TY - JOUR

T1 - Using meaningful places as an indicator for sense of place in the management of social-ecological systems

AU - Knaps, Falco

AU - Gottwald, Sarah

AU - Albert, Christian

AU - Herrmann, Sylvia

N1 - Funding Information: We would like to thank all participants for their ideas, time, and effort. Special thanks to the reviewers for providing helpful comments and to Thea Kelly for providing writing consultation. The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Universität Hannover. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

PY - 2022/11/1

Y1 - 2022/11/1

N2 - Sense of place is increasingly advocated to support the management of social-ecological systems. Given the concept’s complexity, we suggest that an indicator for sense of place is needed to facilitate its application in practical planning. We propose such an indicator called “meaningful places,” defined as geographic locations to which (i) immediately perceived as well as socially constructed meanings are ascribed and (ii) evaluative attachments are tied. We applied the indicator in two independent case studies, Lübeck and Lahn, both of which aimed to integrate sense of place in an actual planning process. The case studies differed in the spatial scale of the meaningful places, the indicator’s operationalization, and the specific assessment methods. In the Lübeck case, semi-structured interviews and a simple mapping method were used to analyze participants’ “home-regions.” The results revealed diverse but overlapping locations characterized as aesthetic, different from others, close to nature, and quiet (place meanings). In the Lahn case, a public participation GIS (public participation geographic information system [PPGIS]) survey was conducted and yielded insights into the spatial distribution of meaningful places. The results reflect a wide range of place meanings linked to, for example, activities, aesthetic qualities, or well-being. Furthermore, participants expressed different intensities of place attachments. Although the indicator is still in an exploratory stage, it allows for reflection on potential benefits for planning practitioners. The resulting data can be combined with spatial information usually used in planning processes, e.g., about the state of the underlying physical environment and/or foreseeable drivers of change. This offers new opportunities for managers regarding the determination of priorities to conserve meaningful places, the anticipation of conflicts, and the utilization of the communicative power of meaningful places. We argue that the benefits for planning justify a new direction of research devoted to the development and further advancement of the indicator.

AB - Sense of place is increasingly advocated to support the management of social-ecological systems. Given the concept’s complexity, we suggest that an indicator for sense of place is needed to facilitate its application in practical planning. We propose such an indicator called “meaningful places,” defined as geographic locations to which (i) immediately perceived as well as socially constructed meanings are ascribed and (ii) evaluative attachments are tied. We applied the indicator in two independent case studies, Lübeck and Lahn, both of which aimed to integrate sense of place in an actual planning process. The case studies differed in the spatial scale of the meaningful places, the indicator’s operationalization, and the specific assessment methods. In the Lübeck case, semi-structured interviews and a simple mapping method were used to analyze participants’ “home-regions.” The results revealed diverse but overlapping locations characterized as aesthetic, different from others, close to nature, and quiet (place meanings). In the Lahn case, a public participation GIS (public participation geographic information system [PPGIS]) survey was conducted and yielded insights into the spatial distribution of meaningful places. The results reflect a wide range of place meanings linked to, for example, activities, aesthetic qualities, or well-being. Furthermore, participants expressed different intensities of place attachments. Although the indicator is still in an exploratory stage, it allows for reflection on potential benefits for planning practitioners. The resulting data can be combined with spatial information usually used in planning processes, e.g., about the state of the underlying physical environment and/or foreseeable drivers of change. This offers new opportunities for managers regarding the determination of priorities to conserve meaningful places, the anticipation of conflicts, and the utilization of the communicative power of meaningful places. We argue that the benefits for planning justify a new direction of research devoted to the development and further advancement of the indicator.

KW - management

KW - meaningful places

KW - public participation GIS, semi-structured interviews, sense of place

KW - social-ecological systems

KW - Sustainability Governance

KW - Environmental planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141351858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5751/ES-13340-270409

DO - 10.5751/ES-13340-270409

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85141351858

VL - 27

JO - Ecology and Society

JF - Ecology and Society

SN - 1708-3087

IS - 4

M1 - 9

ER -