheze are investigated, by executing an independent samples test (appendix 4.2). In this comparison, place attachment, place-protective behaviour and the change in the rating of the environment before and after the project are the topics of interest. Because the outcomes of Levene’s Test are in all cases not significant, equal variances are assumed.

Table 17 Differences between Heelsum and Wolfheze Mean Sign. Heelsum Wolfheze Difference (2-tailed) Affective natural place attachment 4,152 4,340 0,1877 0,118 Citizen’s support (Equality of means) 2,651 2,206 0,4453 0,059 Intensive activities 1,968 2,197 0,2288 0,257 Occasional activities 2,589 2,971 0,3812 0,070 Rating before project 7,080 7,424 0,3438 0,313 Rating after project 7,517 7,242 0,2748 0,355 After - Before 0,437 -0,156 0,5930 0,118

Table 17 proves that there are no significant differences between the villages at this sample size. It is notable that the score is higher after the broadening in Heelsum, but not in Wolfheze. A Paired Samples Test (appendices 4.3 and 4.4) shows that respondents from Heelsum evaluate their environment after the broadening with a significant higher score than before the broadening.

5. Discussion

In this chapter, the outcomes and the execution of the research will be discussed. First, the research questions will be answered and be placed in a broader theoretical perspective (section 5.1). After that, the research method and techniques are evaluated in section 5.2. The chapter ends with some recommendations for further research.

5.1 Research Questions

What is the nature of attachment that the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze have with their environment? In this research, three types of attachment with the environment are theorised and used in the survey: place identity, civic and natural place attachment. From the data gathered by the survey, one factor proved to be reliable. This factor describes how people see themselves in relation to their environment, and how they evaluate their environment. There is an emotional bond involved in the attachment to the natural aspects of the environment, that is why this factor is called affective natural place attachment. The average score is 4,21 on a scale from 1 to 5. So, this bond is very strong. Although the only reliable factor was affective natural place attachment, the respondents distinguished other factors. One factor was clearly about the relation that people have with the social aspects of place, the relation between the individual and the community. Although some authors say that people will not make a distinguish between natural and civic place attachment, the respondents of this survey did.

What kind of actions did the citizens of Heelsum and Wolfheze undertake to become involved in the policy process? The citizens living close to the highway A50, organised themselves in a foundation, called A50db (A50 sustainable better). This foundation initiated the dialogue between Rijkswaterstaat and the representatives of the citizens about of the broadening of the A50. Students of Wageningen UR executed a research to an alternative for this plan, commissioned by the foundation. To discuss the outcomes of this study, the foundation organised an conference with several scientists and Members of Parliament. The foundation had a role of informing towards the population. Citizens could visit the public meetings, get information on their specific situation and express their opinions.

The behaviour of the citizens is divided into two types of activities: intensive activities (with a certain threshold to participate, like visit a meeting) and occasional activities (easy approachable, like talking with neighbours about the broadening). The averages of both types of activity (intensive and occasional) were less than three on a scale from 1 to 5. The score on occasional activities is significant higher than on intensive activities. This confirms the impression that emerged from the interviews, namely that the focus of the activities was at the foundation, and that citizens could join in a more indirect way.

What is the relation between place attachment and actions that citizens have undertaken? Whether place attachment behaves as a predictor of place-protective behaviour or not, depends on the type of activities. Activities that are very intensive cannot be predicted by affective natural place attachment. Activities that can be undertaken occasionally, can be predicted by affective natural place attachment. When people have a bond with their environment, they are willing to do some simple acts in favour of their environment. The power of the predicting value increases (β increases) when opposition to the means chosen are combined with affective natural place attachment. The level of opposition is a predictor of both types of activities.

5.2 Reflection on results

The average score of affective natural place attachment is high. Only three respondents have an attachment less than three. A group of respondents may be missing, people who indicate that they have no or a weak bond with their environment. Section 5.3 elaborates on this question.

The scores of affective natural place attachment are put in a regression, together with the results of the question if people were opponent or proponent of the plans of Rijkswaterstaat, in other words, if they agreed on the means that were chosen bij Rijkswaterstaat. This question apart and in combination with affective natural place attachment resulted in a significant relation with the level of occasional activities. The combination of a strong bond and low correspondence of means, “low satisfaction” (Stedman, 2002), resulted in protest. Stedman (2002: pp. 575): “…attachment and satisfaction exert independent influences on intention to engage in place-protective behavior: Respondents with higher levels of place attachment and lower levels op place satisfaction are more willing to act to counter environmental changes.” What he calls, the protection of places that are “important but threatened”. In this respect the support matrix of Buijs (2009) is endorsed. It should

38 be noted that the score on proponent/opponent is based on one question from the questionnaire. In future research, the degree of opposition should be examined more detailed.

Jorgensen & Stedman (2006: 318) write about Length of Residence: “…independent of the age of a person, individuals who have resided longer in a place are more likely to have developed significant relationships with other residents as well as with physical attributes of the place. This position is held by many place theorists such as Tuan (1977); Relph (1976), but contrast with empirical research conducted by Stedman (2002), who found no effect of length of residence on attachment.” The results of this study are consistent with the other empirical research. As with Stedman (2002), there is no effect of length of residence on affective natural place attachment found. The other demographic characteristics, which Scanell & Gifford (2010) involve in Place Attachment, show no significant relation. Note that the composition of the group of respondents in the field of education level is most probably biased (Table 2).

