Advertisement

Space and Place – Two Aspects of the Human-landscape Relationship

  • Marcel Hunziker
  • Matthias Buchecker
  • Terry Hartig
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 8)

Keywords

Aesthetic Experience Place Identity Place Attachment Landscape Planning Landscape Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abello R.P. and Bernaldez F.G. 1986. Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 19-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman I. and Low S. 1992. Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  3. Appleton J. 1975 (2nd revised edition, 1995). The experience of landscape. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Balling J.D. and Falk J.H. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 14, 1: 5-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker R.G. 1968. Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernaldez F.G., Gallardo D. and Abello R.P. 1987. Children’s landscape preferences: From rejection to attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology 7, 2: 169-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourassa S.C. 1991. The aesthetics of landscape. London and New York: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  8. Breakwell G.M. 1986. Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Buchecker M., Hunziker M. and Kienast F. 2003. Participatory landscape development - over-coming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 29-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchecker M. 2005. Public place as a resource of social interaction. In: Turner P. and Davenport E. (eds.). Space, spatiality and technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Clamp P.P. and Powell M. 1982. Prospect-refuge theory under test. Landscape Research 7: 7-8.Google Scholar
  12. Coeterier J.F. 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34: 27-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper M.C. 1995. House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dixon J. and Durrheim K. 2000. Displacing place identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 27-44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhauer B.W., Krannich R.S. and Blahna D.J. 2000. Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources 13: 421-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falk I. and Kilpatrick S. 2000. What is social capital? A study of interaction in a rural community. European Society for Rural Sociology 40, 1: 87-110.Google Scholar
  17. Fox S. 1985. The American conservation movement: John Muir and his legacy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fuhrer U. and Kaiser F. 1994. Multilokales Wohnen. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  19. Fuhrer U. 1990. Bridging the ecological gap: Behaviour settings as interfaces. Environment and Behaviour 22, 4: 518-537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gimblett H.R. 1990. Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 7: 222-234.Google Scholar
  21. Graumann C.F. 1983. On multiple Identities. International Social Science Journal 35: 309-321.Google Scholar
  22. Greider T. and Garkovich L. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environ-ment. Rural Sociology 59, 1: 1-24.Google Scholar
  23. Hägerhäll C.M. 2000. Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 1: 83-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartig T., Kaiser F.G. and Bowler P.A. 2001. Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior 33: 590-607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hay R. 1998. Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 5-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzog T.R. and Kropscott L.S. 2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of prefer-ence and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 36, 5: 659-677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herzog T.R. and Leverich O.L. 2003. Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35, 4: 459-477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herzog T.R. 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9: 27-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hull R.B. and Stewart W.P. 1995. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environment and Behavior 27: 404-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hummon D.M. 1992. Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In: Altman I. and Low S.M. (eds.). Human behavior and environments: Advances in theory and research. Volume 12: 253-278. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hunziker M., Hoffmann C. and Wild S. 2001. Die Akzeptanz von Raubtieren, Gründe und Hintergründe - Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage in der Schweiz. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76, 1-2: 301-326.Google Scholar
  32. Jorgensen B.S. and Stedman R.C. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 233-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan R. and Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. 340 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature - towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Quality 15: 169-182.Google Scholar
  35. Klopp B. and Mealey L. 1998. Experimental mood manipulation does not induce change in preference for natural landscapes. Human Nature 9, 4: 391-399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Korpela K.M. 1989. Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9: 241-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korpela K.M. 1992. Adoloescents’ Favourite Places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12: 249-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korpela K.M., Hartig, T., Kaiser F.G. and Fuhrer U. 2001. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior 33: 572-589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korpela K.M., Kyttä M. and Hartig T. 2002. Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 387-398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Korpela K. and Hartig T. 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16: 221-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krüger R. 1987. Wie räumlich ist die Heimat. Geographische Zeitschrift 75, 3: 160-177.Google Scholar
  42. Lee C. and Hummon D.M. 1993. A place to call home. The Sociological Quarterly 34, 1: 111-131.Google Scholar
