R

Ka

b

a

ARR1AA

KLPSRL

1

otrpiitdwstmiE2

eic

(

0d

Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

j ourna l ho me p ag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

esidents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface

atriina Soinia,∗, Hanne Vaaralab, Eija Poutaa

MTT, Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Luutnantintie 13, FIN-00410 Helsinki, FinlandForest Centre, Hallituskatu 22, 96100 Rovaniemi, Finland

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 19 December 2010eceived in revised form6 September 2011ccepted 4 October 2011vailable online 26 October 2011

eywords:andscape perceptions

a b s t r a c t

Rural residents have different expectations concerning what the rural landscape should be like and whatit should be used for. This is especially the case at the rural–urban interface, where the characteris-tics of rural and urban landscapes have become blurred. In this article, the concept of sense of place isused to explore the relationship between humans and landscape at the rural–urban fringe. Based on aquantitative survey data set, this article examines how the landscape perceptions of local residents can beunderstood from the basis of their sense of place in Nurmijärvi, a municipality located close to the HelsinkiMetropolitan Area in southern Finland. A factor analysis revealed four clusters: Socially connected, Weakbonds, Roots and resources and Committed to place. The clusters differed by their socio-economic pro-

laceense of placeural landscapeandscape change

files as well as their sense of place. The Roots and resources cluster differed most of the other clusters, butin general the differences between the clusters in general landscape perceptions were relatively small.Although a strong sense of place is often assumed to lead to care of place, the willingness to contributeto the landscape did not differ significantly between the clusters. In addition the study revealed the exis-tence of two different approaches to landscape in the rural–urban interface: landscape as a scenery and

lace.

landscape as a dwelling p

. Introduction

The rural landscape – whether understood as an area, as sceneryr as a social and cultural construction or representation – is inhe midst of change in many areas throughout the world. This is aesult of changes in livelihood systems, urban settlement, energyroduction and delivery, as well as land abandonment. The change

s varied in speed and according to the area, but it is permanent andnevitable (Palang, Sooväl, Antrop, & Setten, 2004, p. 1). Change inhe rural landscape challenges the landscape perceptions of ruralwellers, part-time residents, visitors and potential newcomers,ho have different expectations concerning what the rural land-

cape should be like and what it should be used for. This is especiallyhe case at the rural–urban interface, where the landscape changes

ay take place rapidly (Meeus & Gulinck, 2008) and the character-stics of rural and urban landscapes are blurred (Buciega, Pitarch, &sparcia, 2009; Kaur, Palang, & Sooväli, 2004; Maseuda & Garvin,008; Overbeek, 2009; Walker & Ryan, 2008).

The aim of this article is to use the concept of sense of place to

xplore the landscape perceptions of residents at the rural–urbannterface, and in this way examine the relationship between theseoncepts. It is suggested in this article that the concept of sense

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 40 7251 891; fax: +358 20 772 040.E-mail addresses: katriina.soini@mtt.fi (K. Soini), hanne.vaarala@metsakeskus.fi

H. Vaarala), eija.pouta@mtt.fi (E. Pouta).

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002

© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

of place characterizes the complex connections people have withthe environments they encounter, whereas landscape perceptionsrefer to the visual aspects and use value of the environment. Senseof place has particularly been favoured as a concept when exam-ining issues such as place preference, access to and control overthe landscape and natural resources, or meanings and culture interms of resource use or the participation of various groups inlocal decision making (Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003; Kruger &Jakes, 2003; Patterson & Williams, 2005). The concept providesopportunities to examine the social and cultural processes affect-ing environmental and landscape valuation, including a broaderrange of voices and values, especially those of residents, in land-scape planning and policy (Cheng et al., 2003; Relph, 1985; Saar &Palang, 2009; Soini, 2007). As sense of place is expected to trans-late into harmony between people and nature, as well as carefor the place, thereby contributing to the aesthetic quality of thelandscape (Birkeland, 2008; Cross, Keske, Lacy, Hoag, & Bastian,2011; Davenport & Anderson, 2008; Kaltenborn, 1998; Relph, 1985;Soini, 2007; Stefanovic, 1998; Tuan, 1977; Walker & Ryan, 2008),it provides an informative concept in an environment with het-erogeneous expectations for landscape management (Eisenhauer,Krannich, & Blahna, 2000; Soini, 2007). Still relatively few stud-ies have been carried out on the relationship between sense of

place and landscape perceptions in rural areas, or on the rela-tionship between sense of place and willingness to contribute torural landscape management (Kaltenborn, 1998; Walker & Ryan,2008).

rban

btHTbamnri

sprcstsHuirsporsccaoritu

2

2

somoen1tiwFd1f1u(2cocBp

K. Soini et al. / Landscape and U

The sense of place or place attachment approach has frequentlyeen applied in research on second homes and tourism, aimingo determine the reasons why people visit a particular place (seewang, Lee, & Chen, 2005; Stedman, 2006; Walker & Ryan, 2008).he concept has also been implemented mainly in urban neigh-ourhoods (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999)nd natural resource politics (Cheng et al., 2003). However, theethodologies and variables developed for these purposes are not

ecessarily applicable when exploring sense of place among ruralesidents in their everyday environment, a ‘conventional’ rural arean the urban fringe.

In the present study, the development of the means to under-tand the connection between sense of place and the landscapeerceptions of rural residents of a conventional rural Finnish villageepresents a new application, adding to knowledge of the appli-ability of the concept and its measures. Based on a quantitativeurvey data set, this article examines how the landscape percep-ions of local residents can be understood from the basis of theirense of place in Nurmijärvi, a municipality located close to theelsinki Metropolitan Area in southern Finland that is prone torban sprawl and landscape change. The first objective of the article

s to examine the sense of place of local residents with regard to theegion in which they are living by exploring place attachment, placeatisfaction and place identity, which have been suggested as com-onents of sense of place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006). The secondbjective is to examine whether clusters exist among the surveyespondents having a similar sense of place, and to analyse theocio-demographic, personal history and activity profiles of theselusters in order to learn more about place attachment and theommitment of the residents to the place. The third objective is tonalyse the clusters of respondents with respect to the perceptionsf existing landscape elements and landscape changes. Finally, theespondents’ willingness to contribute to landscape developments analysed. The article concludes with the policy implications ofhe study by discussing the possible reasons for conflicts in landse and landscape planning.