Bell (2003: 70) claims: “People do not separate the place from the community: the two go hand in hand. (…) People value the landscape as the setting for their community.” In this research the respondents did make a separation. Beside the factor of affective natural place attachment, a factor was found that emphasised the social aspects of place and the community. Because the reliability of this factor was not large enough, this factor is not investigated further. But as a critical note to the statement of Bell (2003) it should be noted that these concepts were separated by the respondents in this research.

Uzzell et al. (2002) claimed that there is no need to protect an environment that is qualitative good. This is not endorsed by this research, but there is an indication that the level of activity decreased when the rating of the environment increased.

One of the reasons for this research was that de Foundation A50dB started positively, but ended frustrated. The fact that citizens of Heelsum give their environment after the broadening a higher rating is remarkable and exactly the opposite of what happened to the members of the foundation. The higher rating may have to do with the fact that the municipality Renkum itself has invested in the improvement of a noise barrier. In combination with the sound-absorbing asphalt, this has resulted in a more quiet Heelsum than before the broadening.

The introduction of this research started with the analysis of a government that wants to involve citizens in nature and (nature) policy. The ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1967) showed that therefore decision making power should be distributed to the citizens, the higher stairs of the ladder. In reality, the participation of this case of the broadening of the A50 falters halfway. Stair 4 describes participation as consultation and stair 5 deals with placation. The governmental organisation discussed with the residents about the proposed plan, changed some things on it, but did not give citizens the idea that they were taken seriously. This case shows that the ambitions of the Dutch government on participation are not realised yet.

5.3 Research Method and Technique

The survey is executed by a written questionnaire. This choice stemmed from the fact that a detailed list of addresses of Rijkswaterstaat was available of all addresses around the A50 highway, and because there were no e-mail adresses or phone numbers available. Completing and sending the questionnaire are steps for the respondent that require more effort than completing an online survey. The respondents want to do some effort and thus may be more connected to the (subject of the) research. Maybe, this is due to the fact that they recognize the importance of the research, because they like to give their opinion or because they want to help the researcher or otherwise. It was found that the respondents are on average 60 years, live on average 27 years in Renkum and are highly educated. This likely bias may have partly to do with the composition of the population in the study area (specific figures of the zone around the highway are missing). Most of the houses in the area are large and detached, suggesting that there live wealthy or successful citizens. The percentage of people older than 65 years is 23,2% in the entire municipality Renkum, the Dutch average is 15,6% (CBS, 2011). But it can also be related to the way of surveying. Completing a written questionnaire may be a threshold for certain people. If a group of young residents or lower educated people would miss among the respondents, this may influence the results. That also influences the outcomes of the regressions on demographic characteristics. It is probable that the group of respondents is biased towards older, highly educated respondent who live long in Renkum. But simultaneously, it is not sure, because detailed data on the composition of the population are lacking. The only data available concern the whole municipality of Renkum, consisting of six villages. There are no demographic data on the two villages available and not on the sample area.

The temptation may exist for respondents to give socially-desirable answers. Both the questions relating to the environment and the activities undertaken are sensitive to this. Nearly everyone shows a strong relation with the environment (> 95%). It is not clear whether the group with no or a weak bond with the environment is just 5% of the population, or that this group of people is less motivated to complete a survey like this. For the activities undertaken this seems less. The number of people indicating that they have been active on the intensive activities (16%) is smaller than the group that indicates that they have been more occasionally active (35%). The majority of the people who have been involved in the intensive activities (89%) also belong to the people who have been occasionally active.

The probability of this bias in the results, and the uncertainty about it, limits the external validity of this research. On the basis of the respondents, it is not possible to draw conclusions on the whole (random) sample and therefore not on the whole population where the sample is taken from.

The questions in the questionnaire are based upon the theoretical framework. A number of elements are eliminated from the concept of Place Attachment, to frame it in a way that it would be applicable on this case. Based on the theory and the outcomes of the interviews, the concepts natural place attachment, civic place attachment and place identity are chosen. On each of this concepts, four questions are drafted, based on various studies. The question is whether these questions together cover the investigated concept. To substantiate the construct validity, the interviews were held. But increasing the number of questions per concept would provide a completer construction of the concepts, and therefore increase the construct and content validity.

To connect the place attachment to the activities undertaken, it was decided to let respondents rate their activity on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. This is done to make a good analysis possible. Nevertheless, it may be difficult for a respondent to express his or her participation in an activity (yes or no) on a scale from 1 to 5.

The activities presented in the questionnaire were based on the activities undertaken by the foundation. The members of the association did a large amount of work. During the interviews with the members of the foundation, it turned out that the foundation was mainly the information point for the local residents. The initiative came from the members of the foundation and a small circle of people around them. On this basis, the division into two types of activities, and the scores found for

41 the two types, were to be expected. The outcome of the questionnaire confirms the outcome of the interviews. By using both methods, a reliable image of the events arises.

The R2 of the regressions are very low. The factor affective natural place attachment explaines only 3,5% of occasional activities. Together with the degree of opposition the R2 for both intensive and occasional activities rises to approximately 11,5%. That means that about 90-95% is explained by other variables. That limits the predictive validity of the conclusion that there is a relation between the bond that people have with their environment and their willingness to protect it. Place- protective behaviour is according to this study not warranted when people have a strong bond with their environment.

