Description

Jorgensen and Stedman (2001):

• SOP is an individual’s favorable or unfavorable attitude toward spatially demarcated object. SOP can be inferred from responses of a cognitive, affective or conative nature.
• Place identity can be regarded as an individual’s cognitions, beliefs, perceptions or thoughts that the self is invested in a particular spatial setting.
• Place attachment can be defined in terms of an individual’s affective or emotional connection to a spatial setting.
• Place dependence can be considered as the perceived behavioral advantage of a spatial setting relative to other settings

Scale as linked to D2.2 framework

• National
• City
• Neighborhood 
• Street
• Household
• Object

Data source [ link to data framework]

• Questionnaire

Data needs

• Essential: NBS characteristics for each city/site, more specifically objectives (long-term) and challenges
• Desirable: Data on symbolic/affective meanings assigned to NBS (case studies, participatory data collection methods

Expected Outputs

Place Identity Scale (Williams & Vaske, 2003).

Items are presented in a 5-point “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) format with a neutral point of 3.

1. I feel “X” is a part of me.

2. “X” is very special to me.

3. I identify strongly with “X”.

4. I am very attached to “X”.

5. Visiting “X” says a lot about who I am.

6. “X” means a lot to me.

• Sense of Place (SOP) inventory (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001)

Place Identity Items:

1. Everything about my […] is a reflection of me.

2. My […] says very little about who I am.

3 I feel that I can really be myself at my […]

4 My […] reflects the type of person I am.

Place Attachment Items:

1 I feel relaxed when I’m at my […]

2 I feel happiest when I’m at my […]

3 My […] is my favorite place to be.

4 I really miss my […] when I’m away from it for too long.

Place Dependence Items:

1. My […] is the best place for doing the things that I enjoy most.

2. For doing the things that I enjoy most, no other place can compare to my […] 

3. My […] is not a good place to do the things I most like to do.

4. As far as I am concerned, there are better places to be than at my […]

Calculation methods

• Quantitative P: Scale inventory/Questionnaire (survey procedure, paper-and-pencil administration, computer based administration)
  • T: Place Identity Scale (Williams & Vaske, 2003) comprising 6 items that measure place dependence and place identity as dimensions of place attachment
  • T: Sense of Place (SOP) inventory (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001) - 12 items developed to measure the three dimensions of an attitude based place attachment experience, namely: place identity, place attachment, and place dependence ☒
• Qualitative P:
  • T: case study methodology – structured interviews, case study analysis
  • T: participatory data collections methods, such as collaborative participatory data collection, bodies as tools for data collection, photo elicitation

Links and references

• Bernardo, F., & Palma-Oliveira, J. M. (2012). Place identity: a central concept in understanding intergroup relationships in the urban context. In H. Casakin, & F. Bernardo (Eds.), The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, and design of built environments (pp. 35-46) (Bentham). doi: 10.2174/97816080541381120101
• Bernardo, F., & Palma-Oliveira, J. M. (2016). Urban neighborhoods and intergroup relations: The importance of place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 239–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.010
• Brown, G., Raymond, C. M., & Corcoran, J. (2015). Mapping and measuring place attachment. Applied Geography, 57, 42-53. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.011
• Counted, V. (2016). Making sense of place attachment: Towards a holistic understanding of people-place relationships and experiences. Environment, Space, Place, 8(1), 7-32. Retrieved from https://www.vcounted.com/wp content/uploads/2018/01/Counted-ESP-Spring-2016.pdf
• Jorgensen, B.S., & R.C. Stedman (2001). Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
• Kim, J. , & Kaplan, R. (2004) Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: new urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village, Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-340.
• Kimpton, A., Wickes, R., & Corcoran, J. Do greener suburbs lead to greater residential place attachment? The Journal of Urban Policy and Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony_Kimpton/public ation/267696092 _Greenspace_and_Place_Attachment_Do_Greener_Suburbs_Le ad_to _Greater_Residential_Place_Attachment/links/ 5bce75a1299bf1a43d9a3ecf/Greenspace-and-Place Attachment-Do-Greener-Suburbs-Lead-to-Greater-Residential Place-Attachment.pdf
• Mohapatra, B., & Mohamed, A. R. (2013). Place attachment and participation in management of neighborhood green space: a place-based community management. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 5(3), 266-283.
• Xu, Y., Matarrita-Cascante, D., Lee, J. H., & Luloff, A. E. (2019). Incorporating Physical Environment-Related Factors in an Assessment of Community Attachment: Understanding Urban Park Contributions. Sustainability, 11(20), 5603. doi:10.3390/su11205603
• Williams, D., & Vaske, J. (2003). The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. Forest Science, 49, 830-840. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/psychometric_place _attachment_measurement.pdf
• Wolf, K.L., Krueger, S., & Flora, K. (2014). Place attachment and meaning – A literature review. In Green Cities: Good Health (www.greenhealth.washington.edu). College of the Environment, University of Washington.