. Theoretical frame

.1. Sense of place and its components

A group of concepts exists that aim to describe the quality andtrength of the embeddedness of people in a ‘place’, of which sensef place is probably the most often referred to. Although havingultiple definitions, sense of place usually refers to the experience

f a place, which is gained through the use of, attentiveness to andmotions towards the place (Relph, 1976; Stokowski, 2002). It isot purely individually or collectively constructed (Butz & Eyles,997). Relationships with places are also dynamic in the sense thathey develop along with the human identity (Manzo, 2003), hav-ng a time horizon from the past (memories) to the future (dreams,

ishes, worries) (Butz & Eyles, 1997; Kruger & Shannon, 2000).actors such as physical size and other characteristics indepen-ent of human perception (Dale, Ling, & Newman, 2008; Shamai,991; Stedman, 2003; Vogt & Marans, 2004), geographical distancerom the home (Brown, Reed, & Harris, 2002; Norton & Hannon,997), length of residency (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977), an individ-al’s gender (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001), place-related activitiesEisenhauer et al., 2000), environmental attitudes (Vorkinn & Riese,001) and life course (Cuba & Hummon, 1993), as well as the per-eived threat to identity together with the perceived loss of control

ver land (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002) and asso-iations between environmental value orientations (Kaltenborn &jerke, 2002) have all been suggested to contribute to sense oflace.

Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134 125

The character and strength of sense of place have been exam-ined through various components (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006).Place attachment, which has even been used as a synonym for senseof place, describes the positive emotional bond that people havewith a place. Altman and Low (1992) suggested that place attach-ment may arise, for example, from history and family, the lossor destruction of land or a community, ownership or inheritance,spiritual relationships, or story-telling and naming of places. Placeattachment is not always positive, as it might also include nega-tive feelings (Hernández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007;Manzo, 2003).

The second component of sense of place, place satisfaction, orwhat Stedman (2002) calls “judgement of the perceived quality ofa certain setting,” is viewed as the “utilitarian value of a place tomeet certain basic needs” ranging from the sociability of servicesto physical characteristics (Stedman, 2002).

Place dependence concerns how well a setting serves goalachievement given an existing range of alternatives (Stokols &Shumaker, 1981), i.e. how the setting is compared to another set-ting for what a person likes to do. Thus, place dependence refersto connections based specifically on activities that take place in asetting, reflecting the importance of a place in providing conditionsthat support an intended use (see Brown & Raymond, 2007, p. 2).

Place identity, in turn, involves those dimensions of self thatdefine an individual’s or community’s identity in relation to thephysical environment by means of a complex pattern of consciousand unconscious ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goalsand behavioural tendencies and skills relevant to this environment,and how the physical setting provides meaning and purpose to life(Brown & Raymond, 2007; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983).

2.2. Sense of place and landscape perceptions

There has been considerable debate on the relationshipsbetween landscape, place and sense of place. The Marxist theoriesof landscape emphasize the representational approaches to land-scape, reading the landscape as a “text” within systems of cultural,political and economic power, where the individual or collectiveexperience of landscape is seen as a result of this power (Rose,2002; Wylie, 2007). Phenomenologically oriented approaches, inturn, consider landscape as an object of analysis (an area, district,scene) emphasizing the physical character of the landscape as amixture of natural and cultural elements, and have reserved ‘place’as a term for the context of experience (Relph, 1985; Saar & Palang,2009; Soini, 2007; Wylie, 2007). Here, ‘landscape’ is considered asa dwelling place, which is not something external to human beingand thought, but simultaneously both the object and the subjectof dwelling (Ingold, 1993, 2000). From this perspective, ‘landscape’and ‘place’ cannot be seen as opposite, but rather as inseparable, asKarjalainen (1986, p. 141) has put it: every place is a part of somelandscape and, conversely, every landscape is part of some place(see also Cresswell, 2003; Saar & Palang, 2009).

Besides these conceptual examinations, a relatively small num-ber of empirical studies have examined how the perceptionsof landscape and sense of place encounter each other in thehuman–environment relationship within a certain site or region:how does sense of place affect the way people perceive the land-scape, and vice versa, what is the role of physical or social attributesin the experience of a place, and how do they turn into landscapeperceptions and management activities?

Stedman (2003) demonstrated that landscape attributes domatter to sense of place, and that landscape development changes

the symbolic base of attachment without affecting the over-all attachment. Proshansky et al. (1983) found the physicalattributes of places to be important for an individual’s self-concept.Kaltenborn’s (1998) study on sense of place among residents of the

1 rban

NsmfwioDabptmtpc2

2l

coeaaimehtsoempprtasRiaa

2c

pptaaih2gs2a&

g

26 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and U

orwegian high Arctic revealed that those residents having a strongense of place had somewhat more positive images of the environ-ent in that they perceived their surroundings as less degraded

rom a natural state by human actions. He assumed that residentsith a strong sense of place could be interpreting the surround-

ngs positively to rationalize and justify their existence in the area,r they were likely to be more involved in it and know it better.ale et al. (2008) suggested that physical space both constrainsnd directs the possible senses of place that can emerge. Space cane beneficial for sense of place, as it creates resilience and a rallyingoint around the sense of place, but it can also limit diversity andransformability, making it difficult for some long-standing com-

unities to move to new patterns or integrate new members intohe community. A central question seems to be how much sense oflace is a result of physical characteristics and how much it is asso-iated with social activities and ties (Raymond, Brown, & Weber,010; Soini, 2001).

.3. Sense of place generating willingness to contribute toandscape management

Besides the linkages between sense of place and landscapeharacteristics, there is also some empirical evidence that sensef place influences individual and social action through differ-nt mechanisms (see Cheng et al., 2003). For example, Vaskend Kobkrin (2001) found positive relationships between placettachment and specific environmental behaviours. Cantrill (1998)ndicated that a strong sense of place played a key role in deter-

ining whether individuals became involved in local advocacyfforts. Kruger and Shannon (2000) asserted that citizens with aigh level of place-related knowledge seem to “grasp the oppor-unity to create knowledge, benefits, and new opportunities forocial action.” Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002) suggested that sensef place could be a good predictor of how people will react tonvironmental changes: those with a strong sense of place seemore rooted, less indifferent and more committed to solving

roblems. Stedman (2002) found that willingness to engage inlace-protective behaviour is maximized when attachment is high,evealing the importance of the place. It has also been found thathere is also a strong positive correlation between local residents’ttachment to the rural landscape and their level of support for con-ervation planning to sustain rural places and economies (Locokz,yan, & Sadler, 2011; Walker & Ryan, 2008). However, differences

n the sense of place or landscape perceptions do not necessarilylways lead to differences in the aims of landscape management,s Blahna (1990), for example, has shown.

