Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To cite this article: RICHARD C. STEDMAN (2003): Is It Really Just a Social Construction?: The
Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place, Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal, 16:8, 671-685
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Society and Natural Resources, 16:671–685, 2003
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0894-1920 print/1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920390217627
RICHARD C. STEDMAN
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012
Although sense of place definitions nominally include the physical environment, much
research has emphasized the social construction of sense of place and neglect the
potentially important contributions of the physical environment to place meanings
and attachment. This article presents research that tests several models that inte-
grate (1) characteristics of the environment, (2) human uses of the environment,
(3) constructed meanings, and (4) place attachment and satisfaction. The research
utilized a mail survey of 1,000 property owners in a lake-rich region (the Northern
Highlands Lake District of Northern Wisconsin). Structural equation modeling
revealed that the best fit model integrating environmental variables with sense of place
was a meaning-mediated model that considered certain landscape attributes (i.e.,
level of shoreline development) as predictive of certain meanings related to attachment
and satisfaction. This research demonstrates that landscape attributes matter a great
deal to constructed meanings; these constructions are not exclusively social.
of the physical environment on sense of place and to identify a ‘‘best fit’’ model of
the mechanism by which this effect occurs.
are richer in natural elements than others (i.e., the attributes found in the land-
scape are foundations of attachment and satisfaction). Kemmis (1990) suggests
that community attachment is based on amenities present in the natural
environment (see also Wilkinson 1991). Eisenhauer et al. (2000) assert a reciprocal
relationship between places in nature and social interactions. In their empirical
application they asked respondents why places held special meanings to them, and
responses were evenly divided between ‘‘family & friend related reasons’’ (36.9%)
and ‘‘environmental features & characteristics of place’’ (34.2%). Although the
authors attribute between-community variation in these proportions to social-
cultural differences in the way people interact with the natural environment, is it
also possible that much of this variation is attributable to differences in the
physical environment itself? Local community culture influences place meanings,
but so might the nature of the physical environment influence community culture.
Is there an ultimate limit, set by the physical environment itself, to this ‘‘con-
structed landscape’’ approach? Are we really likely to attribute ‘‘wilderness’’
meanings to a suburban shopping mall? I suggest that these symbols are at least
partially based on some material reality. In so doing, I am not arguing a deter-
minism, but rather an empirical investigation into the relationship between aspects
of the physical environment, and its meanings.
The Physical Landscape: How Important is it, and How Might it Work?
Do characteristics of the landscape contribute to sense of place, and in what manner?
Potential mechanisms by which the physical environment influences sense of place
are implied, but not specified in the literature. The next section of the article presents
attempts to systematize sense of place prose into measurable relationships.
To summarize, there are implicit within the place literature several potential
models of how the physical landscape may produce a sense of place. However, none
has been ‘‘tested’’ to assess the magnitude of the relationship between environment
and sense of place, nor the mechanism by which it operates. This is in part due to the
phenomenological underpinnings of much of the sense of place literature. The
question of the utility of traditional hypothesis testing is not the subject of this article
but has been engaged elsewhere (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Stedman 2002). The
goals of this article are to begin to fill these gaps, asking (1) How strong is the
relationship between characteristics of the physical environment and sense of place
and (2) What model provides the best explanation of the process by which the effect
occurs? Due to the theoretical conceptions of sense of place that emphasize the
experiential and meaning based nature of sense of place, I hypothesize that the best
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012
model of sense of place will be that which suggests that attributes of the environment
are associated with characteristic experiences. Symbolic meanings are produced from
these experiences, and these meanings in turn underpin place attachment and
satisfaction.
maximum likelihood factor analysis of meanings held for one’s lake. Overall,
respondents agreed (with some variability) that their lake was up north (Table 3).
The degree to which respondents perceived their lake as a social place is based on a
single item: the proportion of people around their lake they consider close friends.
Finally, the experience measures included items addressing whether the respondent
owned lakeshore property, whether they were a seasonal or year-round resident,
their length of time in the setting, and their activities around the lake.
