**5. Sense of place and environmental change**

Sense of place is a social construction of place identity, dependence, and attachment that is mediated by physical attributes and conditions [4, 40]. For example, while many studies have found that long-term residents have higher place attachment, in Montana, McCool and Martin [41] surprisingly found that newer residents had higher place attachment. They explained this unusual finding as possibly reflecting the fact that many newer residents had moved to the area specifically because of the mountain access and environmental attributes of the area. Kibler et al. [42] highlighted the value of connecting human attachment to the condition of an ecosystem for evaluating the success of restoration projects. Specifically, they hypothesized that it is likely for ecosystem improvement in restoration projects to depend on the interaction between ecosystem function and sense of place. These interactions project that a restoration site where stakeholders have a high sense of place and where there is a highly functioning ecosystem will lead to emotionally invested stakeholders and iterative monitoring of the ecosystem. On the other end of the spectrum, they hypothesized that low sense of place and low ecosystem function would require enhancing stakeholder attachment for a restoration effort to be successful.

Minimal work has been conducted that moves beyond general attachment to the environment to directly connect sense of place to environmental attribute data. The connection of biophysical data with social data is often limited by the availability of the two types of data at the same meaningful scale. Many social scientists focus on survey respondents' or interview participants' environmental perceptions or landscape values for a location when biophysical data are unavailable [43]. For example, in Norway, Kaltenborn [44] found the most important contributing attribute to place attachment to be the perception of the quality of the natural environment. Brown and Raymond [37] investigated the relationships between landscape values which incorporate both ecological and social values, and sense of place in Australia. They found esthetic, spiritual, future generation, and wilderness values to be the best predictors of place attachment. Matarrita-Cascante et al. [45] found that

**27**

*\**

**Table 1.**

*integrity or water quality value.*

*Sense of Place and Water Quality: Applying Sense of Place Metrics to Better Understand…*

natural amenities increased place attachment for both seasonal and permanent residents. Larson et al. [46] applied nine natural environmental wellbeing factors to explain sense of place values, including general "environmental quality," "water quality," "fishing," "soil," and others. They found that coastal residents valued

were the best predictors of place identity, dependence, and attachment.

There has been some work connecting various water quality metrics to sense of place without using biophysical data. Brehm et al. [5] measured predictors of water quality concern and found place meanings to be linked to local environmental concern. They found that the level of water quality concern was predicted by the environmental values, gender (female > male), and assigned place meanings (how impacted they perceived the watershed was by environmental threats and how they perceived the watershed as a getaway). Smith et al. [10] connected perceived ecological integrity (along with a set of other place attachment indicators) with a set of desired social and ecological outcomes for lakes in Illinois. They found that the more people believed the lakes contributed to the ecological integrity of the area, the more they desired improved environmental outcomes and the less they

Stedman [20]\* Level of lake shoreline development (number of structures within a 100 m buffer of

2.This lake is important in providing habitat for wildlife 3.This lake is important in protecting water quality

Larson et al. [46] Environmental wellbeing factors for fishing, swimming, air quality, water quality, soil

the lake), water clarity, algal biomass, chlorophyll, color, alkalinity, and conductivity

1.Considering everything, how would you rate the overall condition of the following

quality, beauty of the landscape, condition of the landscape, access to the natural areas,

1.This lake is important in protecting the landscape from development

2.How would you rate the waterways in terms of the quality of the water? 3.How would you rate the waterways in terms of the vegetation along the shores? 4.How would you rate the waterways in terms of the number and variety of animals?

To date, very little work has connected sense of place with water quality assessments (see **Table 1**). In the only work that directly connects biophysical water quality data with sense-of-place meanings, Stedman [20] connected water quality to place attachment and satisfaction for property-owners in a lake-rich region of Wisconsin. He found that the construction of sense of place meanings was mediated by the level of shoreline development as well as the social influences of whether or not the lake felt like a wilderness escape place or a neighborhood of friends. In terms of place attachment, the two social influences (wilderness escape and sociability) that depend upon what the property owners were seeking essentially cancel one another out when considering shoreline development. More shoreline development leads to a more social environment, but also less wilderness, thereby differently affecting the experiences of each property owner. Jorgenson and Stedman [26] investigated the same dataset and found that perceptions of environmental features

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91480*

beauty and conditions of the environment.

**Author Water quality metric(s) used**

Smith et al. [10] Perceived ecological integrity Likert-scale questions:

Cox et al. [47] Perceived waterway condition Likert-scale questions:

biodiversity, overall-natural environment

*This is the only study that applied specific water quality data. The other studies applied perceived ecological* 

waterways?

*Past research connecting water quality metrics and sense of place.*

Brehm et al. [5] Water quality concern

## *Sense of Place and Water Quality: Applying Sense of Place Metrics to Better Understand… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91480*

natural amenities increased place attachment for both seasonal and permanent residents. Larson et al. [46] applied nine natural environmental wellbeing factors to explain sense of place values, including general "environmental quality," "water quality," "fishing," "soil," and others. They found that coastal residents valued beauty and conditions of the environment.