.4. Similarities and differences between socio-demographic andultural groups

From the sustainable landscape planning and managementoint of view, it is useful to acknowledge the differences betweeneople with respect to their sense of place and landscape percep-ions (Hay, 1998; Relph, 1976; Shamai, 1991; Soini, 2007). Usually,

distinction is made between insiders (people deeply involved in place) and outsiders (separate or alienated from a place), result-ng from the physical closeness of the place, although people mayave a sense of place even outside their neighbourhood (Manzo,003). In addition, many studies have revealed differences betweenroups having a special economic or cultural interest in the land-cape, such as landowners or farmers and others (Raymond et al.,010; Soini, 2007). Gender differences have also been found in place

ttachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Cuba & Hummon, 1993; Hidalgo

Hernandez, 2001; Soini, 2007).On the other hand, various socio-economic and socio-cultural

roups, such as country-dwellers, farmers, experts and visitors,

Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

may also have a very similar sense of place or landscape percep-tions for a certain setting (Palang et al., 2011; Rogge, Nevens, &Gulinck, 2007; Stedman, 2006), although the meanings and signifi-cance behind the sense of place and landscape preferences may bedifferent. Stedman (2006), for example, has shown that the sense ofplace of part-time residents is primarily related to environmentalquality, whereas permanent residents emphasize social relationsin their sense of place. In this article we focus on variation in senseof place and landscape perceptions across the various social groupsin the case study area, and define clusters of sense of place that gobeyond the socio-economic parameters or length of residency.

3. Data and methods

3.1. Case study area

The case study area in southern Finland included the villagesof Lepsämä, Perttula and Nummenpää located in the municipalityof Nurmijärvi, all established since the 15th century. The area iscurrently included in the urban fringe of the Helsinki MetropolitanArea, as the distance from Helsinki city centre to the study area is37 km. The villages have been desirable residential areas for thoseseeking a rural lifestyle, with expectations of pastoral scenery andtranquillity, and have therefore attracted new inhabitants to set-tle in the sparsely situated single family houses. The populationconsists of local farmers and relatively newly arrived rural settlers.Approximately half of the working residents are employed outsidethe studied area.

The geomorphology of the study area consists of low-lying clayfields approximately 40 m above sea level. Forests are located onless fertile gravel slopes and rocky hilltops, the highest points being110 m above sea level (Fig. 1). The fields and forests together forma small-scale overlapping mosaic, which is typical of the Finnishagricultural landscape. Some small mires are located in the area,as well as a lake in the southeastern section of the case study area.Larger unified open fields are found to the south of Nummenpäävillage (area A), west of Perttula village (area B) and north of Lep-sämä village (area C). Röykkä village extends to the northern partof the case area.

3.2. Survey method and data

The study data were collected via a mail survey. The surveywas first tested in a pilot study and then developed further. Thefinal survey was sent in March 2008 to all households in the studyarea and its surrounding postal areas. The mailing lists were gath-ered through code areas used by the Finnish postal services, whichdid not fit perfectly inside the boundaries of the area. Altogether,these comprised 2172 households, including both landowners andresidents without land ownership in the area. To facilitate a highresponse rate, a reminder postcard was sent after 1 week and finallythe survey was mailed again to the same households (Dillman,1978). The mail survey yielded a total of 630 responses from thesample, amounting to 29% of the total number of mailed question-naires.

Socio-demographic information on the survey respondents ispresented in Table 1. The gender distribution was quite equal, witha slight bias towards women. Most respondents were over 35 yearsold. Nearly half had at least a Bachelor’s degree and about halfworked in white-collar jobs. One third of the respondents were

blue-collar workers and about one quarter entrepreneurs. Approx-imately half of the respondents were childless, while over one thirdhad at least two children. A little over one third of the respondenthouseholds earned at least 60,000 euros per year.

K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134 127

se stu

nOtr

3

t&n(2tlssvmiact

y

Fig. 1. Ca

Approximately half of the respondents (309, 50.7%) lived perma-ently in the study area, and 300 (49.3%) lived in its close vicinity.nly 19 respondents (3.5%) were either part-time residents or vaca-

ioners in the area. About one in five owned land in the region (109espondents or 19.2%).

.3. Variables and statistical methods

As previously tested measures of sense of place in Finnish condi-ions only existed for the national park context (Neuvonen, Pouta,

Sievänen, 2010), some of the statements used in the question-aire were developed on the basis of the international literatureKyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Moore & Scott, 2003; Stedman,003; Williams & Vaske, 2003), while others were developed withhe case study site in mind. Altogether, 31 statements were formu-ated for the questionnaire. The preliminary aim was to includetatements measuring the respondents’ place attachment, placeatisfaction and sense of place, but as the measures had not pre-iously been tested, the analysis was conducted in an exploratoryanner to determine what components of sense of place existed

n the sample. In the measures, the concept of landscape was usedlongside the concept of place due to linguistic reasons: the con-

ept of ‘landscape’ was sometimes considered more appropriatehan that of ‘place’.

The measures of sense of place were included in factor anal-sis to explore the components of sense of place. The results of

dy area.

the factor analysis applying the principal component method (Hair,Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006) are reported in AppendixA. Factor analysis transforms a larger set of correlated variablesinto a smaller set of uncorrelated variables, i.e. orthogonal prin-cipal component scores, without losing much information. Thecomponents with Eigenvalues less than 1 were not consideredfor further analysis. The standardized principal component scoreswere used to cluster the respondents with K-means cluster analy-sis (e.g. Karppinen, 1998; Kline, Alig, & Johnson, 2000; Majumdar,Teeter, & Butler, 2008), which assigns cases to clusters based ontheir cluster centres.

We continued the analysis by examining the socio-demographicprofile of respondent clusters. To describe the classes and totest the difference between them in background variables, cross-tabulations and chi-squared tests were used.

In the questionnaire the respondents’ perceptions of land-scape elements and changes in the landscape were measured witha seven-point Likert scale ranging from very negative (−3) tovery positive (3). Twenty elements of the current situation wereincluded, comprising natural as well as man-made elements. In theset of items measuring landscape changes, sixteen items, consistingof both natural and built environments, were used.

To identify possible differences in landscape perceptionsbetween respondent clusters, the means of landscape perceptionswere compared between respondent clusters using analysis ofvariance. The means were compared between respondent clusters

128 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban

Table 1Socio-demographic profile of the respondents (n = 630).

Frequency %

GenderFemale 322 54.6Male 268 45.4

AgeUnder 19 5 0.920–34 73 12.535–49 242 41.550–64 184 31.6More than 65 79 13.6

EducationComprehensive school education 106 17.9Vocational education 122 20.6High school graduate 44 7.4College/polytechnic 196 33.2University graduate 95 16.1Other education 28 4.7

Number of childrenNo children 203 43.81 child 72 15.52–3 children 162 34.94 or more 27 5.8

OccupationAgricultural/forestry entrepreneurs 31 5.4Other entrepreneurs 70 12.2Professionals/specialists 147 25.5White-collar workers 135 23.4Blue-collar workers 175 30.4Students/pupils 6 1.0Housewives/others 12 2.1

Yearly gross income of the householdUnder 10,000 D 12 2.2D 10,000–19,999 37 6.9D 20,000–29,999 65 12.1D 30,000–39,999 70 13.0D 40,000–49,999 82 15.2D 50,000–59,999 74 13.7D 60,000–69,999 60 11.1D 70,000–79,999 59 10.9

pe

ssTiocauntc

TC

D 80,000–89,999 19 3.5D 90,000 or more 61 11.3

airwise with Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, which does not assumequality of variances.

