Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface Katriina Soini a,∗ , Hanne Vaarala b , Eija Pouta a a b MTT, Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Luutnantintie 13, FIN-00410 Helsinki, Finland Forest Centre, Hallituskatu 22, 96100 Rovaniemi, Finland a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 19 December 2010 Received in revised form 16 September 2011 Accepted 4 October 2011 Available online 26 October 2011 Keywords: Landscape perceptions Place Sense of place Rural landscape Landscape change a b s t r a c t Rural residents have different expectations concerning what the rural landscape should be like and what it should be used for. This is especially the case at the rural–urban interface, where the characteristics of rural and urban landscapes have become blurred. In this article, the concept of sense of place is used to explore the relationship between humans and landscape at the rural–urban fringe. Based on a quantitative survey data set, this article examines how the landscape perceptions of local residents can be understood from the basis of their sense of place in Nurmijärvi, a municipality located close to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area in southern Finland. A factor analysis revealed four clusters: Socially connected, Weak bonds, Roots and resources and Committed to place. The clusters differed by their socio-economic proﬁles as well as their sense of place. The Roots and resources cluster differed most of the other clusters, but in 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 contribute to the landscape did not differ signiﬁcantly between the clusters. In addition the study revealed the existence of two different approaches to landscape in the rural–urban interface: landscape as a scenery and landscape as a dwelling place. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The rural landscape – whether understood as an area, as scenery or as a social and cultural construction or representation – is in the midst of change in many areas throughout the world. This is a result of changes in livelihood systems, urban settlement, energy production and delivery, as well as land abandonment. The change is varied in speed and according to the area, but it is permanent and inevitable (Palang, Sooväl, Antrop, & Setten, 2004, p. 1). Change in the rural landscape challenges the landscape perceptions of rural dwellers, part-time residents, visitors and potential newcomers, who have different expectations concerning what the rural landscape should be like and what it should be used for. This is especially the case at the rural–urban interface, where the landscape changes may take place rapidly (Meeus & Gulinck, 2008) and the characteristics of rural and urban landscapes are blurred (Buciega, Pitarch, & Esparcia, 2009; Kaur, Palang, & Sooväli, 2004; Maseuda & Garvin, 2008; Overbeek, 2009; Walker & Ryan, 2008). The aim of this article is to use the concept of sense of place to explore the landscape perceptions of residents at the rural–urban interface, and in this way examine the relationship between these concepts. 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: [email protected]ﬁ (K. Soini), [email protected]ﬁ (H. Vaarala), [email protected]ﬁ (E. Pouta). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002 of place characterizes the complex connections people have with the environments they encounter, whereas landscape perceptions refer to the visual aspects and use value of the environment. Sense of place has particularly been favoured as a concept when examining issues such as place preference, access to and control over the landscape and natural resources, or meanings and culture in terms of resource use or the participation of various groups in local decision making (Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003; Kruger & Jakes, 2003; Patterson & Williams, 2005). The concept provides opportunities to examine the social and cultural processes affecting environmental and landscape valuation, including a broader range of voices and values, especially those of residents, in landscape planning and policy (Cheng et al., 2003; Relph, 1985; Saar & Palang, 2009; Soini, 2007). As sense of place is expected to translate into harmony between people and nature, as well as care for the place, thereby contributing to the aesthetic quality of the landscape (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 heterogeneous expectations for landscape management (Eisenhauer, Krannich, & Blahna, 2000; Soini, 2007). Still relatively few studies have been carried out on the relationship between sense of place and landscape perceptions in rural areas, or on the relationship between sense of place and willingness to contribute to rural landscape management (Kaltenborn, 1998; Walker & Ryan, 2008). K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 The sense of place or place attachment approach has frequently been applied in research on second homes and tourism, aiming to determine the reasons why people visit a particular place (see Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005; Stedman, 2006; Walker & Ryan, 2008). The concept has also been implemented mainly in urban neighbourhoods (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999) and natural resource politics (Cheng et al., 2003). However, the methodologies and variables developed for these purposes are not necessarily applicable when exploring sense of place among rural residents in their everyday environment, a ‘conventional’ rural area in the urban fringe. In the present study, the development of the means to understand the connection between sense of place and the landscape perceptions of rural residents of a conventional rural Finnish village represents a new application, adding to knowledge of the applicability of the concept and its measures. Based on a quantitative survey data set, this article examines how the landscape perceptions of local residents can be understood from the basis of their sense of place in Nurmijärvi, a municipality located close to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area in southern Finland that is prone to urban sprawl and landscape change. The ﬁrst objective of the article is to examine the sense of place of local residents with regard to the region in which they are living by exploring place attachment, place satisfaction and place identity, which have been suggested as components of sense of place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006). The second objective is to examine whether clusters exist among the survey respondents having a similar sense of place, and to analyse the socio-demographic, personal history and activity proﬁles of these clusters in order to learn more about place attachment and the commitment of the residents to the place. The third objective is to analyse the clusters of respondents with respect to the perceptions of existing landscape elements and landscape changes. Finally, the respondents’ willingness to contribute to landscape development is analysed. The article concludes with the policy implications of the study by discussing the possible reasons for conﬂicts in land use and landscape planning. 