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

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rural residents have different expectations concerning what the rural landscape should be like and what
Received 19 December 2010 it should be used for. This is especially the case at the rural–urban interface, where the characteris-
Received in revised form tics of rural and urban landscapes have become blurred. In this article, the concept of sense of place is
16 September 2011
used to explore the relationship between humans and landscape at the rural–urban fringe. Based on a
Accepted 4 October 2011
quantitative survey data set, this article examines how the landscape perceptions of local residents can be
Available online 26 October 2011
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
Keywords:
Landscape perceptions
bonds, Roots and resources and Committed to place. The clusters differed by their socio-economic pro-
Place files as well as their sense of place. The Roots and resources cluster differed most of the other clusters, but
Sense of place in general the differences between the clusters in general landscape perceptions were relatively small.
Rural landscape Although a strong sense of place is often assumed to lead to care of place, the willingness to contribute
Landscape change to 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
landscape as a dwelling place.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of place characterizes the complex connections people have with

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 land-
scape 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 character-
istics 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: katriina.soini@mtt.fi (K. Soini), hanne.vaarala@metsakeskus.fi
(H. Vaarala), eija.pouta@mtt.fi (E. Pouta).
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 exam-
ining 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 affect-
ing environmental and landscape valuation, including a broader
range 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 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 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 to
rural landscape management (Kaltenborn, 1998; Walker & Ryan,
2008).

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002
 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 neigh-
bourhoods (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 under-
stand 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 appli-
cability of the concept and its measures. Based on a quantitative
survey data set, this article examines how the landscape percep-
tions 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 com-
ponents 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), hav-
ing 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 indepen-
dent 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 individ-
ual’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 per-
ceived threat to identity together with the perceived loss of control
over land (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002) and asso-
ciations 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 exam-
ined 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 attach-
ment 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 nega-
tive 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 set-
ting 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 land-
scape, 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 num-
ber 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 land-
scape, 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 over-
all 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 environ-
ment 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 surround-
ings 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 com-
munities 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 asso-
ciated 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 differ-
ent 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 deter-
mining 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 oppor-
tunity 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 con-
servation 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 percep-
tions (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), result-
ing 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 land-
scape, 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 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 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 set-
tle 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 Lep-
sämä 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 gath-
ered 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 question-
naires.
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. Approx-
imately 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
Fig. 1. Case study area.
Approximately half of the respondents (309, 50.7%) lived perma-
nently in the study area, and 300 (49.3%) lived in its close vicinity.
Only 19 respondents (3.5%) were either part-time residents or vaca-
tioners 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 condi-
tions only existed for the national park context (Neuvonen, Pouta,
& Sievänen, 2010), some of the statements used in the question-
naire 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 formu-
lated 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 pre-
viously 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 con-
cept of ‘landscape’ was sometimes considered more appropriate
than that of ‘place’.
The measures of sense of place were included in factor anal-
ysis to explore the components of sense of place. The results of
127
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 prin-
cipal 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 analy-
sis (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, 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 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 compared between respondent clusters pairwise with Dunnett’s