In the questionnaire the evaluative perceptions of the land-cape were measured with 20 five-point semantic differentialcales using evaluative adjective pares coded from −2 to +2.he scales were beautiful–ugly, vital–regressive, unkempt–tidy,mportant–unimportant, stimulating–boring, imperfect–idyllic,rdinary–distinctive, uniting residents–dividing residents,onstant–changing, urban–rural, dull–varying, pristine–humanltered, stressful–relaxing, traditional–modern, private–public,

ndefined–defined, easy to navigate–difficult to navigate,oisy–quiet, open–closed and unsafe–safe. The analysis ofhe association between evaluative perceptions and respondentlusters was conducted using analysis of variance. The means were

able 2omponents in K-means clustering.

Components Principal component scores in cluster centres

Respondent clusters

Socially connected Weak bonds Roots a

Attachment to place −0.89 0.10 0.21

Rootedness −0.45 −0.39 1.50

Social relations 0.50 −0.27 0.15

Adaptability to place −0.45 −0.39 1.50

Cluster sizes, N/% 114/21.8% 137/26.2% 134/25

Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

compared between respondent clusters pairwise with Dunnett’sT3 post hoc test, which does not assume equality of variances.

Three statements indicated willingness to contribute time,effort or money to the landscape: “I would like to contribute tothe landscape’s future and its management”, “The residents of thearea should bear the majority of the costs of the landscape’s man-agement” and “Rural landscapes could be maintained more withvoluntary work.” These measures were also compared between therespondent clusters by analysis of variance.

4. Results

4.1. Sense of place concept and respondent clusters

The principal component analysis revealed seven componentsof sense of place. These were named as Attachment to place, Root-edness, Social relations, Appreciation of the landscape, Perceiveduniqueness of the landscape, Adaptability to place and Landscapesatisfaction (Appendix A). Of these we selected the componentsthat were related to sense of place and the use of place for clus-ter analysis. The components that included obvious evaluation ofthe landscape were omitted to avoid cross-correlations betweenclustering and landscape perceptions. The cluster analysis of thesefour components, Attachment to place, Rootedness, Social rela-tions, Adaptability to place, produced four clusters of respondents(Table 2). The clusters differed significantly with respect all thesecomponents.

The respondents in the first cluster had social connectionswithin the region, even though they did not have roots in the area.Their attachment to the place or the use of landscape was on a lowlevel. They were named Socially connected. The second cluster wasthe most indifferent to the place. Their attachment was on a lowlevel, they did not have roots or social relations in the area and theadaptability to the place was on a low level, implying that they hadnot been able to adapt their everyday dwelling to the landscape.Due to this weak relationship, this cluster was named Weak bonds.

The third cluster of respondents had strong roots in the region,and some attachment to the place in emotional terms. They hadalso adapted their recreational use to the place. The cluster wasnamed Roots and resources.

The final cluster was strongly attached to the place in emotionalterms, but weakly in social terms. Respondents in this cluster wereweakly adapted to the area in their recreational use. Following theirhigh place attachment, they were named as Committed to the place.

4.2. Profiles of the respondent clusters

To strengthen the interpretation, the typical socio-demographicprofile of each cluster was analysed. Table 3 provides informa-tion on the distribution of socio-demographic variables within the

four clusters. In chi-squared tests, all these socio-demographic vari-ables were found to significantly vary among the clusters. Throughrow-wise comparison of socio-demographic variables betweenclusters, it is easy to observe which socio-demographic groups

F-test p-Value

nd resources Committed to the place

0.65 95.52 0.000−0.70 584.15 0.000−0.07 17.21 0.000−0.70 584.15 0.000

.7% 137/26.3%

K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134 129

Table 3Background variable associations between cluster groups.

Sociallyconnected (%)

Weakbonds (%)

Roots andresources (%)

Committed tothe place (%)

Chi-squared p-Value

All 21.8 26.2 25.7 26.2

Gender 4.45 0.217Female 21.3 29.4 22.1 27.2Male 23.0 23.0 28.7 25.2

Age 14.70 0.02334 or younger 21.1 31.0 36.6 11.335–49 23.4 26.8 19.6 30.150 or older 21.2 25.3 26.3 27.2

Education 17.07 0.009Comprehensive education 24.3 18.0 29.7 27.9Secondary level (high school or vocational education) 20.1 22.3 33.8 23.7Tertiary level (university or polytechnic) 21.7 32.4 19.0 26.9

Occupation 58.76 0.000Agricultural/forestry entrepreneurs 0.0 4.8 90.5 4.8White-collar-workers/entrepreneurs 23.5 28.8 18.0 29.7Workers/others 22.6 25.3 29.5 22.6

Household income 17.23 0.045D 29,999 or less 26.4 30.8 26.4 16.5D 30,000–49,999 14.5 29.8 26.7 29.0D 50,000–69,999 27.0 22.1 27.0 23.8D 70,000 or more 22.0 26.0 17.9 34.1

Childhood neighbourhood 70.15 0.000Active farm 13.1 19.7 45.9 21.3Rural 21.3 26.2 31.7 20.8Urban 28.9 30.0 6.3 34.7

Land ownership 35.29 0.000Doesn’t own any land 22.3 30.3 19.8 27.6Owns land (farming or forest land) 20.6 12.7 47.1 19.6

Years of residence in Western Nurmijärvi 70.38 0.0001–4 years 26.3 35.5 3.9 34.25–10 years 24.5 36.4 4.5 34.5Over 10 years 19.5 20.8 37.7 22.0

Participation in recreation 39.90 0.000Low frequency 28.3 37.7 22.0 11.9Middle frequency 22.4 24.7 23.5 29.4

8.4

wrc

mhtwt

ry

TS

High frequency 16.3 1

ere overrepresented in each cluster. Table 4 summarizes theseesults and provides a description of a typical member of eachluster.

The first cluster, named Socially connected, was dominated byiddle-aged respondents who typically had an above-average

ousehold income. Although members of this non-farming clusterypically had an urban background, landowners and non-ownersere quite equally represented. They were new comers, and used

he area for recreation less than average.In the second cluster with Weak bonds, younger and female

espondents were over-represented. Presumably related to theirounger age, these respondents with a higher education and

able 4ocio-demographic profile of the clusters of respondents.

