Study on the Relationship between Urban Youth's Perceived Value, Place Attachment, and Community Participation Behavior — Taking Chaoyang Youth Community in Beijing as an Example
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/nc9dfa22Keywords:
urban youth, perceived value, place attachment, community participation behavior, Chaoyang Youth CommunityAbstract
This study explores the relationships between urban youth's perceived value, place attachment, and community participation behavior, using Beijing's Chaoyang Youth Community as a case study. Perceived value encompasses both benefit perception and cost perception, which respectively represent the positive and negative evaluations of community attributes. Place attachment consists of place dependence and place identity, reflecting functional and emotional connections to the community. Structural equation modeling reveals that benefit perception positively influences community participation and place attachment, while cost perception has negative effects. Place attachment mediates the relationship between perceived value and community participation, with place identity playing a core role. The findings highlight the importance of enhancing community environmental quality and reducing living costs to boost youth participation and foster a sense of belonging. The study offers theoretical insights and practical recommendations for community management and service innovation, aiming to promote sustainable community development.
References
1. R. Sakurai, H. Kobori, M. Nakamura, and T. Kikuchi, "Factors influencing public participation in conservation activities in urban areas: A case study in Yokohama, Japan," Biol. Conserv., vol. 184, pp. 424–430, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.012.
2. S. M. Tam and F. Clarke, "Big data, official statistics and some initiatives by the Australian Bureau of Statistics," Int. Stat. Rev., vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 436–448, 2015, doi: 10.1111/insr.12105.
3. A. Zauner, M. Koller, and I. Hatak, "Customer perceived value—Conceptualization and avenues for future research," Cogent Psychol., vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, doi: 10.1080/23311908.2015.1061782.
4. M. C. Hidalgo and B. Hernandez, "Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions," J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 273–281, 2001, doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0221.
5. R. D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster, 2017. ISBN: 9781912282319.
6. D. F. Cushing, "Promoting youth participation in communities through youth master planning," Community Dev., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 2014, doi: 10.1080/15575330.2014.975139.
7. V. A. Zeithaml, "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence," J. Mark., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 2–22, 1988, doi: 10.1177/002224298805200302.
8. S. Yi, J. Day, and L. A. Cai, "Exploring Tourist Perceived Value: An Investigation of Asian Cruise Tourists’ Travel Experience," J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 63–77, 2014, doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2014.855530.
9. T. H. Lee, "How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior," J. Sustain. Tour., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 895–915, 2011, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2011.570345.
10. G. Brown and C. Raymond, "The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place at-tachment," Appl. Geogr., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 89–111, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002.
11. J. J. Vaske and K. C. Kobrin, "Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior," J. Environ. Educ., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 16–21, 2001, doi: 10.1080/00958960109598658.
12. L. C. Manzo and D. D. Perkins, "Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning," J. Plan. Lit., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 335–350, 2006, doi: 10.1177/0885412205286160.