5.4 Further Research

Further research should focus on the theoretical gap, as visualised in Figure 5. This research fits in the boxes on the left: place attachment ‘Yes’. One limitation of this research is the group who indicates to have a weak bond with the environment. This group is very small in the sample, but it may be larger in reality. Studying their behaviour and motives would improve the knowledge on the relation between place attachment and place-protective behaviour.

The role of demographic characteristerics is part of the ongoing discussion on place attachment. In this research it has been a side issue. To get some more detailed information on the importance of demographics, is should be examined as a main issue. More characteristics need to be investigated to draw valid conclusions on the role of demographic characteristics in place-protective behaviour.

More characteristics would also be an improvement for analysing the role of satisfaction in place- protective behaviour. In this study, only one question examined whether people were in favour of the means chosen by Rijkswaterstaat or not. This should be elaborated with more questions, on both goals and means. And the emotions that are associated with the degree of correspondence of goals and means, for example anger or disappointment.

Another open-ended result can be investigated further, namely the relation between the rating of the environment and place-protective behaviour. The quality of the environment, or the perception of this quality by people, may influence the need and willingness to protect the place where people live.

The use of a mixed method is recommendable. It makes some qualitative findings easier to interpret by the knowledge one gets through interviews. At the same time, it creates the possibility to ratify the outcomes of the interviews.

In this study, respondents where asked to rate their activity level on a scale from 1 to 5. That may be hard to do. In the future, one can ask to add a weighing to a yes-or-no question. For example, let respondents distribute a number of points on a scale from 0 to 10 and make this value negative or positive when added to ‘no’ respectively ‘yes’. The same can be done with statements on place attachment. This kind of questionnaire should actually be done online.

What about the case of the A50, the assessment of the environment after the broadening can be done at a later stage once more. The type of asphalt used needs maintenance, and in the planning process is counted with long term averages. The situation now, shortly after the broadening is better than the average used. Within time, the quality will decrease. The question is when one is aware of that. There is still a regular traffic jam, because the highway is being broadened a few kilometers further. If the work there has been completed, the final impact of the broadening on the environmental quality can be measured.

6. Conclusion

This research is about the relation between place attachment and place-protective behaviour. In order to investigate this topic, the activities of citizens in Heelsum and Wolfheze are related to the place attachment of the citizens, so it was an investigation on self-reported behaviour. In that sense, this study attributes to the ongoing discussion on the relation between place attachment and place- protective behaviour, where often hypothetical cases are used.

Citizens distinguished different types of place attachment. Natural place attachment with a strong reference of an emotional bond with the environment turned out to be a reliable factor. This is called affective natural place attachment. The category place-protective behaviour consisted of two types of activities: activities that can be undertaken when the opportunity arises, and activities that are intensive with a social-cooperative accent. Affective natural place attachment proved to be a predictor of occasional activities, while intensive activities could not be predicted with this type of attachment. When people do have a strong bond with their environment, they are prepared to do some simple acts in favour of their environment. If the means chosen by an organization like Rijkswaterstaat are not in line with the expectations that people have, this will strengthen their willingness to participate in place-protective activities. Demographic characteristics, like age or length of residence, did not prove to be a predictor for place attachment or activity.

Due to a probable bias towards elderly, high-educated people in the sample, the conclusions of this research cannot be extrapolated unconditionally.

Using a mixed method by combining qualitative aspects of an interview with quantitative analysis of data derived from a questionnaire, reinforces the outcomes of the research. The data from the different sources do not fundamentally contradict each other.

The outcomes of this research gives reason for further research. The role of satisfaction with the current situation and the influence of upcoming (negative) landscape change are research issues with open ends. Just as the consequence of respondent’s demographic characteristics for their place attachment and their willingness to protect their environment.

References

Ajzen, 2006, Theory of Planned Behaviour Diagram [Online]. Available: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html (2011, June 14)

Algemeen Dagblad, 2005 (October 10), Fileleed op A50 in gedeelten aangepakt [Online]. Available: http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Binnenland/article/detail/5523/2005/10/10/Fileleed-op-A50-in- gedeelten-aangepakt.dhtml (2011, April 5)

Arnstein S.R., 1967, A ladder of citizen participation. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, no. 4 (pp. 216-224)

Arts, B.J.M. and Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2012, Forest governance: a state of the art review. In: Arts, B.J.M., Bommel, S. van, Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Verschoor, G.M. (eds.), Forest-people interfaces: understanding community forestry and biocultural diversity (pp. 241-257). Wageningen : Wageningen Academic Publishers

Bell, S., 2003, Crossplan: Integrated, Participatory Landscape Planning as a Tool for Rural Development. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

Bilsky, W. and Koch, M., 2000, On the content and structure of values: Universals or methodological artifacts? In: Blasius B. J., Hox, J., Leeuw, E. de and Schmidt P. (eds.), Social science methodology in the New Millennium. Updated and extended proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology, Oct. 3-6, 2000, Cologne [CD-ROM]. Leverkusen: Leske + Budrich.

Buijs, A.E., 2009, Protest door verbondenheid: de draagvlakmatrix als denkmodel om maatschappelijk protest te begrijpen. In: Elands, B.H.M. and Turnhout, E. (red.), Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, 9 (pp. 14-23). Wageningen: Wageningen UR.