Dominant socio-demographic characteri

Socially connected Weak bonds

Age Middle aged Younger

Education All levels Higher

Occupation White and blue-collar White-collar

Household income Higher Lower

Childhood neighbourhood Urban Urban

Landownership Both Non-landownYears of residence in Western Nurmijärvi Short-term residents Short- and midRecreation participation Low frequency Low frequency

29.5 35.8

white-collar professions typically had a lower than averagehousehold income. Land ownership was rare among them,and they also used the region for recreation with a lowfrequency.

In third cluster, named Roots and resources, the strong major-ity of respondents were self-employed, i.e. they worked asfarmers or forest entrepreneurs. They typically had a rela-tively low household income, but they owned land. Altogether,

almost half of all landowners of the data belonged to this clus-ter. They had also spent their childhood on an active farmin the region, and used the region for recreation with a highfrequency.

stics

Roots and resources Committed to the place

Younger Middle aged and olderSecondary All levelsFarmers and Blue-collar White-collarLower and average Higher and averageActive farm and rural Urban

ers Landowners Non-landowners-term residents Long-term residents Short- and mid-term residents

High frequency High frequency

130 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

Table 5Perceptions of landscape elements, showing significant (p ≤ 0.1) differences in landscape perceptions among clusters.

Variable Average score on a 7-point Likert scale from very positive (+3) to very negative (−3)

Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place All F-value p-Value

Natural landscape elementsSet-aside fields −0.15A 0.14A −0.81B 0.03A −0.19 8.47 0.000Field buffer zones 1.26AB 1.62A 1.12B 1.35AB 1.34 2.98 0.031Wetlands 1.35AB 1.61A 1.16B 1.39AB 1.38 2.46 0.062Open ditches 0.69AB 0.93A 0.36B 0.94A 0.73 4.80 0.003Grazing cattle 2.36AB 2.45AB 2.18B 2.53A 2.38 2.99 0.031Forest/field edges 2.04AB 2.17A 1.78 2.22A 2.05 4.33 0.005River 2.08B 2.39AB 2.18B 2.55A 2.31 4.64 0.003Topography 2.55B 2.59B 2.50B 2.82A 2.62 4.51 0.004

Constructed landscape elementsYards and gardens 2.07A 2.19AB 2.30AB 2.37B 2.24 2.25 0.082Roads 0.95A 0.92A 1.38B 1.55B 1.21 8.29 0.000New houses 1.12AB 0.96A 1.26AB 1.46B 1.20 3.56 0.014New production buildings 0.83 0.84 0.98 1.20 0.97 2.11 0.099

7

T hoc t

mphuf

4

llc(b

ccacrp

ttTvtlw

TP

T

Mean 1.43 1.57 1.3

he letters A and B denote clusters with significant differences in Dunnett’s T3 post

The fourth cluster, Committed to place, was dominated byiddle-aged and older residents. They worked in white-collar

rofessions and had an average or higher than average level ofousehold income. They had typically spent their childhood inrban surroundings and did not own land, but still used the regionor recreational purposes with a high frequency.

.3. Landscape perceptions in the clusters

The sense of place clusters differed significantly in theirandscape perceptions concerning twelve out of twenty existingandscape elements. The perceptions that differed between thelusters were in most cases related to natural landscape elementsTable 5). From the constructed elements, four elements differedetween the clusters.

Almost all landscape elements were perceived as positive in alllusters, and differences only existed at the level of positive per-eptions. Their perceptions of set-aside fields, field buffer zonesnd open ditches varied the most. Set-aside fields were even per-eived negatively in the clusters of Socially connected and Roots andesources. Grazing cattle, River Lepsämä and the topography wereerceived as very positive.

In analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons of the percep-ion means, the Socially connected, Weak bonds and the Committed tohe place clusters were quite similar in their landscape perceptions.he Roots and resources differed most from the other clusters in their

iews, in particular from the clusters of Weak bonds and Commit-ed to the place. The Roots and resources clusters viewed the naturalandscape elements less positively overall than the other clusters,

hile the Committed to the place cluster viewed these landscape

able 6erceptions of landscape changes, showing significant (p ≤ 0.1) differences in landscape p

Variable Average score on a 7-point Likert scale

Socially connected Weak bonds

Production efficiency of agriculture 0.23AB 0.20A

Decrease in biodiversity −1.81B −2.37A

New invasive plant species −1.33 −1.77

Forest loggings −1.02AB −1.42A

Overgrowth of lakes and rivers −2.11AB −2.39A

Exploitation of extractable soil resources −1.62AB −1.86A

Construction of recreational routes on fields 0.82A 0.98A

Mean −0.98 −1.23

he letters A, B and C denote clusters with significant differences in Dunnett’s T3 post ho

1.70

est, at the 0.1 significance level.

elements most positively. In the constructed landscape elements,the clusters of Socially connected and Weak bonds typically had thelowest perceptions of the landscape.

In general, changes in the landscape were perceived as muchmore negative than the existing landscape elements. From amongthe proposed changes to landscape elements, perceptions dif-fered significantly between clusters for 7 out of the original16 items (Table 6). Overgrowth of lakes and rivers was rankedvery negatively by all clusters. Views concerning the construc-tion of recreational routes on fields divided the clusters themost, followed by forest logging and a decrease in biodiversity.Again, the first, second and fourth clusters were quite equal intheir perceptions of landscape changes. The cluster of Roots andresources viewed the changes in the landscape less negatively,and considered the production efficiency of agriculture as themost positive change. The construction of recreational routes onfields was viewed negatively by the Roots and resources cluster,while all the other clusters considered it as a positive change.Weak bonds viewed the landscape changes most negatively, par-ticularly the overgrowth of lakes and rivers and a decrease inbiodiversity, whereas the construction of recreational paths onfields was the most welcomed change in the landscape in this clus-ter.

The evaluative perceptions measured with adjective pairs pro-vided further insights into the differences in landscape perceptionsbetween the clusters (Table 7). The Socially connected cluster

viewed the surroundings most negatively in all adjective pairs.The cluster of Weak bonds generally also had quite a negativeperception of the surroundings. Those in the cluster Committedto the place had the most positive feelings towards the region;

erceptions among clusters.

from very positive (+3) to very negative (−3)

Roots and resources Committed to the place All F-value p-Value

0.69B 0.66B 0.45 3.79 0.010−1.83B −2.05A −2.03 7.27 0.000−1.43 −1.78 −1.59 3.19 0.024−0.83B −0.96B −1.06 3.72 0.012−1.92B −2.28A −2.18 5.40 0.001−1.33B −1.69AB −1.63 3.81 0.010−0.02B 0.69A 0.61 7.97 0.000

−0.95 −1.06

c test, at the 0.1 significance level.