To date, very little work has connected sense of place with water quality assessments (see **Table 1**). In the only work that directly connects biophysical water quality data with sense-of-place meanings, Stedman [20] connected water quality to place attachment and satisfaction for property-owners in a lake-rich region of Wisconsin. He found that the construction of sense of place meanings was mediated by the level of shoreline development as well as the social influences of whether or not the lake felt like a wilderness escape place or a neighborhood of friends. In terms of place attachment, the two social influences (wilderness escape and sociability) that depend upon what the property owners were seeking essentially cancel one another out when considering shoreline development. More shoreline development leads to a more social environment, but also less wilderness, thereby differently affecting the experiences of each property owner. Jorgenson and Stedman [26] investigated the same dataset and found that perceptions of environmental features were the best predictors of place identity, dependence, and attachment.

There has been some work connecting various water quality metrics to sense of place without using biophysical data. Brehm et al. [5] measured predictors of water quality concern and found place meanings to be linked to local environmental concern. They found that the level of water quality concern was predicted by the environmental values, gender (female > male), and assigned place meanings (how impacted they perceived the watershed was by environmental threats and how they perceived the watershed as a getaway). Smith et al. [10] connected perceived ecological integrity (along with a set of other place attachment indicators) with a set of desired social and ecological outcomes for lakes in Illinois. They found that the more people believed the lakes contributed to the ecological integrity of the area, the more they desired improved environmental outcomes and the less they


#### **Table 1.**

*Past research connecting water quality metrics and sense of place.*

*Water Quality - Science, Assessments and Policy*

data to analyze relationships with sense of place.

**5. Sense of place and environmental change**

Applications of sense of place findings are primarily at a localized level but provide insights about the relative social value of different places. To increase the application of sense of place in environmental management, social data will need to be collected on a broader scale with more consistent means of data collection such as the use of standardized sense of place scales for use across locations. One promising advancement has been an increase in applying spatial techniques in place-based research (e.g., [37–39]). These techniques connect survey or interview data to places and landscapes which allows for the incorporation of spatially defined ecological

Beckley [4] calls for research that identifies the environmental attributes for which people develop place attachment; however, a big limitation in the use of sense of place, or many other place-based social indicators, for water quality assessment is the lack of localized biophysical water quality data. Place-based values are site specific and are not always generalizable past that location as testing and monitoring methods are not always consistent. Without corresponding localized water quality data—either perceptions or biophysical measurements—we may be able to capture the social value for that place as a whole but not for its environmental attributes. In the case of water quality valuation, this means that we are limited in our ability to explain changes in the social value for sense of place resulting from changes in water

Sense of place is a social construction of place identity, dependence, and attachment that is mediated by physical attributes and conditions [4, 40]. For example, while many studies have found that long-term residents have higher place attachment, in Montana, McCool and Martin [41] surprisingly found that newer residents had higher place attachment. They explained this unusual finding as possibly reflecting the fact that many newer residents had moved to the area specifically because of the mountain access and environmental attributes of the area. Kibler et al. [42] highlighted the value of connecting human attachment to the condition of an ecosystem for evaluating the success of restoration projects. Specifically, they hypothesized that it is likely for ecosystem improvement in restoration projects to depend on the interaction between ecosystem function and sense of place. These interactions project that a restoration site where stakeholders have a high sense of place and where there is a highly functioning ecosystem will lead to emotionally invested stakeholders and iterative monitoring of the ecosystem. On the other end of the spectrum, they hypothesized that low sense of place and low ecosystem function would require enhancing stakeholder attachment for a restoration effort to

Minimal work has been conducted that moves beyond general attachment to the environment to directly connect sense of place to environmental attribute data. The connection of biophysical data with social data is often limited by the availability of the two types of data at the same meaningful scale. Many social scientists focus on survey respondents' or interview participants' environmental perceptions or landscape values for a location when biophysical data are unavailable [43]. For example, in Norway, Kaltenborn [44] found the most important contributing attribute to place attachment to be the perception of the quality of the natural environment. Brown and Raymond [37] investigated the relationships between landscape values which incorporate both ecological and social values, and sense of place in Australia. They found esthetic, spiritual, future generation, and wilderness values to be the best predictors of place attachment. Matarrita-Cascante et al. [45] found that

quality due to gaps in our biophysical monitoring and understanding.

**26**

be successful.

desired competing economic outcomes. Cox et al. [47] also investigated water quality perceptions and found a weak connection with the number of visits, which then indirectly affected other quality of life indicators, including sense of place. In a qualitative investigation of sense of place, Lukacs and Ardoin [12] found that the perception of the environmental attributes and biophysical resources influenced sense of place and watershed group participation in Appalachia.