2. Theoretical frame 2.1. Sense of place and its components A group of concepts exists that aim to describe the quality and strength of the embeddedness of people in a ‘place’, of which sense of place is probably the most often referred to. Although having multiple deﬁnitions, sense of place usually refers to the experience of a place, which is gained through the use of, attentiveness to and emotions towards the place (Relph, 1976; Stokowski, 2002). It is not purely individually or collectively constructed (Butz & Eyles, 1997). Relationships with places are also dynamic in the sense that they develop along with the human identity (Manzo, 2003), having a time horizon from the past (memories) to the future (dreams, wishes, worries) (Butz & Eyles, 1997; Kruger & Shannon, 2000). Factors such as physical size and other characteristics independent of human perception (Dale, Ling, & Newman, 2008; Shamai, 1991; Stedman, 2003; Vogt & Marans, 2004), geographical distance from the home (Brown, Reed, & Harris, 2002; Norton & Hannon, 1997), length of residency (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977), an individual’s gender (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001), place-related activities (Eisenhauer et al., 2000), environmental attitudes (Vorkinn & Riese, 2001) and life course (Cuba & Hummon, 1993), as well as the perceived threat to identity together with the perceived loss of control over land (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002) and associations between environmental value orientations (Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002) have all been suggested to contribute to sense of place. 125 The character and strength of sense of place have been examined through various components (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006). Place attachment, which has even been used as a synonym for sense of place, describes the positive emotional bond that people have with a place. Altman and Low (1992) suggested that place attachment may arise, for example, from history and family, the loss or destruction of land or a community, ownership or inheritance, spiritual relationships, or story-telling and naming of places. Place attachment is not always positive, as it might also include negative feelings (Hernández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007; Manzo, 2003). The second component of sense of place, place satisfaction, or what Stedman (2002) calls “judgement of the perceived quality of a certain setting,” is viewed as the “utilitarian value of a place to meet certain basic needs” ranging from the sociability of services to physical characteristics (Stedman, 2002). Place dependence concerns how well a setting serves goal achievement given an existing range of alternatives (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981), i.e. how the setting is compared to another setting for what a person likes to do. Thus, place dependence refers to connections based speciﬁcally on activities that take place in a setting, reﬂecting the importance of a place in providing conditions that support an intended use (see Brown & Raymond, 2007, p. 2). Place identity, in turn, involves those dimensions of self that deﬁne an individual’s or community’s identity in relation to the physical environment by means of a complex pattern of conscious and unconscious ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals and 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 relationships between landscape, place and sense of place. The Marxist theories of landscape emphasize the representational approaches to landscape, reading the landscape as a “text” within systems of cultural, political and economic power, where the individual or collective experience of landscape is seen as a result of this power (Rose, 2002; Wylie, 2007). Phenomenologically oriented approaches, in turn, consider landscape as an object of analysis (an area, district, scene) emphasizing the physical character of the landscape as a mixture 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 as a dwelling place, which is not something external to human being and thought, but simultaneously both the object and the subject of dwelling (Ingold, 1993, 2000). From this perspective, ‘landscape’ and ‘place’ cannot be seen as opposite, but rather as inseparable, as Karjalainen (1986, p. 141) has put it: every place is a part of some landscape and, conversely, every landscape is part of some place (see also Cresswell, 2003; Saar & Palang, 2009). Besides these conceptual examinations, a relatively small number of empirical studies have examined how the perceptions of landscape and sense of place encounter each other in the human–environment relationship within a certain site or region: how does sense of place affect the way people perceive the landscape, and vice versa, what is the role of physical or social attributes in the experience of a place, and how do they turn into landscape perceptions and management activities? Stedman (2003) demonstrated that landscape attributes do matter to sense of place, and that landscape development changes the symbolic base of attachment without affecting the overall attachment. Proshansky et al. (1983) found the physical attributes of places to be important for an individual’s self-concept. Kaltenborn’s (1998) study on sense of place among residents of the 126 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 Norwegian high Arctic revealed that those residents having a strong sense of place had somewhat more positive images of the environment in that they perceived their surroundings as less degraded from a natural state by human actions. He assumed that residents with a strong sense of place could be interpreting the surroundings positively to rationalize and justify their existence in the area, or they were likely to be more involved in it and know it better. Dale et al. (2008) suggested that physical space both constrains and directs the possible senses of place that can emerge. Space can be beneﬁcial for sense of place, as it creates resilience and a rallying point around the sense of place, but it can also limit diversity and transformability, making it difﬁcult for some long-standing communities to move to new patterns or integrate new members into the community. A central question seems to be how much sense of place is a result of physical characteristics and how much it is associated with social activities and ties (Raymond, Brown, & Weber, 2010; Soini, 2001). 2.3. Sense of place generating willingness to contribute to landscape management Besides the linkages between sense of place and landscape characteristics, there is also some empirical evidence that sense of place inﬂuences individual and social action through different mechanisms (see Cheng et al., 2003). For example, Vaske and Kobkrin (2001) found positive relationships between place attachment and speciﬁc environmental behaviours. Cantrill (1998) indicated that a strong sense of place played a key role in determining whether individuals became involved in local advocacy efforts. Kruger and Shannon (2000) asserted that citizens with a high level of place-related knowledge seem to “grasp the opportunity to create knowledge, beneﬁts, and new opportunities for social action.” Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002) suggested that sense of place could be a good predictor of how people will react to environmental changes: those with a strong sense of place seem more rooted, less indifferent and more committed to solving problems. Stedman (2002) found that willingness to engage in place-protective behaviour is maximized when attachment is high, revealing the importance of the place. It has also been found that there is also a strong positive correlation between local residents’ attachment to the rural landscape and their level of support for conservation planning to sustain rural places and economies (Locokz, Ryan, & Sadler, 2011; Walker & Ryan, 2008). However, differences in the sense of place or landscape perceptions do not necessarily always lead to differences in the aims of landscape management, as Blahna (1990), for example, has shown. 2.4. Similarities and differences between socio-demographic and cultural groups From the sustainable landscape planning and management point of view, it is useful to acknowledge the differences between people with respect to their sense of place and landscape perceptions (Hay, 1998; Relph, 1976; Shamai, 1991; Soini, 2007). Usually, a distinction is made between insiders (people deeply involved in a place) and outsiders (separate or alienated from a place), resulting from the physical closeness of the place, although people may have a sense of place even outside their neighbourhood (Manzo, 2003). In addition, many studies have revealed differences between groups having a special economic or cultural interest in the landscape, such as landowners or farmers and others (Raymond et al., 2010; Soini, 2007). Gender differences have also been found in place attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Cuba & Hummon, 1993; Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Soini, 2007). On the other hand, various socio-economic and socio-cultural groups, such as country-dwellers, farmers, experts and visitors, may also have a very similar sense of place or landscape perceptions for a certain setting (Palang et al., 2011; Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck, 2007; Stedman, 2006), although the meanings and signiﬁcance behind the sense of place and landscape preferences may be different. Stedman (2006), for example, has shown that the sense of place of part-time residents is primarily related to environmental quality, whereas permanent residents emphasize social relations in their sense of place. In this article we focus on variation in sense of place and landscape perceptions across the various social groups in the case study area, and deﬁne clusters of sense of place that go beyond 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 villages of Lepsämä, Perttula and Nummenpää located in the municipality of Nurmijärvi, all established since the 15th century. The area is currently included in the urban fringe of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, as the distance from Helsinki city centre to the study area is 37 km. The villages have been desirable residential areas for those seeking a rural lifestyle, with expectations of pastoral scenery and tranquillity, and have therefore attracted new inhabitants to settle in the sparsely situated single family houses. The population consists of local farmers and relatively newly arrived rural settlers. Approximately half of the working residents are employed outside the studied area. The geomorphology of the study area consists of low-lying clay ﬁelds approximately 40 m above sea level. Forests are located on less fertile gravel slopes and rocky hilltops, the highest points being 110 m above sea level (Fig. 1). The ﬁelds and forests together form a small-scale overlapping mosaic, which is typical of the Finnish agricultural 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 Nummenpää village (area A), west of Perttula village (area B) and north of Lepsämä village (area C). Röykkä village extends to the northern part of the case area. 3.2. Survey method and data The study data were collected via a mail survey. The survey was ﬁrst tested in a pilot study and then developed further. The ﬁnal survey was sent in March 2008 to all households in the study area and its surrounding postal areas. The mailing lists were gathered through code areas used by the Finnish postal services, which did not ﬁt perfectly inside the boundaries of the area. Altogether, these comprised 2172 households, including both landowners and residents without land ownership in the area. To facilitate a high response rate, a reminder postcard was sent after 1 week and ﬁnally the survey was mailed again to the same households (Dillman, 1978). The mail survey yielded a total of 630 responses from the sample, amounting to 29% of the total number of mailed questionnaires. Socio-demographic information on the survey respondents is presented in Table 1. The gender distribution was quite equal, with a slight bias towards women. Most respondents were over 35 years old. Nearly half had at least a Bachelor’s degree and about half worked in white-collar jobs. One third of the respondents were blue-collar workers and about one quarter entrepreneurs. Approximately half of the respondents were childless, while over one third had at least two children. A little over one third of the respondent households earned at least 60,000 euros per year. K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 127 Fig. 1. Case study area. Approximately half of the respondents (309, 50.7%) lived permanently in the study area, and 300 (49.3%) lived in its close vicinity. Only 19 respondents (3.5%) were either part-time residents or vacationers in the area. About one in ﬁve owned land in the region (109 respondents or 19.2%). 3.3. Variables and statistical methods As previously tested measures of sense of place in Finnish conditions only existed for the national park context (Neuvonen, Pouta, & Sievänen, 2010), some of the statements used in the questionnaire were developed on the basis of the international literature (Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Moore & Scott, 2003; Stedman, 2003; Williams & Vaske, 2003), while others were developed with the case study site in mind. Altogether, 31 statements were formulated for the questionnaire. The preliminary aim was to include statements measuring the respondents’ place attachment, place satisfaction and sense of place, but as the measures had not previously been tested, the analysis was conducted in an exploratory manner to determine what components of sense of place existed in the sample. In the measures, the concept of landscape was used alongside the concept of place due to linguistic reasons: the concept of ‘landscape’ was sometimes considered more appropriate than that of ‘place’. The measures of sense of place were included in factor analysis to explore the components of sense of place. The results of the factor analysis applying the principal component method (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006) are reported in Appendix A. Factor analysis transforms a larger set of correlated variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables, i.e. orthogonal