K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134 131

Table 7Landscape perceptions in adjective pairs, comparison of means, and comparison of clusters with others using the t-test (level of significance: p < 0.1).

Variable Average score on a scale (−2 . . . +2)

Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place All F-value p-Value

Ugly–beautiful 1.11A 1.34B 1.37B 1.57C 1.36 9.35 0.000Regressive–vital 0.65A 0.73A 0.95B 1.12B 0.87 6.41 0.000Unmanaged–managed 0.47A 0.52AB 0.71AB 0.79B 0.63 3.23 0.022Insignificant–important 1.02A 1.20A 1.23A 1.50B 1.25 6.26 0.000Boring–stimulating 0.21A 0.38AB 0.53B 0.82C 0.50 9.78 0.000Imperfect–idyllic 0.86A 1.00A 0.97A 1.28B 1.04 5.4 0.001Ordinary–distinctive 0.37A 0.58AB 0.42A 0.81B 0.55 4.57 0.004Stabile–changing 0.83A 0.90A 1.12AB 1.36B 1.06 8.61 0.000Human altered–pristine −0.41A −0.29AB −0.02B −0.04B −0.18 4.26 0.006Stressful–relaxing 1.08A 1.32B 1.31AB 1.42B 1.29 4.48 0.004Obscure–clear 0.26A 0.38AB 0.47AB 0.54B 0.42 2.32 0.075Difficult to–easy to orientate 0.48A 0.52A 0.72AB 0.91B 0.66 5.71 0.001Wide–closed 0.92A 1.04AB 1.07AB 1.28B 1.09 3.76 0.011Unsafe–safe 1.32A 1.42AB 1.32AB 1.56B 1.41 2.59 0.052

Mean 0.66 0.79 0.87 1.07 0.85

T st ho

ts

4

toettancl

5

tpictaattt

TW

he letters A, B and C denote clusters with significant differences in Dunnett’s T3 po

hey viewed it as particularly beautiful, important, relaxing andafe.

.4. Willingness to contribute to the landscape

The willingness to contribute to the landscape in terms ofime, effort and money differed significantly between the sensef place clusters (Table 8). From one of the three items, in gen-ral willingness to contribute, the clusters differed significantly, ashe willingness was highest among the respondents Committed tohe place. The sum variable of the willingness to contribute waslso highest among them, but the difference between clusters wasot significant. Neither was there a significant difference betweenlusters in statements concerning monetary contributions to theandscape or in voluntary work.

. Discussion

This study revealed four sense of place components, Attachmento place, Rootedness, Social relations and Adaptability of place, whichroduced four clusters of respondents with a sense of place vary-

ng in strength and dimensions. The Socially connected had socialonnections, even though they did not have roots in the area. Inhe cluster of Weak bonds, the sense of place was generally on

low level. Roots and resources had strong roots in the region,

nd some attachment to the place in emotional terms. Commit-ed to the place comprised residents who were strongly attachedo the place in emotional terms but weakly in social terms. Evenhough significant, the differences between the clusters in general

able 8illingness to contribute to the landscape’s future.

Willingness to contribute Mean (scale 1 . . . 5)

Sociallyconnected

Weakbonds

I would like to contribute to the landscape’s futureand its management

3.36 3.57

The area’s residents should bear the majority of thecosts of the landscape’s management

2.65 2.66

Rural landscapes could be maintained more withvoluntary work

3.42 3.55

Sum variable 3.14 3.26

c test, at the 0.1 significance level.

landscape perceptions were relatively small, which might haveresulted from the ‘rurality’ of Finland and Finnish people in gen-eral. Most Finns still have strong connections to rural areas, and inthis sense have up to now had relatively positive perceptions of therural landscape.

The clusters differed particularly in their perceptions of nat-ural landscape elements. Stronger emotional bonds to the place,such as among the Committed to place cluster, also associated withhigher landscape evaluations. The cluster of Roots and resources,to which most farmers belonged, particularly differed from otherclusters in terms of a lower appreciation of the naturalness of thelandscape and higher acceptance of landscape changes. This con-firms our presumption based on previous studies (Rogge et al.,2007; Soini, 2007; Soini, Palang, & Semm, 2006). Furthermore, incontrast to other clusters, most of the Roots and resources respon-dents were long-term residents. In this sense, our results wereconsistent with the study of Stedman (2006), who found that long-term residents base their sense of place in social relations, whereasshort-term residents base it in the quality of the environment.Compared to the other clusters, the farmers perceived the regionas less human-altered, which was an interesting result consid-ering that their effect on landscape quality and development isstrongest.

Social bonds have been considered important for place attach-ment (Raymond et al., 2010; Stewart, Liebert, & Larkin, 2004).Residents in the clusters Socially connected and Roots and resources,

for whom the sense of place was primarily related to social bonds,had a relatively low appreciation of the landscape, but they wereopen to landscape changes. In turn, those in the clusters Weak bondsand Committed to place were less socially connected, but perceived

Roots andresources

Committed tothe place

All F-value p-Value

3.51 3.74 3.56 3.12 0.026

2.75 2.71 2.69 0.23 0.876

3.56 3.56 3.53 0.49 0.691

3.28 3.33 3.26 1.60 0.189

1 rban

tspwtocsf

brap(tdsbr

nsttcttotncpataHwts2

6

s

32 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and U

he landscape more positively and were more critical towards land-cape change. These results are on the one hand consistent withrevious findings that landscape change in rural areas is not greatlyelcomed due to the high level of affirmative attitudes of citizens

owards rural landscapes (see e.g. Park & Selman, 2009). On thether hand, the landscape perceptions of the Roots and resourcesluster confirmed the results of earlier studies that have demon-trated a high degree of adaptability to landscape changes amongarmers (Burton, 2004; Rogge et al., 2007; Soini, 2007).

Furthermore, the results also suggest that a sense of place com-ining emotional attachment to a place and low adaptability mayesult in positive attitudes towards the living environment, and also

willingness to contribute to landscape management, or care of thelace, as was the case in this study in the Committed to place clustersee also Smith, Davenport, Anderson, & Leahy, 2011). Regardless ofheir active recreation in the area, the Committed to place respon-ents, who usually were short or mid-term residents, had a lowense of adaptability to the place. This suggests that they had noteen able to engage in the place, but were consciously seeking aelationship with it (Manzo, 2003).

To summarize the significance of social and physical compo-ents to sense of place and landscape perceptions, this studyuggests that the sense of place of the Roots and resources clus-er is mostly constructed by social and physical components ofhe place. The Socially connected residents were primarily con-erned with social relations, which might of course also be boundo the physical environment. The Weak bonds and Committedo place clusters mostly emphasized the physical characteristicsf the place. Considering landscape appreciation and attitudesowards landscape change, residents in the clusters Socially Con-ected and Roots and resources seem to consider the landscape asonstantly changing, together with the social and physical bondseople have with places; in other words, the landscape is seens a ‘dwelling place’. Weak bonds and Committed to place clus-ers, in turn, seem to consider landscape more as a static view,nd they have a clear idea of what a landscape should be like.owever, it should be noted that the relationships people formith a place are always dynamic and develop with their identity

owards it. Both the sense of place and the way of seeing the land-cape evolve together with the place and people’s identity (Manzo,003).