Socio-demographic profile of the respondents (n = 630).
T3 post hoc test, which does not assume equality of variances.
Frequency % Three statements indicated willingness to contribute time,
Gender effort or money to the landscape: “I would like to contribute to
Female 322 54.6 the landscape’s future and its management”, “The residents of the
Male 268 45.4 area should bear the majority of the costs of the landscape’s man-
Age agement” and “Rural landscapes could be maintained more with
Under 19 5 0.9 voluntary work.” These measures were also compared between the
20–34 73 12.5 respondent clusters by analysis of variance.
35–49 242 41.5
50–64 184 31.6
More than 65 79 13.6 4. Results
Education
Comprehensive school education 106 17.9 4.1. Sense of place concept and respondent clusters
Vocational education 122 20.6
High school graduate 44 7.4
The principal component analysis revealed seven components
College/polytechnic 196 33.2
University graduate 95 16.1
of sense of place. These were named as Attachment to place, Root-
Other education 28 4.7 edness, Social relations, Appreciation of the landscape, Perceived
uniqueness of the landscape, Adaptability to place and Landscape
Number of children
No children 203 43.8 satisfaction (Appendix A). Of these we selected the components
1 child 72 15.5 that were related to sense of place and the use of place for clus-
2–3 children 162 34.9 ter analysis. The components that included obvious evaluation of
4 or more 27 5.8 the landscape were omitted to avoid cross-correlations between
Occupation clustering and landscape perceptions. The cluster analysis of these
Agricultural/forestry entrepreneurs 31 5.4 four components, Attachment to place, Rootedness, Social rela-
Other entrepreneurs 70 12.2
tions, Adaptability to place, produced four clusters of respondents
Professionals/specialists 147 25.5
White-collar workers 135 23.4 (Table 2). The clusters differed significantly with respect all these
Blue-collar workers 175 30.4 components.
Students/pupils 6 1.0 The respondents in the first cluster had social connections
Housewives/others 12 2.1 within the region, even though they did not have roots in the area.
Yearly gross income of the household Their attachment to the place or the use of landscape was on a low
Under 10,000 D 12 2.2 level. They were named Socially connected. The second cluster was
D 10,000–19,999 37 6.9
the most indifferent to the place. Their attachment was on a low
D 20,000–29,999 65 12.1
D 30,000–39,999 70 13.0
level, they did not have roots or social relations in the area and the
D 40,000–49,999 82 15.2 adaptability to the place was on a low level, implying that they had
D 50,000–59,999 74 13.7 not been able to adapt their everyday dwelling to the landscape.
D 60,000–69,999 60 11.1 Due to this weak relationship, this cluster was named Weak bonds.
D 70,000–79,999 59 10.9
The third cluster of respondents had strong roots in the region,
D 80,000–89,999 19 3.5
D 90,000 or more 61 11.3 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.
pairwise with Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test, which does not assume The final cluster was strongly attached to the place in emotional
equality of variances. terms, but weakly in social terms. Respondents in this cluster were
In the questionnaire the evaluative perceptions of the land- weakly adapted to the area in their recreational use. Following their
scape were measured with 20 five-point semantic differential high place attachment, they were named as Committed to the place.
scales using evaluative adjective pares coded from −2 to +2.
The scales were beautiful–ugly, vital–regressive, unkempt–tidy, 4.2. Profiles of the respondent clusters
important–unimportant, stimulating–boring, imperfect–idyllic,
ordinary–distinctive, uniting residents–dividing residents, To strengthen the interpretation, the typical socio-demographic
constant–changing, urban–rural, dull–varying, pristine–human profile of each cluster was analysed. Table 3 provides informa-
altered, stressful–relaxing, traditional–modern, private–public, tion on the distribution of socio-demographic variables within the
undefined–defined, easy to navigate–difficult to navigate, four clusters. In chi-squared tests, all these socio-demographic vari-
noisy–quiet, open–closed and unsafe–safe. The analysis of ables were found to significantly vary among the clusters. Through
the association between evaluative perceptions and respondent row-wise comparison of socio-demographic variables between
clusters was conducted using analysis of variance. The means were clusters, it is easy to observe which socio-demographic groups

Table 2
Components in K-means clustering.

Components Principal component scores in cluster centres F-test p-Value

Respondent clusters

Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place

Attachment to place −0.89 0.10 0.21 0.65 95.52 0.000

Rootedness −0.45 −0.39 1.50 −0.70 584.15 0.000
Social relations 0.50 −0.27 0.15 −0.07 17.21 0.000
Adaptability to place −0.45 −0.39 1.50 −0.70 584.15 0.000
Cluster sizes, N/% 114/21.8% 137/26.2% 134/25.7% 137/26.3%
 K. Soini et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2012) 124–134 129

Table 3
Background variable associations between cluster groups.

Socially Weak Roots and Committed to Chi-squared p-Value

connected (%) bonds (%) resources (%) the place (%)

All 21.8 26.2 25.7 26.2

Gender 4.45 0.217

Female 21.3 29.4 22.1 27.2
Male 23.0 23.0 28.7 25.2

Age 14.70 0.023

34 or younger 21.1 31.0 36.6 11.3
35–49 23.4 26.8 19.6 30.1
50 or older 21.2 25.3 26.3 27.2

Education 17.07 0.009

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

Occupation 58.76 0.000

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

Household income 17.23 0.045

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

Childhood neighbourhood 70.15 0.000

Active farm 13.1 19.7 45.9 21.3
Rural 21.3 26.2 31.7 20.8
Urban 28.9 30.0 6.3 34.7

Land ownership 35.29 0.000

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

Years of residence in Western Nurmijärvi 70.38 0.000

1–4 years 26.3 35.5 3.9 34.2
5–10 years 24.5 36.4 4.5 34.5
Over 10 years 19.5 20.8 37.7 22.0

Participation in recreation 39.90 0.000

Low frequency 28.3 37.7 22.0 11.9
Middle frequency 22.4 24.7 23.5 29.4
High frequency 16.3 18.4 29.5 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
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 major-
ity of respondents were self-employed, i.e. they worked as
farmers 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 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

Socially connected Weak bonds Roots and resources Committed to the place

Age Middle aged Younger Younger Middle aged and older

Education All levels Higher Secondary All levels
Occupation White and blue-collar White-collar Farmers and Blue-collar White-collar
Household income Higher Lower Lower and average Higher and average
Childhood neighbourhood Urban Urban Active farm and rural Urban
Landownership Both Non-landowners Landowners Non-landowners
Years of residence in Western Nurmijärvi Short-term residents Short- and mid-term residents Long-term residents Short- and mid-term residents
Recreation participation Low frequency Low frequency High frequency 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