principal component scores, without losing much information. The components with Eigenvalues less than 1 were not considered for further analysis. The standardized principal component scores were used to cluster the respondents with K-means cluster analysis (e.g. Karppinen, 1998; Kline, Alig, & Johnson, 2000; Majumdar, Teeter, & Butler, 2008), which assigns cases to clusters based on their cluster centres. We continued the analysis by examining the socio-demographic proﬁle of respondent clusters. To describe the classes and to test the difference between them in background variables, crosstabulations and chi-squared tests were used. In the questionnaire the respondents’ perceptions of landscape elements and changes in the landscape were measured with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from very negative (−3) to very positive (3). Twenty elements of the current situation were included, comprising natural as well as man-made elements. In the set of items measuring landscape changes, sixteen items, consisting of both natural and built environments, were used. To identify possible differences in landscape perceptions between respondent clusters, the means of landscape perceptions were compared between respondent clusters using analysis of variance. The means were compared between respondent clusters 128 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 Table 1 Socio-demographic proﬁle of the respondents (n = 630). Frequency % Gender Female Male 322 268 54.6 45.4 Age Under 19 20–34 35–49 50–64 More than 65 5 73 242 184 79 0.9 12.5 41.5 31.6 13.6 Education Comprehensive school education Vocational education High school graduate College/polytechnic University graduate Other education 106 122 44 196 95 28 17.9 20.6 7.4 33.2 16.1 4.7 Number of children No children 1 child 2–3 children 4 or more 203 72 162 27 43.8 15.5 34.9 5.8 Occupation Agricultural/forestry entrepreneurs Other entrepreneurs Professionals/specialists White-collar workers Blue-collar workers Students/pupils Housewives/others 31 70 147 135 175 6 12 5.4 12.2 25.5 23.4 30.4 1.0 2.1 Yearly gross income of the household Under 10,000 D D 10,000–19,999 D 20,000–29,999 D 30,000–39,999 D 40,000–49,999 D 50,000–59,999 D 60,000–69,999 D 70,000–79,999 D 80,000–89,999 D 90,000 or more 12 37 65 70 82 74 60 59 19 61 2.2 6.9 12.1 13.0 15.2 13.7 11.1 10.9 3.5 11.3 compared between respondent clusters pairwise with Dunnett’s T3 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 to the landscape’s future and its management”, “The residents of the area should bear the majority of the costs of the landscape’s management” and “Rural landscapes could be maintained more with voluntary work.” These measures were also compared between the respondent clusters by analysis of variance. 4. Results 4.1. Sense of place concept and respondent clusters pairwise with Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, which does not assume equality of variances. In the questionnaire the evaluative perceptions of the landscape were measured with 20 ﬁve-point semantic differential scales using evaluative adjective pares coded from −2 to +2. The scales were beautiful–ugly, vital–regressive, unkempt–tidy, important–unimportant, stimulating–boring, imperfect–idyllic, uniting residents–dividing residents, ordinary–distinctive, constant–changing, urban–rural, dull–varying, pristine–human altered, stressful–relaxing, traditional–modern, private–public, undeﬁned–deﬁned, easy to navigate–difﬁcult to navigate, noisy–quiet, open–closed and unsafe–safe. The analysis of the association between evaluative perceptions and respondent clusters was conducted using analysis of variance. The means were The principal component analysis revealed seven components of sense of place. These were named as Attachment to place, Rootedness, Social relations, Appreciation of the landscape, Perceived uniqueness of the landscape, Adaptability to place and Landscape satisfaction (Appendix A). Of these we selected the components that were related to sense of place and the use of place for cluster analysis. The components that included obvious evaluation of the landscape were omitted to avoid cross-correlations between clustering and landscape perceptions. The cluster analysis of these four components, Attachment to place, Rootedness, Social relations, Adaptability to place, produced four clusters of respondents (Table 2). The clusters differed signiﬁcantly with respect all these components. The respondents in the ﬁrst cluster had social connections within 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 low level. They were named Socially connected. The second cluster was the most indifferent to the place. Their attachment was on a low level, they did not have roots or social relations in the area and the adaptability to the place was on a low level, implying that they had not 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 had also adapted their recreational use to the place. The cluster was named Roots and resources. The ﬁnal cluster was strongly attached to the place in emotional terms, but weakly in social terms. Respondents in this cluster were weakly adapted to the area in their recreational use. Following their high place attachment, they were named as Committed to the place. 4.2. Proﬁles of the respondent clusters To strengthen the interpretation, the typical socio-demographic proﬁle of each cluster was analysed. Table 3 provides information on the distribution of socio-demographic variables within the four clusters. In chi-squared tests, all these socio-demographic variables were found to signiﬁcantly vary among the clusters. Through row-wise comparison of socio-demographic variables between clusters, it is easy to observe which socio-demographic groups Table 2 Components in K-means clustering. Components Attachment to place Rootedness Social relations Adaptability to place Cluster sizes, N/% Principal component scores in cluster centres Respondent clusters Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place −0.89 −0.45 0.50 −0.45 114/21.8% 0.10 −0.39 −0.27 −0.39 137/26.2% 0.21 1.50 0.15 1.50 134/25.7% 0.65 −0.70 −0.07 −0.70 137/26.3% F-test p-Value 95.52 584.15 17.21 584.15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 129 Table 3 Background variable associations between cluster groups. Socially connected (%) Weak bonds (%) Roots and resources (%) Committed to the place (%) All 21.8 26.2 25.7 26.2 Gender Female Male 21.3 23.0 29.4 23.0 22.1 28.7 27.2 25.2 Age 34 or younger 35–49 50 or older 21.1 23.4 21.2 31.0 26.8 25.3 36.6 19.6 26.3 11.3 30.1 27.2 Education Comprehensive education Secondary level (high school or vocational education) Tertiary level (university or polytechnic) 24.3 20.1 21.7 18.0 22.3 32.4 29.7 33.8 19.0 27.9 23.7 26.9 Occupation Agricultural/forestry entrepreneurs White-collar-workers/entrepreneurs Workers/others 0.0 23.5 22.6 4.8 28.8 25.3 90.5 18.0 29.5 4.8 29.7 22.6 Household income D 29,999 or less D 30,000–49,999 D 50,000–69,999 D 70,000 or more 26.4 14.5 27.0 22.0 30.8 29.8 22.1 26.0 26.4 26.7 27.0 17.9 16.5 29.0 23.8 34.1 Childhood neighbourhood Active farm Rural Urban 13.1 21.3 28.9 19.7 26.2 30.0 45.9 31.7 6.3 21.3 20.8 34.7 Land ownership