2.1. Place Attachment
Place attachment can be broadly defined as the emotional, perceptive, and behavioral bond that develops between people and a place [
10,
11,
25]. It refers to the overall feelings, sense of connection, thoughts, and behavioral intentions that people develop over time in relation to the social and physical environment [
26]. People are willing to stay in a place that gives them peace and security [
27] and creates place attachment that further promotes freedom of exploration, comfort and emotional responses within the local community [
28]. People with a high degree of attachment tend to live in the same place for a long time, while those who are unable to establish strong links to their place of residence are more likely to leave [
29].
Place attachment can be developed on various geographic scales (such as home, neighborhood, city, region, and country) [
30]. As a complex and multidimensional concept [
11,
13,
30], place attachment includes other concepts, such as place dependence, place identity, place social bonding (a sense of belonging or identity of a place), and place affect (an individual’s feelings or “love” for a place) [
9,
14,
25,
31]. People can be attached to a place for many reasons, so place attachment can be distinguished by emotional bonds (place identity) and functional bonds to a place (place dependence) [
18]. Residents’ attitudes toward a place to which they are attached depend on the “meaning” of the place, which refers to whether the place is taken for granted or needs to be consciously discovered [
25]. However, numerous studies have examined the relationships among place attachment, place satisfaction, and pro-environmental behavior, but few have examined their multidimensional nature [
14].
Place attachment was originally identified in studies of environmental psychology that were concerned with an individual’s connection to a house and home and, later, to neighborhoods and places that are associated with the individual’s connection to a particular environment [
32]. Psychological literature suggests that place attachment is associated with the belief that a place is a good place to live, and that individuals who feel more attached to their local environment are those who express a more positive view of it [
33]. Place attachment is conceptualized as a sense of place [
17,
34]; it involves urban attachment [
10,
35], community attachment, neighborhood attachment [
10,
19,
21], family attachment [
22,
36], and links to nature [
37], although the term place attachment is the most widely used.
Additionally, place attachment is a broad area of research that, while maturing in theory, methodology, and application, will benefit from the contributions of geographers [
38]. For example, Yi-Fu Tuan, a distinguished human geographer and pioneer in the study of place attachment, coined the term “topophilia” to indicate people’s love for a particular place [
39,
40]. Place attachment is inherent in the human condition, and geographers and relevant scholars are particularly interested in place attachment and how it shapes everyday lives (e.g., going to work, shopping, and social interactions), important life choices (e.g., place of residence, education, and vacation), and identity (e.g., religion, citizenship, and state) [
41].
Daryanto and Song [
9] believed that place attachment can create a personal sense of responsibility for the local environment, thereby encouraging activities that contribute to environmental sustainability. Jansen [
18] confirmed the “greater threat—stronger place attachment” link, possibly because the threat of losing a place reminds residents of their attachment to it [
22]. Stancu et al. [
26] considered that strong attachment to a place may have a negative impact on coping with or the perception of a threat. A possible explanation may depend on the fact that place attachment may have a direct effect not on coping behavior but on the relationship between perception and coping behavior.
No consensus exists on the causal relationships among environmental attitudes, perceived risk, and coping behavior nor on whether place attachments on different scales have different effects on coping behavior. Numerous studies attribute this lack of consensus to the diverse conceptualization or unclear measurement of place attachment. For example, Walker and Chapman [
42] and Williams and Vaske [
43] treated place attachment as a two-dimensional concept that involved only place identity and place dependence. Bailey et al. [
44] investigated five types of relationship of a resident to place, which were traditional attachment, active attachment, place alienation, place relativity, and placelessness. Halpenny [
45] and Stedman [
46] argued that the conceptualization of place attachment reflects place dependence, place identity, and affective components, while Kyle et al. [
47] suggested that place attachment includes place identity, place dependence, and place social bonding. In contrast, Daryanto and Song [
9], Ramkissoon et al. [
14], Ramkissoon and Mavondo [
31], and Wnuk and Oleksy [
25] found that place attachment incorporates four concepts, which are place dependence, place identity, place social bonding (a sense of belonging to or a membership identity with a place), and place influence (an individual’s feelings about, or “love” for a place).
The literature is unclear on whether place attachment promotes environmentally friendly behavior, possibly because of differences in the designs of relevant studies. Owing to the existence of various cultural contexts and groups, place attachment and pro-environmental behavior should be measured on different scales [
9]. Understanding whether or how cultural and personal factors affect the bond between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior is important. People with a stronger attachment to a place are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behavior [
31,
34]. However, some empirical studies have claimed that no, or even a negative, link exists between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. For example, Junot et al. [
48] and Tonge et al. [
49] found that place attachment had a negative or no effect on pro-environmental behavior. Individuals with a strong attachment to a particular place tend to be satisfied with the environment there and, thus, have no or a low tendency to exhibit pro-environmental behavior. Daryanto and Song [
9] suggested that studies of place attachment should consider its multidimensional nature and the potentially different roles associated with those dimensions in promoting pro-environmental behavior.
2.2. Risk Perception
Risk perception is an emotional structure that is driven by unconscious emotional processes [
50] and is affected by perceptive heuristics, which can generate bias in decision-making. For example, environmental risks are often associated with the view, “I will be unaffected”, and inaccurate views may be reached about how environmental risks affect individuals and their communities [
13,
19,
21], resulting in inaction [
51]. Therefore, risk perception is not rational nor analytical but, rather, a subjective judgment of risk characteristics and severity [
52]. Risk perception is the basic predictor of the psychological and behavioral coping strategies that individuals use in dealing with risk [
17,
52]. Numerous variables affect how individuals perceive and respond to risks, such as their situation and personal characteristics [
18], previous experience of hazards [
13,
17,
18,
50], attachment to places and communities, and the degree of understanding of hazards [
17].