Buizer, I.M., 2008, Worlds Apart; Interactions between Local Initiatives and Established Policy. PhD thesis Wageningen University and Research centre: Alterra Scientific Contributions 22.

CBS (Central Statistical Office), 2011, [Online]. Available via: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/search/?Q=renkum (2012, December 11)

Devine-Wright, P. and Clayton, S., 2010, Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behaviour. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30 (pp. 267-270). Elsevier Ltd.

George, D., & Mallery, P., 2003, SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 4th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Green, J. and Thorogood, N., 2009, Qualitative Methods for Health Research. Second Edition. London: SAGE Pub. Ltd.

Hinds, H. and Sparks, P., 2008, Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 (pp. 109-120). Elsevier Ltd.

Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M., and Hartig, T., 2007, Space and Place – Two Aspects of the Human- landscape Relationship. In: Kienast, F., Wildi, O. and Ghosh, S. (eds.), A Changing World. Challenges for Landscape Research (pp. 47-62). Landscape Series Springer.

Hussein, A., 2009, The use of Triangulation in Social Sciences Research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? In: Journal of Comparitive Social Work, 2009-1. University of Agder.

Jorgensen, B.S. and Stedman, R.C., 2001, Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes toward their Properties. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21 (pp. 233-248). New York: Academic Press.

Kaiser, F.G., 1998, A General Measure of Ecological Behavior. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, no. 5 (pp. 395-422).

Klundert, B. van de, 2004, Medeverantwoordelijkheid tussen zelfdiscipline en zelfsturing, tussen verheven en triviaal, tussen doel en middel. In: Overbeek, G. en Lijmbach, S. (eds), Medeverantwoordelijkheid voor natuur (pp. 55-70). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Kooij, H.J., Hofschreuder, P., Jaarsma, C.F., Massop, H.T.L., Sande, B. van de & Theuws, P., 2008, A50: oorverdovend & adembenemend – een ontwerpstudie voor het tracé Grijsoord-Rijnbrug. Wageningen UR, Wetenschapswinkel rapport 238

Korpela, K.M., 1989, Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 9 (pp. 241-256). New York: Academic Press.

Kumar, R., 2005, Research Methodology, a step-by-step guide for beginners. Second Edition. London: SAGE Pub. Ltd.

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fishery, 2000, Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur. Nota natuur, bos en landschap in de 21ste eeuw. Den Haag: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.

Ministry of Public Health and Environmental Protection, 1979, Wet Geluidshinder [Online]. Available: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR000322 (2011, June 24)

NRC, 2009 (April 17), Lawaai en gekwetter in Bermudadriehoek [Online]. Available: http://archief.nrc.nl/index.php/2009/April/17/Binnenland/02/Lawaai+en+gekwetter+in+Bermudadri ehoek (2012, December 11)

Pelsmacker, P. de & Kenhove, P. van, 2006, Marktonderzoek: Methoden en toepassingen. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux. 2nd Edition ( pp. 295-310)

Rijkswaterstaat Oost-Nederland, 2009, Akoestisch onderzoek project TB A50 knpt Valburg – knpt Grijsoord; Hoofdrapport en Bijlagenrapport. Deventer: Witteveen en Bos.

Rijkswaterstaat, 2010, Verbreding A50 tussen Valburg en Grijsoord [Folder] [Online]. Available: http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Folder%20Verbreding%20A50%20Valburg-Grijsoord_tcm174- 282430.pdf (2012, December 11)

Scanell, L. and Gifford, R., 2010, The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro- environmental behavior. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30 (pp. 289-297). Elsevier Ltd.

Schwartz, S.H., 1992, Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Stedman, R.C., 2002, Toward a Social Psychology of Place – Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions. Attitude and Identity. In: Environment and Behavior, Vol. 34, no. 5 (pp. 561-581)

Stichting A50dB, 2007, Zienswijze Ontwerp-tracébesluit A50 Valburg-Grijsoord [Letter]. Heelsum, 31 May 2007.

Stichting A50dB, 2008, Doelstelling Stichting A50dB [Online]. Not available. http://www.a50db.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:nieuws- 1&catid=25:algemeen (2011, 6 April)

Stichting A50dB, 2009, Verbreding A50 Valburg-Grijsoord [Open Letter]. Heelsum, 7 October 2009.

Stichting A50dB, 2010, Uitspraak Raad van State negatief voor inwoners en natuur Renkum [Online]. Not available. http://www.a50db.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:uitspraak- raad-van-state-negatief-voor-inwoners-en-natuur-renkum&catid=1:laatstenieuws&Itemid=61 (2011, 6 April)

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2003, The Past and Future of Mixed Methods Research: From Data Triangulation to Mixed Model Designs. In: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 671-701). California: Sage Publications.

Turnhout, E. and Elands, B.H.M., 2009, Draagvlak en betrokkenheid bij burgers. In: Elands, B.H.M. and Turnhout, E. (red.), Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, 9 (pp. 5-13). Wageningen: Wageningen UR.

Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, 2008, Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaat van het Infrastructuurfonds voor het jaar 2008, 31200A nr. 94, 8 augustus 2008. Den Haag.

Uzzell, D., Pol, E. and Badenas, D., 2002, Place Identification, Social Cohesion and Environmental Sustainability. In: Environment and Behavior, Vol. 34, no. 1 (pp. 26-53).

Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H., 1999, Designing a Research Project. Utrecht: Publisher LEMMA.