Doesn’t own any land Owns land (farming or forest land) 22.3 20.6 30.3 12.7 19.8 47.1 27.6 19.6 Years of residence in Western Nurmijärvi 1–4 years 5–10 years Over 10 years 26.3 24.5 19.5 35.5 36.4 20.8 3.9 4.5 37.7 34.2 34.5 22.0 Participation in recreation Low frequency Middle frequency High frequency 28.3 22.4 16.3 37.7 24.7 18.4 22.0 23.5 29.5 11.9 29.4 35.8 were overrepresented in each cluster. Table 4 summarizes these results and provides a description of a typical member of each cluster. The ﬁrst cluster, named Socially connected, was dominated by middle-aged respondents who typically had an above-average household income. Although members of this non-farming cluster typically had an urban background, landowners and non-owners were quite equally represented. They were new comers, and used the area for recreation less than average. In the second cluster with Weak bonds, younger and female respondents were over-represented. Presumably related to their younger age, these respondents with a higher education and Chi-squared p-Value 4.45 0.217 14.70 0.023 17.07 0.009 58.76 0.000 17.23 0.045 70.15 0.000 35.29 0.000 70.38 0.000 39.90 0.000 white-collar professions typically had a lower than average household income. Land ownership was rare among them, and they also used the region for recreation with a low frequency. In third cluster, named Roots and resources, the strong majority of respondents were self-employed, i.e. they worked as farmers or forest entrepreneurs. They typically had a relatively low household income, but they owned land. Altogether, almost half of all landowners of the data belonged to this cluster. They had also spent their childhood on an active farm in the region, and used the region for recreation with a high frequency. Table 4 Socio-demographic proﬁle of the clusters of respondents. Dominant socio-demographic characteristics Age Education Occupation Household income Childhood neighbourhood Landownership Years of residence in Western Nurmijärvi Recreation participation Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place Middle aged All levels White and blue-collar Higher Urban Both Short-term residents Low frequency Younger Higher White-collar Lower Urban Non-landowners Short- and mid-term residents Low frequency Younger Secondary Farmers and Blue-collar Lower and average Active farm and rural Landowners Long-term residents High frequency Middle aged and older All levels White-collar Higher and average Urban Non-landowners Short- and mid-term residents High frequency 130 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 Table 5 Perceptions 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 −0.15A 1.26AB 1.35AB 0.69AB 2.36AB 2.04AB 2.08B 2.55B 0.14A 1.62A 1.61A 0.93A 2.45AB 2.17A 2.39AB 2.59B −0.81B 1.12B 1.16B 0.36B 2.18B 1.78 2.18B 2.50B 0.03A 1.35AB 1.39AB 0.94A 2.53A 2.22A 2.55A 2.82A −0.19 1.34 1.38 0.73 2.38 2.05 2.31 2.62 8.47 2.98 2.46 4.80 2.99 4.33 4.64 4.51 0.000 0.031 0.062 0.003 0.031 0.005 0.003 0.004 Constructed landscape elements Yards and gardens Roads New houses New production buildings 2.07A 0.95A 1.12AB 0.83 2.19AB 0.92A 0.96A 0.84 2.30AB 1.38B 1.26AB 0.98 2.37B 1.55B 1.46B 1.20 2.24 1.21 1.20 0.97 2.25 8.29 3.56 2.11 0.082 0.000 0.014 0.099 Mean 1.43 1.57 1.37 1.70 Natural landscape elements Set-aside ﬁelds Field buffer zones Wetlands Open ditches Grazing cattle Forest/ﬁeld edges River Topography The letters A and B denote clusters with signiﬁcant differences in Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, at the 0.1 signiﬁcance level. The fourth cluster, Committed to place, was dominated by middle-aged and older residents. They worked in white-collar professions and had an average or higher than average level of household income. They had typically spent their childhood in urban surroundings and did not own land, but still used the region for recreational purposes with a high frequency. 4.3. Landscape perceptions in the clusters The sense of place clusters differed signiﬁcantly in their landscape perceptions concerning twelve out of twenty existing landscape elements. The perceptions that differed between the clusters were in most cases related to natural landscape elements (Table 5). From the constructed elements, four elements differed between the clusters. Almost all landscape elements were perceived as positive in all clusters, and differences only existed at the level of positive perceptions. Their perceptions of set-aside ﬁelds, ﬁeld buffer zones and open ditches varied the most. Set-aside ﬁelds were even perceived negatively in the clusters of Socially connected and Roots and resources. Grazing cattle, River Lepsämä and the topography were perceived as very positive. In analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons of the perception means, the Socially connected, Weak bonds and the Committed to the place clusters were quite similar in their landscape perceptions. The Roots and resources differed most from the other clusters in their views, in particular from the clusters of Weak bonds and Committed to the place. The Roots and resources clusters viewed the natural landscape elements less positively overall than the other clusters, while the Committed to the place cluster viewed these landscape elements most positively. In the constructed landscape elements, the clusters of Socially connected and Weak bonds typically had the lowest perceptions of the landscape. In general, changes in the landscape were perceived as much more negative than the existing landscape elements. From among the proposed changes to landscape elements, perceptions differed signiﬁcantly between clusters for 7 out of the original 16 items (Table 6). Overgrowth of lakes and rivers was ranked very negatively by all clusters. Views concerning the construction of recreational routes on ﬁelds divided the clusters the most, followed by forest logging and a decrease in biodiversity. Again, the ﬁrst, second and fourth clusters were quite equal in their perceptions of landscape changes. The cluster of Roots and resources viewed the changes in the landscape less negatively, and considered the production efﬁciency of agriculture as the most positive change. The construction of recreational routes on ﬁelds 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, particularly the overgrowth of lakes and rivers and a decrease in biodiversity, whereas the construction of recreational paths on ﬁelds was the most welcomed change in the landscape in this cluster. The evaluative perceptions measured with adjective pairs provided further insights into the differences in landscape perceptions between 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 negative perception of the surroundings. Those in the cluster Committed to the place had the most positive feelings towards the region; Table 6 Perceptions of landscape changes, 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 Production efﬁciency of agriculture Decrease in biodiversity New invasive plant species Forest loggings Overgrowth of lakes and rivers Exploitation of extractable soil resources Construction of recreational routes on ﬁelds 0.23AB −1.81B −1.33 −1.02AB −2.11AB −1.62AB 0.82A 0.20A −2.37A −1.77 −1.42A −2.39A −1.86A 0.98A 0.69B −1.83B −1.43 −0.83B −1.92B −1.33B −0.02B 0.66B −2.05A −1.78 −0.96B −2.28A −1.69AB 0.69A 0.45 −2.03 −1.59 −1.06 −2.18 −1.63 0.61 3.79 7.27 3.19 3.72 5.40 3.81 7.97 0.010 0.000 0.024 0.012 0.001 0.010 0.000 Mean −0.98 −1.23 −0.95 −1.06 The letters A, B and C denote clusters with signiﬁcant differences in Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, at the 0.1 signiﬁcance level. K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 131 Table 7 Landscape perceptions in adjective pairs, comparison of means, and comparison of clusters with others using the t-test (level of signiﬁcance: p < 0.1). Variable Ugly–beautiful Regressive–vital Unmanaged–managed Insigniﬁcant–important Boring–stimulating Imperfect–idyllic Ordinary–distinctive Stabile–changing Human altered–pristine Stressful–relaxing Obscure–clear Difﬁcult to–easy to orientate Wide–closed Unsafe–safe Mean Average score on a scale (−2 . . . +2) Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place All F-value p-Value 1.11A 0.65A 0.47A 1.02A 0.21A 0.86A 0.37A 0.83A −0.41A 1.08A 0.26A 0.48A 0.92A 1.32A 1.34B 0.73A 0.52AB 1.20A 0.38AB 1.00A 0.58AB 0.90A −0.29AB 1.32B 0.38AB 0.52A 1.04AB 1.42AB 1.37B 0.95B 0.71AB 1.23A 0.53B 0.97A 0.42A 1.12AB −0.02B 1.31AB 0.47AB 0.72AB 1.07AB 1.32AB 1.57C 1.12B 0.79B 1.50B 0.82C 1.28B 0.81B 1.36B −0.04B 1.42B 0.54B 0.91B 1.28B 1.56B 1.36 0.87 0.63 1.25 0.50 1.04 0.55 1.06 −0.18 1.29 0.42 0.66 1.09 1.41 9.35 6.41 3.23 6.26 9.78 5.4 4.57 8.61 4.26 4.48 2.32 5.71 3.76 2.59 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.075 0.001 0.011 0.052 0.66 0.79 0.87 1.07 0.85 The letters A, B and C denote clusters with signiﬁcant differences in Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, at the 0.1 signiﬁcance level. they viewed it as particularly beautiful, important, relaxing and safe. 4.4. Willingness to contribute to the landscape The willingness to contribute to the landscape in terms of time, effort and money differed signiﬁcantly between the sense of place clusters (Table 8). From one of the three items, in general willingness to contribute, the clusters differed signiﬁcantly, as the willingness was highest among the respondents Committed to the place. The sum variable of the willingness to contribute was also highest among them, but the difference between clusters was not signiﬁcant. Neither was there a signiﬁcant difference between clusters in statements concerning monetary contributions to the landscape or in voluntary work. 5. Discussion This study revealed four sense of place components, Attachment to place, Rootedness, Social relations and Adaptability of place, which produced four clusters of respondents with a sense of place varying in strength and dimensions. The Socially connected had social connections, even though they did not have roots in the area. In the cluster of Weak bonds, the sense of place was generally on a low level. Roots and resources had strong roots in the region, and some attachment to the place in emotional terms. Committed to the place comprised residents who were strongly attached to the place in emotional terms but weakly in social terms. Even though signiﬁcant, the differences between the clusters in general landscape perceptions were relatively small, which might have resulted from the ‘rurality’ of Finland and Finnish people in general. Most Finns still have strong connections to rural areas, and in this sense have up to now had relatively positive perceptions of the rural landscape. The clusters differed particularly in their perceptions of natural landscape elements. Stronger emotional bonds to the place, such as among the Committed to place cluster, also associated with higher landscape evaluations. The cluster of Roots and resources, to which most farmers belonged, particularly differed from other clusters in terms of a lower appreciation of the naturalness of the landscape and higher acceptance of landscape changes. This conﬁrms our presumption based on previous studies (Rogge et al., 2007; Soini, 2007; Soini, Palang, & Semm, 2006). Furthermore, in contrast to other clusters, most of the Roots and resources respondents were long-term residents. In this sense, our results were consistent with the study of Stedman (2006), who found that longterm residents base their sense of place in social relations, whereas short-term residents base it in the quality of the environment. Compared to the other clusters, the farmers perceived the region as less human-altered, which was an interesting result considering that their effect on landscape quality and development is strongest. Social bonds have been considered important for place attachment (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 were open to landscape changes. In turn, those in the clusters Weak bonds and Committed to place were less socially connected, but perceived Table 8 Willingness to contribute to the landscape’s future. Willingness to contribute I would like to contribute to the landscape’s future and its management The area’s residents should bear the majority of the costs of the landscape’s management Rural landscapes could be maintained more with voluntary work Sum variable Mean (scale 1 . . . 5) Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place All F-value p-Value 3.36 3.57 3.51 3.74 3.56 3.12 0.026 2.65 2.66 2.75 2.71 2.69 0.23 0.876 3.42 3.55 3.56 3.56 3.53 0.49 0.691 3.14 3.26 3.28 3.33 3.26 1.60 0.189 132 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 the landscape more positively and were more critical towards landscape change. These results are on the one hand consistent with previous ﬁndings that landscape change in rural areas is not greatly welcomed due to the high level of afﬁrmative attitudes of citizens towards rural landscapes (see e.g. Park & Selman, 2009). On the other hand, the landscape perceptions of the Roots and resources cluster conﬁrmed the results of earlier studies that have demonstrated a high degree of adaptability to landscape changes among farmers (Burton, 2004; Rogge et al., 2007; Soini, 2007). Furthermore, the results also suggest that a sense of place combining emotional attachment to a place and low adaptability may result in positive attitudes towards the living environment, and also a willingness to contribute to landscape management, or care of the place, as was the case in this study in the Committed to place cluster (see also Smith, Davenport, Anderson, & Leahy, 2011). Regardless of their active recreation in the area, the Committed to place respondents, who usually were short or mid-term residents, had a low sense of adaptability to the place. This suggests that they had not been able to engage in the place, but were consciously seeking a relationship with it (Manzo, 2003). To summarize the signiﬁcance of social and physical components to sense of place and landscape perceptions, this study suggests that the sense of place of the Roots and resources cluster is mostly constructed by social and physical components of the place. The Socially connected residents were primarily concerned with social relations, which might of course also be bound to the physical environment. The Weak bonds and Committed to place clusters mostly emphasized the physical characteristics of the place. Considering landscape appreciation and attitudes towards landscape change, residents in the clusters Socially Connected and Roots and resources seem to consider the landscape as constantly changing, together with the social and physical bonds people have with places; in other words, the landscape is seen as a ‘dwelling place’. Weak bonds and Committed to place clusters, in turn, seem to consider landscape more as a static view, and they have a clear idea of what a landscape should be like. However, it should be noted that the relationships people form with a place are always dynamic and develop with their identity towards it. Both the sense of place and the way of seeing the landscape evolve together with the place and people’s identity (Manzo, 2003). 