Scenery 94.2
Water quality 83.5
Solitude=peacefulness 82.9
Population of wildlife 83.1
Number of users 68.4
Level of shore development 66.0
Other’s recreation activities 53.0
Fishing quality 53.2
Scale a ¼ .822
Multivariate Results
Place attachment and satisfaction appear to be very different concepts. Using a
bivariate correlation analysis (Table 4), none of the environmental variables is sig-
nificantly related to place attachment: The degree to which one is attached to his or
her lake apparently has very little to do with its physical, biochemical, and social
attributes. In contrast, place satisfaction is predicted by social, physical, and lim-
nological properties of the lake itself; six of the seven lake attribute properties are
significant at ( p < .01). Clear, large lakes, on the blue=green end of the color spec-
trum, with low chlorophyll, are loci for more positive attitudes, as are lakes with less
shoreline development that lack public access. These attributes correspond to public
perceptions of desirable lakes where vacant property is most expensive (Pierce 1999).
Although these findings shed some light on the relationship between char-
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012
results are equivalent to those that would be obtained in an OLS equation. Not
surprisingly, therefore, the degree of lakeshore development has a strong (negative)
impact on level of place satisfaction (respondents who own property on more
developed lakes are less satisfied with them). In contrast, there is no effect on place
attachment. Using established criteria (Joreskog and Sorbom 1989), this model is not
a satisfactory representation of the data, as the p value is highly significant ( p < .001)
and the chi-square value high (13.23) for just one degree of freedom (Figure 1).
The meaning-mediated model introduces symbolic meanings as mediating vari-
ables in the relationship between the physical landscape and sense of place: Certain
landscape attributes foster or inhibit certain meanings. Are more densely developed
lakes ‘‘different’’ places (in terms of symbolic meanings) and therefore places to
which one is less attached and=or satisfied? Shoreline development may reduce the
degree to which one’s lake represents an escape from civilization, and may foster
‘‘neighborhood’’ meanings consistent with neighbors and social relationships. Sub-
stantively, these meanings are at the core of the debate about the future of Vilas
County and its lakes, as the landscape evolves from a wilderness escape place,
to a place that feels more like a day-to-day setting of social relationships. Each
meaning is represented via a single indicator: ‘‘My lake is an escape from civiliza-
tion,’’ and ‘‘I consider the people around my lake close friends.’’ This cognitively
mediated model is a much better fit of the data (chi-square ¼ 4.50, df ¼ 2,
p ¼ .10560), RMSEA ¼ .040 (Figure 2).
residents; quite reasonably, year-round residents are less likely to view their lake as a
place of escape (after all, it is their regular home). However, there is no evident
relationship between residence patterns and the degree to which one’s lake is con-
sidered a ‘‘social place’’: Friendships with others around their lake are equally
important to year-round and seasonal residents.
are important to sense of place, but fail to provide specific statements about how
much influence the physical landscape has, nor the causal mechanisms at play. This
article demonstrates that landscape characteristics matter; they underpin both place
attachment and satisfaction, but in very different ways. People are more satisfied
with deep lakes that have less shoreline development, clearer water, less public
access, and lower chlorophyll levels. The effect on place attachment is more complex,
and only revealed via modeling the indirect effects of symbolic meanings. More
developed lakes are less likely to be ‘‘escape places,’’ and more likely to be ‘‘social
places.’’ Because each of these meanings is positively associated with attachment,
shoreline development changes the symbolic base of attachment without affecting
overall attachment.
In examining different models of the relationship between the physical landscape
and sense of place, the only model not rejected as poor fit was that which treated
characteristics of the physical environment as the basis of meanings, which in turn
affected attachment and satisfaction. Neither the ‘‘direct effects’’ (where attributes of
the landscape serve directly as the source of sense of place) nor models that incor-
porate experience demonstrated acceptable model fit. It is possible, however, that
characteristics of this particular setting and the people using it may have contri
buted to these results. Simply put, there is not much variation in these lakes and the
kinds of experiences that people have with them. Studying other settings that are
more diverse in both environmental quality and the mode of interaction (i.e., some
people recreating, other people working) may help us to more fully understand this
relationship.