Natural landscape elements

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

Constructed landscape elements

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

Mean 1.43 1.57 1.37 1.70

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 per-
ceptions. Their perceptions of set-aside fields, field buffer zones
and open ditches varied the most. Set-aside fields were even per-
ceived 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 percep-
tion 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 Commit-
ted 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 dif-
fered 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 construc-
tion 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, par-
ticularly 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 clus-
ter.
The evaluative perceptions measured with adjective pairs pro-
vided 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 0.23AB 0.20A 0.69B 0.66B 0.45 3.79 0.010
Decrease in biodiversity −1.81B −2.37A −1.83B −2.05A −2.03 7.27 0.000
New invasive plant species −1.33 −1.77 −1.43 −1.78 −1.59 3.19 0.024
Forest loggings −1.02AB −1.42A −0.83B −0.96B −1.06 3.72 0.012
Overgrowth of lakes and rivers −2.11AB −2.39A −1.92B −2.28A −2.18 5.40 0.001
Exploitation of extractable soil resources −1.62AB −1.86A −1.33B −1.69AB −1.63 3.81 0.010
Construction of recreational routes on fields 0.82A 0.98A −0.02B 0.69A 0.61 7.97 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 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 0.000

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

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 gen-
eral 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 vary-
ing 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. Commit-
ted 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 gen-
eral. 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 nat-
ural 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 con-
firms 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 respon-
dents were long-term residents. In this sense, our results were
consistent with the study of Stedman (2006), who found that long-
term 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 consid-
ering that their effect on landscape quality and development is
strongest.
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 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 Mean (scale 1 . . . 5)

Socially Weak Roots and Committed to All F-value p-Value

connected bonds resources the place

I would like to contribute to the landscape’s future 3.36 3.57 3.51 3.74 3.56 3.12 0.026
and its management
The area’s residents should bear the majority of the 2.65 2.66 2.75 2.71 2.69 0.23 0.876
costs of the landscape’s management
Rural landscapes could be maintained more with 3.42 3.55 3.56 3.56 3.53 0.49 0.691
voluntary work
Sum variable 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 land-
scape 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 demon-
strated 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 com-
bining 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 respon-
dents, 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 compo-
nents to sense of place and landscape perceptions, this study
suggests that the sense of place of the Roots and resources clus-
ter is mostly constructed by social and physical components of
the place. The Socially connected residents were primarily con-
cerned 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 Con-
nected 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 clus-
ters, 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 land-
scape 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 iden-
tity. 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 dis-
tinct 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 will-
ingness 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 adaptabil-
ity. 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 participa-
tory 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 rela-
tively smaller proportion of the population earns its livelihood from
natural 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 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 Eigenvalue % of Cumulative Cronbach’s
loading variance % ˛

Attachment to place 4.71 15.2 15.2 0.893

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

Rootedness 3.43 11.1 26.3 0.832

I know the region inside out 2.65 1.204 0.452
My roots are here 2.46 1.648 0.836
I have spent the majority of my childhood here 2.16 1.683 0.888
This region is important, because my family originates 1.87 1.456 0.858
from here
My livelihood is dependent on the region 1.88 1.350 0.443

Social relations 2.38 7.7 33.9 0.749

I care about the future of this landscape 4.29 0.906 0.368
I feel a part of the local community 3.28 1.275 0.549
My social life is here; this is not just a place of residence 3.63 1.220 0.698
I have feelings towards this region 4.01 1.109 0.563
I’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 0.679

This landscape holds many features of local history and 3.61 0.979 0.543
culture
The landscape of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is good just the 3.86 0.923 0.529
way it is
The region is important most of all for its environment 3.90 1.007 0.445
(forests and waters)
The region of Nummenpää-Lepsämä is important most of 3.83 1.005 0.669
all for its open field landscapes
Perceived uniqueness of landscape 1.92 6.2 46.8 0.648
No other landscapes are comparable with this one 2.51 1.036 0.797
There aren’t many landscapes equally important to this one 2.25 1.123 0.719

Adaptability of use 1.61 5.2 52.0 0.479

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

Landscape satisfaction 1.47 4.8 6.8 0.377

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

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 re-
animation 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). Multidi-
mensional 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 envi-
ronmental evaluation: An Alaska case study. Applied Geography, 22, 49–76.
Buciega, A., Pitarch, M.-D. & Esparcia, J. (2009). The context of rural–urban rela-
tionship 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 develop-
ing 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 Communi-
cation 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: 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 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). Multi-
variate 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 attach-
ment 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’ involve-
ment, 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 identifi-
cation 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 Mas-
sachusettes. 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 Environ-
mental 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: Per-
sistence 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 phe-
nomenological 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. Haut-
sarre (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 residen-
tial 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 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: Validity
and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830–840.
Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. London and New York: Routledge.