6. Conclusions Based on an empirical case at the rural–urban interface, this study demonstrated the multiform relationship between sense of place and landscape perceptions. The study did not reveal the typical components of the sense of place concept identiﬁed by previous studies, such as place dependence and place identity. Instead, we found multidimensionality of the place relation expressed with components associated with emotional ties, social relations, roots and adaptability to the place, which comprised both social and physical bonds to the place. Adaptability to the place can be considered as an important and a new component in sense of place research, as the forming of a relationship with the place may be a process aiming towards the development of a strong sense of place (Manzo, 2003). This might be especially the case at the rural–urban interface, where people are moving in from urban areas in order to feel more rooted and closer to nature. The clusters revealed by the analysis did not indicate a strong or weak sense of place, but rather differences in the place orientation of the respondents, which were further related to distinct relations with and various perceptions of the landscape. The study did not demonstrate a strong link between sense of place and willingness to contribute to landscape management, even though emotional commitment seems to relate to a greater willingness to participate in landscape management if opportunities exist. The study reveals the need of developing new components and variables for sense of place, which take into consideration the character of the context. Characteristics for the rural–urban area are under a change and the heterogeneity both in terms of visual landscape and social structures is increasing. This change, in turn, might suggest dynamic character of sense of place as well, which was in our study indicated by adaptability. In order to understand the dynamic character of the sense of place a follow-up research within the same case study area would be valuable in addition to the qualitative and participatory researches, which might provide with additional knowledge of the shifts in linkages between landscape perceptions and sense of place. The study highlighted the use of natural resources (agriculture and forestry) as a signiﬁcant cause of contradictions in opinions concerning landscape change at the rural–urban interface. Such contradictions can be expected to increase in the future as a relatively smaller proportion of the population earns its livelihood from natural resources. Our results also indicated differences in perceptions of natural resource use among newcomers, suggesting a high degree of heterogeneity in landscape perceptions among rural residents at the rural–urban interface. In this situation, it is a challenge to ensure that all the residents are involved in land use planning, particularly those who are socially less connected to the area. K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 133 Appendix A. The factor analysis of the sense of place components. The components with Eigenvalues less than 1 were not selected. Component Mean S.D. Component loading Attachment to place I prefer these landscapes more than any other I feel that I can be myself in this region These landscapes represent the Finnish character to me I can feel like a part of this landscape This landscape evokes many memories within me I’m happy when I’m looking at this landscape I miss this landscape when I’m away 3.52 4.02 4.22 3.94 3.37 4.04 3.30 1.096 0.909 0.776 0.927 1.273 0.888 1.149 0.599 0.709 0.767 0.817 0.598 0.748 0.667 2.65 2.46 2.16 1.87 1.204 1.648 1.683 1.456 0.452 0.836 0.888 0.858 1.88 1.350 0.443 4.29 3.28 3.63 4.01 4.49 0.906 1.275 1.220 1.109 0.925 0.368 0.549 0.698 0.563 0.705 3.61 0.979 0.543 3.86 0.923 0.529 3.90 1.007 0.445 Rootedness I know the region inside out My roots are here I have spent the majority of my childhood here This region is important, because my family originates from here My livelihood is dependent on the region Social relations I care about the future of this landscape I feel a part of the local community My social life is here; this is not just a place of residence I have feelings towards this region I’m not moving away from this region in the near future Appreciation of landscape This landscape holds many features of local history and culture The landscape of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is good just the way it is The region is important most of all for its environment (forests and waters) The region of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is important most of all for its open ﬁeld landscapes Perceived uniqueness of landscape No other landscapes are comparable with this one There aren’t many landscapes equally important to this one 3.83 1.005 0.669 2.51 2.25 1.036 1.123 0.797 0.719 Adaptability of use I feel like I’m able to move freely in the landscape I don’t need more forest surroundings for recreation There aren’t any disturbing details in the landscape I know my neighbourhood 3.79 3.03 2.84 3.35 1.092 1.271 1.055 1.303 0.532 0.710 0.281 0.451 Landscape satisfaction I like the landscape’s topography I don’t need bigger lakes or rivers I don’t miss my childhood landscape elements 3.78 2.43 2.95 1.011 1.154 1.133 0.675 0.639 0.529 Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative % Cronbach’s ˛ 4.71 15.2 15.2 0.893 3.43 11.1 26.3 0.832 2.38 7.7 33.9 0.749 2.06 6.6 40.6 0.679 1.92 6.2 46.8 0.648 1.61 5.2 52.0 0.479 1.47 4.8 6.8 0.377 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.906. Chi-squared = 6714.311. Bartlett’s test of sphericity, p = 0.000. References Altman, I. & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press. Birkeland, I. (2008). Cultural sustainability: Industrialism, placelessness and the reanimation of place. Ethics, Place & Environment, 11, 283–297. Blahna, 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: Continuities in the sociology of natural resources (pp. 159–178). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331–352. Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H. & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected area. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 631–653. Brown, G. & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27, 89–111. Brown, G. G., Reed, P. & Harris, C. C. (2002). Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: An Alaska case study. Applied Geography, 22, 49–76. Buciega, A., Pitarch, M.