Walker, A.J. and Ryan, R.L., 2008, Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. In: Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 86 (pp. 141-152). Elsevier B.V.

WING, 2008, Stichting A50dB organiseert succesvolle conferentie [Online]. Available: www.wing.nl/file.php/11/A50dB_artikelen.pdf (2012, December 6)

Appendices

Appendix 1a: Interview guide

 Wederzijdse introductie o Duidelijk aangeven wat de bedoeling is van het interview, ook binnen het onderzoek (en waar dat onderzoek voor dient, refereren aan eerder contact via e-mail en telefoon).

“Zoals aangegeven, ben ik bezig met een onderzoek naar de gebeurtenissen rondom de verbreding van de A50. Ik heb gekozen om het initiatief van stichting A50dB te onderzoeken, omdat uit de eerste berichten van de stichting een positieve grondhouding bleek. De wil om actief te worden voor de omgeving is de ene pijler in dit onderzoek. De tweede pijler is de band die mensen met hun omgeving hebben. Ik onderzoek of en hoe deze twee met elkaar in verband kunnen worden gebracht.”

“Dit interview is bedoeld als aanloop naar de enquête die ik zal houden onder omwonenden van de A50. De bedoeling van dit interview is dat ik die enquête aan kan laten sluiten bij de situatie hier. Ik verwacht, dat u vanuit uw positie als bestuurslid van de stichting A50db, een goed beeld hebt van alles wat er is gebeurd rondom en in het kader van de verbreding van de A50, en daarom houd ik dit interview met u.”

In het geval van instemming met opnames (anders notities): “Ik heb u gevraagd of u ermee instemt dat dit interview wordt opgenomen. (…) [vertrouwelijkheid, opnames wel/niet ‘vernietigen’]. “Zoals gezegd is dit interview een opstap naar de enquête. De informatie die in het rapport terecht komt is niet tot u herleidbaar. Mochten daar toch goede redenen voor zijn, dan neem ik eerst met u contact op om uw goedkeuring te vragen. o Duidelijk aangeven wat de planning van het interview is: onderdelen, zoveel mogelijk afzonderlijk behandelen. Geschatte tijdsduur: 1-1,5 uur. “Dit interview bestaat uit een aantal onderdelen. Ik wil graag een reconstructie maken van de gebeurtenissen, wat de rol van de stichting en van u daarin was, en eens zien wat u kunt zeggen over de plaats en inwoners van Renkum.”

o Zou u, lettend op de volgende aspecten, uzelf kunnen introduceren? . Werkzaamheden ten tijde van proces . Betrokken bij gemeenschap van gemeente Renkum en hoe? . Werk? . Opleiding?

 Reconstructie

o Veranderingen in de omgeving . Wat is er volgens u veranderd sinds de verbreding van de A50? Infrastructuur, omgeving. . Hoe vergelijkt u de oude situatie met de nieuwe situatie? . Wat vindt u van die verandering? . Hebt u in het verleden meer dit soort grote veranderingen in uw leefomgeving meegemaakt? . Ik probeer ook een beeld te krijgen van (de bevolking van) Renkum. Hoe is die opgebouwd als het gaat om leeftijdsopbouw, werkgelegenheid, beroepsbevolking, herkomst van de inwoners?

. Hoe is Renkum maatschappelijk georganiseerd? (verenigingen e.d.) . Wat zijn de “paradepaardjes” van de plaatsen Heelsum en Wolfheze? (trots, kernplaatsen/-activiteiten) Voor wie zijn dit de “paradepaardjes”?

o Presentatie tijdlijn: wordt er gedurende het interview bijgehouden om bepaalde gebeurtenissen aan te vullen. Wat gebeurde wanneer, waarom en wat gebeurde er daarna? Kan op verschillende momenten in het gesprek worden gebruikt. “Ik heb hier een eerste tijdlijn van de gebeurtenissen, gebaseerd op krantenartikelen en andere informatie. Het lijkt me goed om deze momenten nu even langs te lopen en waar nodig aan te vullen. Tijdens het interview zullen we de momenten nader bespreken.”

o Persoonlijk . Hoe bent u persoonlijk bij de stichting betrokken geraakt? . Wat waren uw motieven om langdurig bij dit project betrokken te zijn? . Wat hebt u zoal persoonlijk ondernomen? Wat was uw rol binnen de stichting? . Wat hebt u buiten de stichting om ondernomen met betrekking tot het A50-project? . Hebt u dingen gedaan die u anders zou hebben gedaan als u geen deel uitmaakte van de stichting? Welke?

o Onderhandelingen . Bent u persoonlijk betrokken geweest bij gesprekken met andere partijen?  Rijkswaterstaat/A50dB/gemeente… o Zo ja: Hoe hebt u die ervaren? o Zijn er op basis van de gesprekken dingen uit het oorspronkelijke plan veranderd? . Met welke belangrijke partijen heeft u contact gehad? . Hoe verliep de communicatie tussen de stichting en deze partijen? . Wie organiseerde de gesprekken? . Wie leidde de gesprekken? . Wie werden er uitgenodigd? Wie niet? . Wat vindt u van de samenwerking tussen de partijen?