. Conclusions

Based on an empirical case at the rural–urban interface, thistudy demonstrated the multiform relationship between sense

Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

of place and landscape perceptions. The study did not revealthe typical components of the sense of place concept identifiedby previous studies, such as place dependence and place iden-tity. Instead, we found multidimensionality of the place relationexpressed with components associated with emotional ties, socialrelations, roots and adaptability to the place, which comprisedboth social and physical bonds to the place. Adaptability to theplace can be considered as an important and a new componentin sense of place research, as the forming of a relationship withthe place may be a process aiming towards the development ofa strong sense of place (Manzo, 2003). This might be especiallythe case at the rural–urban interface, where people are movingin from urban areas in order to feel more rooted and closer tonature. The clusters revealed by the analysis did not indicate astrong or weak sense of place, but rather differences in the placeorientation of the respondents, which were further related to dis-tinct relations with and various perceptions of the landscape. Thestudy did not demonstrate a strong link between sense of placeand willingness to contribute to landscape management, eventhough emotional commitment seems to relate to a greater will-ingness to participate in landscape management if opportunitiesexist.

The study reveals the need of developing new componentsand variables for sense of place, which take into considerationthe character of the context. Characteristics for the rural–urbanarea are under a change and the heterogeneity both in termsof visual landscape and social structures is increasing. Thischange, in turn, might suggest dynamic character of sense ofplace as well, which was in our study indicated by adaptabil-ity. In order to understand the dynamic character of the senseof place a follow-up research within the same case study areawould be valuable in addition to the qualitative and participa-tory researches, which might provide with additional knowledgeof the shifts in linkages between landscape perceptions and senseof place.

The study highlighted the use of natural resources (agricultureand forestry) as a significant cause of contradictions in opinionsconcerning landscape change at the rural–urban interface. Suchcontradictions can be expected to increase in the future as a rela-tively smaller proportion of the population earns its livelihood fromnatural resources. Our results also indicated differences in percep-tions of natural resource use among newcomers, suggesting a high

degree of heterogeneity in landscape perceptions among rural resi-dents at the rural–urban interface. In this situation, it is a challengeto ensure that all the residents are involved in land use planning,particularly those who are socially less connected to the area.

A

Ts

K

R

AB

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134 133

ppendix A.

he factor analysis of the sense of place components. The components with Eigenvalues less than 1 were not selected.Component Mean S.D. Component

loadingEigenvalue % of

varianceCumulative%

Cronbach’˛

Attachment to place 4.71 15.2 15.2 0.893I prefer these landscapes more than any other 3.52 1.096 0.599I feel that I can be myself in this region 4.02 0.909 0.709These landscapes represent the Finnish character to me 4.22 0.776 0.767I can feel like a part of this landscape 3.94 0.927 0.817This landscape evokes many memories within me 3.37 1.273 0.598I’m happy when I’m looking at this landscape 4.04 0.888 0.748I miss this landscape when I’m away 3.30 1.149 0.667

Rootedness 3.43 11.1 26.3 0.832I know the region inside out 2.65 1.204 0.452My roots are here 2.46 1.648 0.836I have spent the majority of my childhood here 2.16 1.683 0.888This region is important, because my family originates

from here1.87 1.456 0.858

My livelihood is dependent on the region 1.88 1.350 0.443

Social relations 2.38 7.7 33.9 0.749I care about the future of this landscape 4.29 0.906 0.368I feel a part of the local community 3.28 1.275 0.549My social life is here; this is not just a place of residence 3.63 1.220 0.698I have feelings towards this region 4.01 1.109 0.563I’m not moving away from this region in the near future 4.49 0.925 0.705

Appreciation of landscape 2.06 6.6 40.6 0.679This landscape holds many features of local history and

culture3.61 0.979 0.543

The landscape of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is good just theway it is

3.86 0.923 0.529

The region is important most of all for its environment(forests and waters)

3.90 1.007 0.445

The region of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is important most ofall for its open field landscapes

3.83 1.005 0.669

Perceived uniqueness of landscape 1.92 6.2 46.8 0.648No other landscapes are comparable with this one 2.51 1.036 0.797There aren’t many landscapes equally important to this one 2.25 1.123 0.719

Adaptability of use 1.61 5.2 52.0 0.479I feel like I’m able to move freely in the landscape 3.79 1.092 0.532I don’t need more forest surroundings for recreation 3.03 1.271 0.710There aren’t any disturbing details in the landscape 2.84 1.055 0.281I know my neighbourhood 3.35 1.303 0.451

Landscape satisfaction 1.47 4.8 6.8 0.377I like the landscape’s topography 3.78 1.011 0.675I don’t need bigger lakes or rivers 2.43 1.154 0.639I don’t miss my childhood landscape elements 2.95 1.133 0.529

aiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.906. Chi-squared = 6714.311. Bartlett’s test of sphericity, p = 0.000.

eferences

ltman, I. & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.irkeland, I. (2008). Cultural sustainability: Industrialism, placelessness and the re-

animation of place. Ethics, Place & Environment, 11, 283–297.lahna, D. J. (1990). Social bases for resource conflicts in areas of reverse migration. In

R. G. Lee, D. R. Field, & W. R. Burch Jr. (Eds.), Community and forestry: Continuitiesin the sociology of natural resources (pp. 159–178). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

onaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidi-mensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhoodattachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,331–352.

onaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H. & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processesand environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protectedarea. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 631–653.

rown, G. & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27,89–111.

rown, G. G., Reed, P. & Harris, C. C. (2002). Testing a place-based theory for envi-ronmental evaluation: An Alaska case study. Applied Geography, 22, 49–76.

uciega, A., Pitarch, M.-D. & Esparcia, J. (2009). The context of rural–urban rela-

Butz, J. & Eyles, J. (1997). Reconceptualizing senses of place: Social relations, ideologyand ecology. Geografiska Annaler, 79B(1), 1–25.

Cantrill, J. G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: Communicationfoundations for regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communi-cation Research, 26, 301–318.

Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E. & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating conceptin natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda.Society & Natural Resources, 16, 87–104.

Cresswell, T. (2003). Place. A short introduction. Malden, Oxford and Victoria: Black-well Publishing.