  43. Low S.M. and Altman I. 1992. Place attachment:A conceptual inquiry. In: Altman I. and Low S.M. (eds.). Place attachment. pp. 1-12. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  44. Luz F. 1993. Zur Akzeptanz landschaftsplanerischer Projekte. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Kiel: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  45. Lyons E. 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 15, 4: 487-511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manzo L.C. 2003. Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 47-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mealey L. and Theis P. 1995.The relationship between mood and preferences among natural land-scapes - an evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 247-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nasar J.L. 1988. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. 521 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Nassauer J.I. (ed.) 1997. Placing nature - culture and landscape ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  50. Oldenburg R. 1989. The great good place. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  51. Orians G.H. 1980. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In: Lockard J.S. (ed.). The evolution of human social behavior. pp. 49-66. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Orians G.H. 1986. An ecological evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Penning-Rowsell E.C. and Lowenthal D. (eds.). Landscape meanings and values. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  53. Pratt M.B. 1984. Identity: skin, blood, heart. In: Bulkin E., Pratt M.B. and Smith B. (eds.). Yours in Struggle: Three Feminist Perspectives on Anti-semitism and Racism, pp. 27-81, New York: Long Haul Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pretty G.H., Chipuer H.M. and Bramston P. 2003. Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of place and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 273-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Proshansky H., Fabian A.K. and Kaminoff R. 1983. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 57-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Relph E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  57. Röllin P. and Preibisch M. 1993. Vertrautes wird fremd Fremdes vertraut. Kulturelle Vielfalt und nationale Identität, Nationales Forschungsprogramm 21. Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  58. Schenk A. 2000. Relevante Faktoren der Akzeptanz von Natur- und Landschaftsschutzmass-nahmen? Ergebnisse qualitativer Fallstudien. Publikation der Ostschweizerischen Geographi-schen Gesellschaft Neue Folge, Heft 5.Google Scholar
  59. Schroeder H. 1992. The spiritual aspect of nature: A perspective from depth psychology. In: Stoep V. ( ed.). Proceedings of the 1991 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, pp. 25-30. Seel M. 1991. Eine Ästhetik der Natur. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. 388 pp.Google Scholar
  60. Sell J.L. and Zube E.H. 1986. Perception of and response to environmental change. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 3: 33-54.Google Scholar
  61. Shephard P. 1969. English reaction to the New Zealand landscape before 1850. Pacific Viewpoint Monograph 4.Google Scholar
  62. Simmel G. 1993. Das Individuum und die Freiheit. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  63. Smith B. 1989. European vision and the South Pacific. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Speller G., Lyons E. and Twigger-Ross C. 2002. A community in transition: The relationship between spatial change and identity processes. Social Psychological Review 4, 2: 39-58.Google Scholar
  65. Stamps A.E. 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stankey G.H., Cole D.N., Lucas R.C., Petersen M.E. and Frissell S.S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen.Tech. Report INT-176, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.Google Scholar
  67. Stokols D. and Shumaker S.A. 1981. People in places: A transactional view of settings. In: Harvey J.H. (ed.). Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, pp. 441-488.Google Scholar
  68. Stoll S. 1999. Akzeptanzprobleme bei der Ausweisung von Grossschutzgebieten. Diss. Univ. Berlin.Google Scholar
  69. Strumse E. 1994a. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14: 293-303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strumse E. 1994b. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14: 281-292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Strumse E. 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16, 1: 17-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Syme G.J., Beven C. and Sumner N. R. 1993. Motivation for reported involvement in local wetland preservation. Environment and Behavior 25, 5: 586-606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tuan Y.F. 1977. Space and place. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  74. Twigger-Ross C.L. and Uzzell D.L. 1996. Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16: 205-220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ulrich R.S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research 4: 17-23.Google Scholar
  76. Ulrich R.S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman I. and Wohlwill J.F. (eds.). Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Ulrich R.S., Simons R., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A. and Zelson M. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11: 201-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ulrich R.S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert S. and Wilson E.O. (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. pp. 73-137. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  79. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L. and Van der Wulp N.Y. 2003. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 135-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A. and Coeterier J.F. 1998. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 141-157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Volker K. 1997. Local commitment for sustainable rural landscape development. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63: 107-120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Waitt G. 2000. Consuming heritage: Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 27,4: 835-862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weichhart P. 1990. Raumbezogene Identität. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  84. Williams D.R., Patterson M.E. and Roggenbuck J.W. 1992. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14, 1: 29-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Woodcock D.M. 1982. A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Ann Arbor: Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  86. Woolcock M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27: 151-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zube E.H., Sell J.L. and Taylor J.G. 1982. Landscape perception - research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9: 1-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Hunziker
    • 1
  • Matthias Buchecker
    • 2
  • Terry Hartig
    • 3
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLSwitzerland
  3. 3.Uppsala University, Institute for Housing and Urban ResearchSweden

Personalised recommendations