o Onderzoek . Op welke manier heeft (wetenschappelijk) onderzoek een rol gespeeld gedurende het proces? . Hoe belangrijk vonden verschillende partijen dit onderzoek?  Rijkswaterstaat, A50dB, gemeente, … . Wat was uw rol in het onderzoek dat is uitgevoerd door Wageningen UR? . Wat was uw betrokkenheid bij de conferentie? . Hoe hebt u de conferentie ervaren? . Hoe hebt u de (uitkomsten van de) conferentie gebruikt in het vervolg van het proces?

o Betrokkenheid van de bevolking . Hoe heeft de stichting de omwonenden van de snelweg betrokken bij hun werkzaamheden? . Hoe hebben omwonenden gereageerd op het initiatief van de stichting? . Welke reacties kreeg u van omwonenden? . Kunt u een beeld schetsen van de groep mensen die het meest betrokken was bij de stichting? (leeftijd, geboren en getogen in deze omgeving of ‘import’)

Zijn er dingen waarvan u denkt dat ik die moet weten voordat ik verder ga met dit onderzoek, die we hier nog niet besproken hebben?

Appendix 1b: Timeline

2005 mei Aankondiging aanpak A50 door ministers Peijs en Dekker

2006 maart ‘Herrie uit Heelsum en Wolfheze’, startbijeenkomst burgerinitiatief

2007

Informatiebijeenkomst in hotel Klein Zwitserland, door A50dB maart Presentatie ontwerp-tracébesluit

Mei Zienswijze A50dB

2008

‘Oorverdovend en adembenemend’, presentatie onderzoek naar alternatief voor februari ontwerpbesluit

september Conferentie met wetenschappers, natuurorganisaties en Tweede Kamerleden

2009 februari Handtekening minister Eurlings onder tracébesluit

juli Beroepschrift tegen besluit

2010 februari Er komt een (r)ec(r)oduct

juli Uitspraak RvS: bezwaren ongegrond

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Enquête ‘Verbreding A50’ Het invullen van deze enquête duurt ongeveer 10 minuten. U kunt de vragen beantwoorden door op een schaal van 1 (zeer mee oneens) t/m 5 (zeer mee eens) aan te geven wat u van de genoemde stellingen vindt. U geeft antwoord door een kruisje te zetten in het vakje van uw keuze. Als u een antwoord wilt wijzigen, maak dan het fout ingevulde vakje zwart en zet een kruisje in het vakje van uw keuze.

Zeer mee Zeer oneens Mee oneens Neutraal eens Mee mee Zeer eens 1 2 3 4 5

1. Ik vind het landschap in de omgeving waar ik woon mooi

2. Mijn omgeving is de beste plaats om de dingen te doen die ik het liefst doe

3. De natuurlijke omgeving waar ik in woon is niet belangrijk voor wie ik ben

4. In mijn omgeving zijn alle voorzieningen te vinden die ik nodig heb

5. Ik herken mijzelf in de mensen die in deze omgeving wonen

6. Als ik langere tijd weg ben, mis ik mijn omgeving niet

7. Het maakt me ongelukkig als ik zie dat mijn natuurlijk omgeving wordt aangetast

8. Als ik weg ben, mis ik de plaatselijke gemeenschap

9. Of ik mij thuis voel in een plaats, wordt niet bepaald door de mensen die er wonen

10. Of ik mij thuis voel in een plaats, wordt vooral bepaald door wat ik van de natuurlijke omgeving vind

11. Ik voel mij verbonden met de natuur in deze omgeving

12. Het is belangrijk voor mij dat ik mijzelf kan zijn in mijn omgeving

13. Doordat de snelweg A50 is verbreed... 1 2 3 4 5 a. …is de omgeving toegankelijker geworden b. …is de omgeving rustiger geworden c. …is de omgeving mooier geworden d. …is de omgeving schoner geworden e. …voel ik mij minder thuis in mijn omgeving f. …kan de regio zich economisch beter ontwikkelen

Kunt u hieronder, op een schaal van 1 (= zeer onjuist) tot 5 (zeer juist), aangeven in hoeverre de stellingen op u van toepassing zijn?

Zeer Zeer onjuist juist Zeer 1 2 3 4 5

14. Ik heb nooit gesproken over de verbreding van de A50 met mensen in mijn omgeving

15. Ik heb mij binnen mijn dorpsplatform/bewoners- of buurtvereniging actief beziggehouden met de verbreding van de A50

16. De verbreding van de A50 heeft me aan het denken gezet

17. Ik was een uitgesproken voorstander van de verbreding van de A50 zoals Rijkswaterstaat die voorstelde

18. Ik heb mijn mening kenbaar gemaakt, door bijvoorbeeld het zetten van een handtekening of het achterlaten van een bericht op internet

19. Ik ben precies op de hoogte van de werkzaamheden van stichting A50dB

20. Ik heb veel bijgedragen aan het starten van een procedure naar aanleiding van de Milieu EffectRapportage

21. Ik was vastbesloten om mee te doen aan het protest tegen de verbreding van de A50

22. Ik heb actief deelgenomen aan de bijeenkomst onder het motto ‘Herrie uit Heelsum’ in hotel ‘Klein Zwitserland’ in Heelsum op 5 maart 2007

23. Ik heb nooit contact gehad met de leden van stichting A50dB over de verbreding van de A50

24. Ik heb de website van stichting A50dB vaak bezocht om van de ontwikkelingen op de hoogte te blijven

25. Ik weet veel over het onderzoek dat door Wageningen Universiteit is uitgevoerd naar alternatieven voor de verbreding van de A50

26. Ik heb actief deelgenomen aan de conferentie op 13 september 2008 in de Rehobothzaal in Heelsum

27. Ik ben op nog andere manieren actief geweest

nl.: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......