Cross, J. E., Keske, C. M. H., Lacy, M. G., Hoag, D. L. K. & Bastian, C. T. (2011). Adop-tion of conservation easements among agricultural landowners in Colorado andWyoming: The role of economic dependence and sense of place. Landscape andUrban Planning, 101(1), 75–83.

Cuba, L. & Hummon, D. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling,community and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111–131.

Dale, A., Ling, C. & Newman, L. (2008). Does place matter? Sustainable communitydevelopment in three Canadian communities. Ethics, Place & Environment, 11,267–281.

Davenport, M. A. & Anderson, D. H. (2008). Getting from sense of place to place-basedmanagement: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptionsof landscape change. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 625–641.

tionship in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. Journal ofEnvironmental Policy & Planning, 11, 9–27.

urton, R. J. F. (2004). Seeing through the “good farmer’s” eyes: Towards develop-ing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour.Sociologia Ruralis, 44, 195–215.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S. & Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special placeson public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments and communityconnections. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 421–441.

1 rban

H

H

H

H

H

IIJ

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

M

M

M

M

M

N

N

O

P

P

34 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and U

air, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multi-variate data analysis (sixth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

ay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 18, 5–29.

ernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E. & Hess, S. (2007). Place attach-ment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 27, 310–319.

idalgo, M. C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empiricalquestions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.

wang, S.-N., Lee, C. & Chen, H.-J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involve-ment, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s nationalparks. Tourism Management, 26, 143–156.

ngold, T. (1993). The temporarlity of the landscape. World Archaelogy, 25, 152–174.ngold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. London: Routledge.orgensen, B. & Stedman, R. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of

sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on and identifi-cation with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environment Management, 79,316–327.

altenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmentalimpacts. Applied Geography, 18, 169–189.

altenborn, B. P. & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental valueorientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59,1–11.

arjalainen, P. T. (1986). Geodiversity as a lived world: On the geography of existence.Joensuu.

arppinen, H. (1998). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest ownersin Finland. Silva Fennica, 32, 43–59.

aur, E., Palang, H. & Sooväli, H. (2004). Landscapes in change – Opposing attitudesin Saaremaa, Estonia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 109–120.

line,. D., Alig, R. J. & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Fostering the production of nontimberservices among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science, 46,302–311.

ruger, L. E. & Jakes, P. J. (2003). The importance of place: Advances in science andapplications. Forest Science, 49, 819–821.

ruger, L. E. & Shannon, M. A. (2000). Getting to know ourselves and our placesthrough participation in civic social assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 13,461–478.

yle, G. T., Mowen, A. J. & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with placemeaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation andplace attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454.

ocokz, E., Ryan, R. L. & Sadler, A. J. (2011). Motivations for land protection andstewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Mas-sachusettes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 65–76.

ajumdar, I., Teeter, L. & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: Acluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54, 176–184.

anzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and have: Towards a revisioning of emotionalrelationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47–61.

aseuda, J. R. & Garvin, T. (2008). Whose Heartland? The politics of place in arural–urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 112–123.

eeus & Gulinck. (2008). Semi-urban areas in landscape research: A review. LivingReviews in Landscape Research, 2, 1–45.

oore, R. L. & Scott, D. (2003). Place attachment and context: Comparing a park anda trail within. Forest Science, 49, 877–884.

euvonen, M., Pouta, E. & Sievänen, T. (2010). Intention to revisit a national parkand its vicinity: Effect of place attachment and quality perceptions. InternationalJournal of Sociology, 40(3), 51–70.

orton, B. G. & Hannon, B. (1997). Environmental values: A place-based theory.Environmental Ethics, 19, 227–245.

verbeek, G. (2009). Rural areas under urban pressure in Europe. Journal of Environ-mental Policy & Planning, 11, 1–7.

alang, H., Alumäe, H., Printsmann, A., Rehema, M., SEpp, K. & Sooväli-Sepping.

(2011). Social landsdcape: Ten years of planning ‘valuable landscapes’ in Estonia.Land Use Policy, 28, 19–25.

alang, H., Sooväl, H., Antrop, M. & Setten, G. (2004). European rural landscapes: Per-sistence and change in a globalising environment. Dordrecth, Boston and London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Planning 104 (2012) 124– 134

Park, J. J. & Selman, P. (2009). Attitudes toward rural landscape change in England.Environment and Behavior, doi:10.1177/0013916509355123. Published onlinebefore print December 11

Patterson, M. E. & Williams, D. R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place:Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology,25, 361–380.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical worldsocialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.

Raymond, C. M., Brown, G. & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of placeattachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 30, 422–434.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Relph, E. (1985). Geographical experiences and being-in-the world: The phe-

nomenological origins of geography. In D. Seamon, & R. Mugerauer (Eds.),Dwelling, place and environment (pp. 15–32). New York and Oxford: ColumbiaUniversity Press Morningside Edition.

Rogge, E., Nevens, F. & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscape in Flanders:Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 159–174.

Rose, M. (2002). Landscape and labyrinths. Geoforum, 33, 455–467.Saar, M. & Palang, H. (2009). The dimensions of place meanings. Living

Reviews in Landscape Research, 3(3). Retrieved August 19, 2010, fromhttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2009-3

Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22,347–358.

Smith, J. W., Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H. & Leahy, J. E. (2011). Place meaningsand desired management outcomes. Landscape Urban Plan, 101, 359–370.

Soini, K. (2001). Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes throughmapping and map-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 225–239.

Soini, K. (2007). Beyond the ecological hotspots: The perceptions of the local residentsof the biodiversity of agricultural landscape. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis AII,206. University of Turku.

Soini, K., Palang, H. & Semm, K. (2006). From places to non-places. Landscape andsense of place in Finnish and Estonian countryside. In T. Terkenli, & A. Haut-sarre (Eds.), Landscapes of a new cultural economy of space. Part 4: Processes ofdeworldment. Landscape series 5 (pp. 117–148). Kluwer Publishers.

Stedman, R. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place. Predicting behavior fromplace-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34,561–581.

Stedman, R. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of thephysical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 671–685.

Stedman, R. (2006). Understanding place attachment among second home owners.American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 187–205.

Stefanovic, I. L. (1998). Phenomenological encounters with place: Cavtat to squareone. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 31–44.

Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions forlandscape change. Landscape Urban Plan, 69, 315–334.

Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings.In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior and the environment (pp. 441–488).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructingnew sense of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 368–382.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Sense of place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Vaske, J. J. & Kobkrin. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsiblebehavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 116–121.

Vogt, C. A. & Marans, R. W. (2004). Natural resources and open space in the residen-tial decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeastMichigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 255–269.

Vorkinn, M. & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context. The signif-icance of place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33, 249–263.

Walker, A. J. & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation

in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86,141–152.

Williams, D. R. & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validityand generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830–840.

Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. London and New York: Routledge.