-D. & Esparcia, J. (2009). The context of rural–urban relationship in Finland, France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11, 9–27. Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Seeing through the “good farmer’s” eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis, 44, 195–215. Butz, J. & Eyles, J. (1997). Reconceptualizing senses of place: Social relations, ideology and ecology. Geograﬁska Annaler, 79B(1), 1–25. Cantrill, J. G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: Communication foundations for regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 301–318. Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E. & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in 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: Blackwell Publishing. Cross, J. E., Keske, C. M. H., Lacy, M. G., Hoag, D. L. K. & Bastian, C. T. (2011). Adoption of conservation easements among agricultural landowners in Colorado and Wyoming: The role of economic dependence and sense of place. Landscape and Urban 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 community development in three Canadian communities. Ethics, Place & Environment, 11, 267–281. Davenport, M. A. & Anderson, D. H. (2008). Getting from sense of place to place-based management: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 625–641. 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 places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments and community connections. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 421–441. 134 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (sixth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29. Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E. & Hess, S. (2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310–319. Hidalgo, M. C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281. Hwang, S.-N., Lee, C. & Chen, H.-J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks. Tourism Management, 26, 143–156. Ingold, T. (1993). The temporarlity of the landscape. World Archaelogy, 25, 152–174. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. London: Routledge. Jorgensen, B. & Stedman, R. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on and identiﬁcation with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environment Management, 79, 316–327. Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts. Applied Geography, 18, 169–189. Kaltenborn, B. P. & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1–11. Karjalainen, P. T. (1986). Geodiversity as a lived world: On the geography of existence. Joensuu. Karppinen, H. (1998). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32, 43–59. Kaur, E., Palang, H. & Sooväli, H. (2004). Landscapes in change – Opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 109–120. Kline,. D., Alig, R. J. & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science, 46, 302–311. Kruger, L. E. & Jakes, P. J. (2003). The importance of place: Advances in science and applications. Forest Science, 49, 819–821. Kruger, L. E. & Shannon, M. A. (2000). Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in civic social assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 461–478. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J. & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454. Locokz, E., Ryan, R. L. & Sadler, A. J. (2011). Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusettes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 65–76. Majumdar, I., Teeter, L. & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54, 176–184. Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and have: Towards a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47–61. Maseuda, J. R. & Garvin, T. (2008). Whose Heartland? The politics of place in a rural–urban interface. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 112–123. Meeus & Gulinck. (2008). Semi-urban areas in landscape research: A review. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 2, 1–45. Moore, R. L. & Scott, D. (2003). Place attachment and context: Comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science, 49, 877–884. Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E. & Sievänen, T. (2010). Intention to revisit a national park and its vicinity: Effect of place attachment and quality perceptions. International Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 51–70. Norton, B. G. & Hannon, B. (1997). Environmental values: A place-based theory. Environmental Ethics, 19, 227–245. Overbeek, G. (2009). Rural areas under urban pressure in Europe. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11, 1–7. Palang, 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. Palang, H., Sooväl, H., Antrop, M. & Setten, G. (2004). European rural landscapes: Persistence and change in a globalising environment. Dordrecth, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Park, J. J. & Selman, P. (2009). Attitudes toward rural landscape change in England. Environment and Behavior, doi:10.1177/0013916509355123. Published online before 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 world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G. & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422–434. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Relph, E. (1985). Geographical experiences and being-in-the world: The phenomenological origins of geography. In D. Seamon, & R. Mugerauer (Eds.), Dwelling, place and environment (pp. 15–32). New York and Oxford: Columbia University 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, from http://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 meanings and desired management outcomes. Landscape Urban Plan, 101, 359–370. Soini, K. (2001). Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 225–239. Soini, K. (2007). Beyond the ecological hotspots: The perceptions of the local residents of 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 and sense of place in Finnish and Estonian countryside. In T. Terkenli, & A. Hautsarre (Eds.), Landscapes of a new cultural economy of space. Part 4: Processes of deworldment. Landscape series 5 (pp. 117–148). Kluwer Publishers. Stedman, R. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place. Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581. Stedman, R. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical 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 square one. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 31–44. Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions for landscape 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: Constructing new 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 responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 116–121. Vogt, C. A. & Marans, R. W. (2004). Natural resources and open space in the residential decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 255–269. Vorkinn, M. & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context. The significance 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: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830–840. Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. London and New York: Routledge.