If the physical environment matters little as a source of attachment, there is a
wide latitude in which environmental degradation may occur, while leaving
attachment intact. It is crucial that we understand the importance of meanings and
how they may change in response to physical landscape change. Urry (1995) notes
that place myths (as collections of symbiotic meanings) are not eternal: The condi-
tions of the physical setting may change and no longer support the myths. Relph
(1976) asserts that once developed, a place identity is maintained only as long as it is
plausible. It can become implausible if changing conditions make it inadequate for
its primary purpose. Holding on to one’s place meanings may become increasingly
challenging as the gap widens between the meaning and the physical characteristics
of the setting (Fitchen 1991), but a number of mechanisms help the social actor
preserve meanings even as the environment changes. Marcus (1992) emphasizes the
role of memory, as recalled experiences continue to shape current place meanings.
Important as well is the linked nature of meanings, as threats to one important image
may threaten the coherence of the entire set (Shields 1991).
The Physical Environment and Sense of Place 683
Common to all of these statements about loss of place is the notion that sense of
place is vulnerable to changes in place meanings. The physical landscape may change
to such a degree that preferred meanings become untenable or are maintained only
through active effort. These efforts are probably limited to those who have a long-
term presence in the landscape. Settings with rapid turnover may be characterized by
a ‘‘baseline effect’’ phenomenon: ‘‘Up north’’ is what you see when you get there.
When people arrive into a setting they encounter a landscape that they are told via
many sources, including local media promotion, is ‘‘up north.’’ If the setting has no
lakeshore development, light recreational use, and pristine water quality, this will
serve as their baseline perception of what up north means. This ‘‘up north’’ may be
threatened by new lakeshore cabins and motorboat traffic. Others, however, will
arrive with these phenomena as the ‘‘normal’’ condition of what up north is all
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012
about; their conception may be threatened by jet skis and condominium resorts.
Thus, there may still be agreement with the symbol, while the physical environment
underpinning it erodes. This latter point in particular has implications for natural
resource and land use planning: Attempts to manipulate the landscape in the service
of attachment will fail if meanings are not considered. Restricting shore development
may have no effect on attachment levels but dramatically change what kind of place
the setting represents.
One final nod to theory needs to be made. Much of the latent debate between the
strong social constructivist position and those who assert that the material envir-
onment underpins sense of place echos dialogue that led to the formation of
environmental sociology as a distinct discipline: a recognition that humans are not
exempt from constraints set forth by the biophysical environment (Dunlap and
Catton 1979; Buttel 1987). Is it really reasonable to suggest that our constructed
meanings are independent of the environmental attributes found there? That these
variables contribute to human behavior, however, hardly suggests that they deter-
mine human behavior. Rather, these questions are open to empirical inquiry such as
that conducted in this article, which helps to systematize important theoretical
statements about the interplay between the physical environment, human behavior,
symbolic meanings, and sense of place.
Note
1. There has been a great deal of attention paid to the potential dimensionality of place
attachment. Williams et al. (1992), Moore and Graefe (1994), and Kaltenborn (1998) have
asserted that place attachment encompasses two distinct constructs: place dependence, or the
instrumentality of a setting to serve needs; and place identity, or the symbolic bonds between
people and place. Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) and Stedman (2002) suggest that the rela-
tionship is somewhat more complex than this, with mixed evidence for multidimensionality. In
particular, Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) find that three distinct factors (identity, attachment,
and dependence) emerge, but with a considerable amount of common variation across these
constructs, which is primarily attributed to the attachment domain. This article treats
attachment as encompassing a single dimension, which can be justified given the high relia-
bility of the attachment scale.
References
Appleton, J. 1984. Prospects and refuges revisited. Landscape J. 3:91–103.
Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995. Your place or mine?: The effect of place crea-
tion on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society Nat. Resources 8:381–398.
684 R. C. Stedman
Brown, R. B. 1993. Rural community satisfaction and attachment in mass consumer society.
Rural Sociol. 58(3):387–403.
Buttel, F. 1987. New directions in environmental sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 13:465–488.
Dunlap, R., and W. Catton. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 5:243–273.
Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich R. S., and D. J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places on
public lands: An analysis of activities, reasons for attachments, and community connec-
tions. Society Nat. Resources 13:421–441.
Fitchen, J. M. 1991. Endangered spaces, enduring places: Change, identity, and survival in rural
America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Glass, G. E., and J. A. Sorenson. 1994. USEPA ERLD-UMD acid deposition gradient
susceptibility database. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory–Duluth and Uni-
versity of Minnesota at Duluth.
Gobster, P. H. 2001. Human dimensions of early successional landscapes in the eastern United
States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(2):474–482.
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012
Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the
environment. Rural Sociol. 59(1):1–24.
Guest, A. M., and B. A. Lee. 1983. Sentiment and evaluation as ecological variables. Sociol.
Perspect. 26:159–184.
Hammer, R. B., Hagen, A. E., and P. R. Voss. 1999. Approximating geographic patterns of
residential development: Are Wisconsin’s North Woods disappearing? Paper presented at the
Annual Meetings of the Southern Demographic Association=International Conference of
Applied Demography. San Antonio, TX. October 28.
Hayduk, L. A. 1987. Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hayduk, L. A., P. A. Ratner, J. L. Johnson, and J. L. Bottorff. 1995. Attitudes, ideology, and
the factor model. Polit. Psychol. 16(3):479–507.
Hufford, M. 1992. Thresholds to an Alternate Realm: Mapping the Chaseworld in New
Jersey’s Pine Barrens. In Place attachment, eds. I. Altman and S. M. Low, 231–252.
New York: Plenum Press.
Hummon, D. M. 1992. Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In Place
Attachment, eds. I. Altman and S. M. Low, 253–278. New York: Plenum.
Jackson, J. B. 1994. A sense of place, a sense of time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Joreskog, K., and D. Sorbom. 1989. LISREL VII. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala.
Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners
attitudes towards their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 21:233–248.
Kaltenborn, B. P. 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts.
Applied Geography 18(2):169–189.
Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the politics of place. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Low, S. M., and I. Altman. 1992. Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In Place attach-
ment, eds. I. Altman and S. M. Low, 1–12. New York: Plenum Press.
Marcus, C. C. 1992. Environmental memories. In Place attachment, eds. I. Altman and S. M.
Low, 87–112. New York: Plenum Press.
Mesch, G. S., and O. Manor. 1998. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attach-
ment. Environ. Behav. 30(4):504–519.
Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail
users. Leisure Sci. 16:17–31.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Rudzitis, G. 1993. Nonmentropolitan geography: Migration, sense of place, and the American
West. Urban Geogr. 14(6):574–585.
Ryden, K. C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape: Folklore, writing, and the sense of place.
Ames: University of Iowa Press.
The Physical Environment and Sense of Place 685
Sack, R. D. 1997. Homo geographicus: A framework for action, awareness, and moral concern.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shields, R. 1991. Places on the margin: Alternative geographies of modernity. London:
Routledge.
Shumaker, S. A., and R. B. Taylor. 1983. Toward a clarification of people-place relationships:
A model of attachment to place. In Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives,
eds. N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller, 219–251. New York: Praeger.
Stedman, R. C. 2002. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-
based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. and Behavior 34(5): 405–425.
Town of Eagle River. 1996. Eagle Town River Area Vision 2020 survey report. University of
Wisconsin-Extension, Vilas County, WI.
Town of Manitowish Waters. 1995. Town of Manitowish Waters community planning survey
report. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Vilas County, WI.
Town of Phelps Comprehensive Master Planning Advisory Committee. 1998. Town of Phelps
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 13:10 23 November 2012