28. Wat voor cijfer zou u uw omgeving vóór de verbreding van de snelweg hebben gegeven op een schaal van 1 t/m 10 (1 = zeer laag, 10 = zeer hoog)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29. Wat voor cijfer geeft u uw omgeving op dit moment op een schaal van 1 t/m 10 (1 = zeer laag, 10 = zeer hoog)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30. Ik ben een 0 Man 0 Vrouw

31. Leeftijd: ……… jaar

32. Hoe lang woont u in de gemeente Renkum? ……… jaar

33. Hoogst genoten opleiding 0 Lagere school 0 Lager onderwijs (LBO, mavo, vmbo) 0 Middelbaar onderwijs (MBO, havo, vwo) 0 Hoger onderwijs (HBO / WO)

Appendix 3: Factor Analysis

3.1 Factor analysis Questions 1 to 12 Test if applicable

The three conditions are derived from Pelsmacker & Kenhove (2006)

1. The variables should be measured at an interval or a ratio scale. This requirement is met, a Likert scale is used (interval) 2. The sample size must be adequate. This is done by using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion. This must be larger than the limit value of 0,5. Moreover, Bartlett's Test of Spericity is significant. The factor analysis is based on this allowed

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,743 Approx. Chi-Square 448,660 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 66 Sig. ,000

3. The requirement of multicollinearity. There should be no correlation between the statements. In all cases, r |<| 0,8, so this condition is also met.

Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Correlation 1 1,000 2 ,517 1,000 3 ,195 ,118 1,000 4 ,259 ,265 ,148 1,000 5 ,063 ,271 -,003 ,164 1,000 6 ,113 ,258 ,257 ,125 ,322 1,000 7 ,204 ,194 -,098 -,035 ,142 -,014 1,000 8 -,178 ,128 -,070 ,074 ,484 ,287 ,133 1,000 9 -,042 -,114 ,125 -,070 ,118 ,050 -,053 ,163 1,000 10 ,361 ,577 -,014 ,247 ,200 ,243 ,395 ,069 -,280 1,000 11 ,466 ,528 ,155 ,208 ,219 ,285 ,454 -,033 -,111 ,708 1,000 12 ,427 ,436 ,111 ,280 ,078 ,126 ,371 -,211 -,037 ,552 ,672 1,000

3.2 Factor analysis Questions 14 to 27 Test if applicable

The three conditions are derived from Pelsmacker & Kenhove (2006)

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,903 Approx. Chi-Square 508,953 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 78 Sig. ,000

3. The requirement of multicollinearity. There should be no correlation between the statements. In all cases, r |<| 0,8, so this condition is also met.

Correlation Matrix

14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Correlation 14 1,000 15 ,321 1,000 16 ,389 ,489 1,000 18 ,324 ,512 ,353 1,000 19 ,295 ,516 ,353 ,646 1,000 20 ,391 ,625 ,328 ,449 ,436 1,000 21 ,427 ,554 ,463 ,548 ,576 ,608 1,000 22 ,266 ,418 ,323 ,325 ,273 ,545 ,528 1,000 23 ,378 ,408 ,143 ,375 ,409 ,423 ,347 ,271 1,000 24 ,395 ,472 ,338 ,575 ,508 ,530 ,523 ,428 ,323 1,000 25 ,355 ,497 ,335 ,471 ,432 ,616 ,537 ,476 ,272 ,658 1,000 26 ,346 ,465 ,274 ,394 ,438 ,511 ,399 ,393 ,313 ,506 ,569 1,000 27 ,360 ,579 ,498 ,505 ,530 ,650 ,600 ,488 ,411 ,536 ,610 ,657 1,000

3.3 Factor analysis Questions 1 to 12, based on Eigenvalue > 1

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 V1_Landschap_mooi ,651 V2_Omgeving_beste_plaats_dingen_doen ,650 V3_Omgeving_belangrijk_voor_wie_ik_ben ,674 V4_Voorzieningen ,547 V5_Herken_mijzelf_in_mensen ,787 V6_Mis_omgeving_wanneer_lang_weg ,542 V7_Ongelukkig_aantasting_natuurlijke_omg ,613 -,552 V8_Mis_plaatselijke_gemeenschap_wanneer_weg ,860 V9_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_mensen ,853 V10_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_natuurlijke_omg ,770 V11_Verbonden_met_natuur ,875 V12_Mijzelf_zijn ,823 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

3.4 Factor analysis Question 1 to 12, fixed number of factors: 3

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 V1_Landschap_mooi ,658 V2_Omgeving_beste_plaats_dingen_doen ,712 V3_Omgeving_belangrijk_voor_wie_ik_ben ,773 V4_Voorzieningen V5_Herken_mijzelf_in_mensen ,783 V6_Mis_omgeving_wanneer_lang_weg ,534 V7_Ongelukkig_aantasting_natuurlijke_omg ,517 V8_Mis_plaatselijke_gemeenschap_wanneer_weg ,863 V9_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_mensen V10_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_natuurlijke_omg ,825 V11_Verbonden_met_natuur ,865 V12_Mijzelf_zijn ,795 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