A risky situation may increase the strength of the bond between residents and place [
18], and people tend to match their perceptions to those of the people with whom they identify [
53], leading to socio-cultural, historical, and group-specific risk-coping performance [
54]. Raaijmakers et al. [
55] identified three aspects of risk perception: awareness (of hazardous situations), worries about one’s situation, and preparation for potential outcomes. In the literature, findings concerning the relationships between intensity of place attachment and coping with risk and between place attachment and perceived risk are inconsistent [
14,
17]. Some studies have found no correlation between perceived risk and preparedness [
56], while others have found such a correlation [
13,
17,
57].
Bonaiuto et al. [
19] noted that, with respect to exposure to seismic risk, volcanic risk, and beach pollution, greater place attachment is associated with lower risk perceptions. Their results reveal that residents with strong attachments may feel safe at home, potentially leading to neglect or denial of potential hazards, and a consequent underestimation of potential risks [
19,
21]. A study of Faro Beach in southern Portugal found that stronger place attachment is associated with lower risk perceptions, as residents tend to accept risk as an aspect of their environment [
17]. However, in a study of responses to a Dutch earthquake, individuals with strong attachment did recognize the risk and feel emotional pain but were reluctant to take action as a result [
18].
Risk perception, and especially flood risk perception [
21], is closely related to individual adaptive intention [
58]. While communities at risk of extreme rainfall are more aware than others of the effects of climate change, communities with low exposure to potential danger are less aware of the benefits of adapting to climate change. Some studies have suggested that place attachment may negatively moderate this positive relationship. This obstruction effect is stronger in areas where subjective risk is greater [
21].
Domingues et al. [
17] suggested that the effect of place attachment on risk perception is not simple and may depend on other variables, especially perceived risk probability and experience with risk. Under condition of high risk, place attachment may increase risk perception, while, under conditions of low risk, it reduces risk perception [
59]. In considering the relationship between risk perception and place attachment, the latter is often conceptualized as a predictor or an antecedent variable in that it affects individual perception risk, but the nature of this relationship is unclear [
17].
2.3. Prevention Coping Behavior
“Coping” can be defined as a person’s perception of and his or her behavioral efforts to manage the needs that arise from a stressed relationship with the environment [
60]. For example, effective disaster preparedness can increase the hazard preparedness capacity of families at risk of disasters and reduce the impact of such disasters on those families [
61,
62]. Evacuations and relocations are effective means of reducing the impact of disasters on residents [
13]. In the theory of reasoned action [
63], to change a person’s behavior, one must first change his or her beliefs, which underpin a person’s will to control his or her behavior. Restated, the generation of behavior is the behavior that the individual takes through thinking, experience, and after choices are made; the theoretical context includes attitudes, intention, and that the intention of behavior will be influenced by attitudes and external environmental norms.
According to Tournoisa and Rollero [
64], place attachment and place identity are both useful in estimating local conservation activities in theoretical discussions of the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) phenomenon. Local opposition to new developments is conceived as a means of local protection that occurs when these new developments undermine pre-existing emotional attachments and threaten place identity. Ramkissoon et al. [
14] found no certain rules concerning whether the relationship between place attachment and behavioral intention has direct, indirect, or no effects. Dlamini et al. [
8] suggested that the link between attitudes and behavior is indirect, but that attitudes affect behavioral intention, which, in turn, shapes behavior. Intention is affected not only by attitudes but also by normative pressures. Thus, behavior ultimately depends on beliefs, possible consequences, and social norms [
63]. Positive environmental behavior may arise from a sense of attachment to the place, whereas blatantly negative behavior may reflect passivity or indifference to the local environment.
The concept of preparedness is increasingly used to describe natural behavioral responses to potential environmental risks, which are effective measures to reduce significantly disaster risk [
50,
61,
62]. Disaster preparedness is defined as the knowledge and capabilities that are developed by individuals to predict, respond to, and recover from the impacts of hazards [
65]. Risk perception, whether high or low, consistent or inconsistent with actual risk, is the variable that has been most considered in studies of disaster preparedness.
The relationships among place attachment, risk perception, and preparedness are increasingly being addressed in the context of natural hazards, and a need exists to promote adequate adaptation and response behaviors in disaster-prone populations [
17]. While most relevant studies focus on location and risk, they have found only weak and inconsistent relationships among variables, possibly owing to the various types of disaster and social, economic and cultural environments they have involved [
50]. However, a strong sense of place may be an important potential factor in the risk perception and low preparedness levels of beach dwellers [
66].
Place attachment is negatively correlated with intention to migrate, so stronger place attachment is related to lower migration intention [
13,
18,
19,
21,
67]. Statistical evidence indicates that respondents with strong place attachment are often reluctant to accept this fact. This result seems surprising, as these respondents are also reluctant to move, perhaps because of “survivor bias” [
13]. They use other coping strategies to respond to earthquakes, such as participating in protests against further gas extraction (collective action) [
68] or seeking social support [
18].
Risk perception may have no causal effect on coping behavior and may depend on the urgency of a threat [
57]. More information can result in risk normalization, which is a way to respond psychologically to threats by reducing the subjectively assessed degree of risk. However, attachment to a place does not automatically ensure that people improve the place to which they are attached, and strong attachment may even be an obstacle to change [
21,
69]. Domingues et al. [
17] found that the relationships among place attachment, perceived risk, and other variables may be location-specific. Other contextual and individual variables have a direct, moderating, and/or mediating effect. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the place attachment of residents of Taipei has a mediating or moderating effect on the relationship between their perceived flood risk and coping behavioral intention.