3.5 Factor analysis Question 1 to 12 Fixed number of factors: 2

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 V1_Landschap_mooi ,669 V2_Omgeving_beste_plaats_dingen_doen ,732 V3_Omgeving_belangrijk_voor_wie_ik_ben V4_Voorzieningen V5_Herken_mijzelf_in_mensen ,759 V6_Mis_omgeving_wanneer_lang_weg ,586 V7_Ongelukkig_aantasting_natuurlijke_omg V8_Mis_plaatselijke_gemeenschap_wanneer_weg ,832 V9_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_mensen V10_Thuis_voelen_afh_van_natuurlijke_omg ,817 V11_Verbonden_met_natuur ,867 V12_Mijzelf_zijn ,790 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

3.6 Factor analysis Question 14 to 27 Based on Eigenvalue > 1

Component Matrixa Component 1 V14_Spreken_met_mensen ,555 V15_Dorpsplatform ,758 V16_Aan_het_denken_gezet ,569 V18_Handtekening_Bericht_Internet ,715 V19_Op_de_hoogte_werkzaamheden_A50db ,708 V20_Procedure_MER ,791 V21_Vastbesloten_te_protesteren ,787 V22_Herrie_uit_Heelsum ,628 V23_Contact_leden_A50db ,539 V24_Website_A50db_bezocht ,753 V25_Onderzoek_WUR ,762 V26_Conferentie ,693 V27_Anders_nl ,824 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a. 1 components extracted.

3.7 Factor analysis Question 14 to 27 Based on Eigenvalue = 0.95

Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 V14_Spreken_met_mensen ,501 V15_Dorpsplatform ,545 ,529 V16_Aan_het_denken_gezet V18_Handtekening_Bericht_Internet ,740 V19_Op_de_hoogte_werkzaamheden_A50db ,783 V20_Procedure_MER ,734 V21_Vastbesloten_te_protesteren ,589 ,523 V22_Herrie_uit_Heelsum ,769 V23_Contact_leden_A50db ,699 V24_Website_A50db_bezocht ,603 V25_Onderzoek_WUR ,777 V26_Conferentie ,669 V27_Anders_nl ,717 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

3.8 Factor analysis Question 14 to 27 Fixed number of factors: 2

Appendix 4: T-tests

4.1 Independent samples test Omdat de uitkomsten van de Levene’s Test in alle gevallen niet significant is, wordt uitgegaan van gelijke varianties (de rijen met ‘equal variances not assumed’ uit de SPSS-uitvoer zijn derhalve weggelaten).

Independent Samples Test (Equal variances assumed) Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper NPA_Affect ,591 ,443 -1,575 121 ,118 -,1877 ,1192 -,4237 ,0482 For_Against 1,400 ,239 1,905 118 ,059 ,4453 ,2337 -,0176 ,9082 Act_Intensive ,085 ,771 -1,139 117 ,257 -,2288 ,2009 -,6268 ,1691 Act_Occasional ,578 ,449 -1,830 117 ,070 -,3812 ,2083 -,7936 ,0313 V28_Cijfer_voor ,573 ,450 -1,014 118 ,313 -,3438 ,3390 -1,0152 ,3276 V29_Cijfer_na 2,041 ,156 ,928 118 ,355 ,2748 ,2963 -,3119 ,8615 After_Before ,005 ,941 1,576 117 ,118 ,593 ,376 -,152 1,338

Group Statistics

Std. Std. Error Woonplaats N Mean Deviation Mean NPA_Affect Heelsum 88 4,152 ,5938 ,0633 Wolfheze 35 4,340 ,6030 ,1019 For_Against Heelsum 86 3,349 1,1958 ,1289 Wolfheze 34 3,794 1,0380 ,1780 Act_Intensive Heelsum 85 1,968 1,0032 ,1088 Wolfheze 34 2,197 ,9565 ,1640 Act_Occasional Heelsum 85 2,589 1,0528 ,1142 Wolfheze 34 2,971 ,9559 ,1639 V28_Cijfer_voor Heelsum 87 7,080 1,6790 ,1800 Wolfheze 33 7,424 1,6014 ,2788 V29_Cijfer_na Heelsum 87 7,517 1,3543 ,1452 Wolfheze 33 7,242 1,6776 ,2920 After_Before Heelsum 87 ,44 1,757 ,188 Wolfheze 32 -,16 1,986 ,351

4.2 Paired Samples Test Act_Intensive & Act_Occasional

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Act_Occasional 2,698 120 1,0322 ,0942 Pair 1 Act_Intensive 2,042 120 ,9913 ,0905

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Std. Error Sig. (2- Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed) Pair 1 Act_Occasional ,6567 ,6233 ,0569 ,5440 ,7693 11,541 119 ,000 - Act_Intensive

4.3 Paired Samples Test Heelsum_Before & Heelsum_After

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean After 7,52 87 1,354 ,145 Pair 1 Before 7,08 87 1,679 ,180

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std. Std. Error Sig. (2- Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed) Pair 1 After-Before ,437 1,757 ,188 ,062 ,811 2,319 86 ,023

4.4 Paired Samples Test Wolfheze_Before & Wolfheze_After

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean After 7,19 32 1,674 ,296 Pair 1 Before 7,34 32 1,558 ,275

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Std. Std. Error Interval of the t df Mean tailed) Deviation Mean Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 After-Before -0,156 1,986 0,351 -0,872 0,56 -0,445 31 0,659