Exploring the concept of place attachment in phenomenology and psychometrics; identifying the capacity of reflective interaction for theoretical development

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Department of Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 Lecturer, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Background: Studies of place attachment can be divided into two parts based on their methodological approach. These two parts are based on two different paradigms in place research: phenomenology and psychometrics. Also, there is multiplicity of specific concepts which is perceived by many critics to have vague and fuzzy definitions and reflects inadequate specification of distinctions and linkages among concepts. Therefore, numerous authors have expressed concerns about lack of conceptual clarity and theory development in research on place.
Objectives: This research is an investigation on different kinds of definition and operationalization of the concept of place attachment and its linkage to other place concepts in two different paradigms: phenomenology and psychometrics.
Methodology: Qualitative content analysis method has been used in this research to interpret the relation of place attachment to other place concepts. Analyzing the quality of application and operationalization of this concept in empirical studies is better way to increase knowledge about it and this is because of that methodology reflects underlying normative philosophical commitments of the researcher and how these commitments shape different understandings from one concept.
Results: According to content analysis, each of these paradigms has shed light on different dimensions of the concept. Interpreting place attachment based on paradigmatic context is best way to clarify its position among place constructs, because methodology of researches reflects differences in world view and mechanism of concept generation for experimental studies.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that attempts to integrate divergent assumptions may lead to miscommunication by obscuring significant conceptual distinctions. While there are profound philosophical differences between these two paradigms, their reflective interaction must be considered for theoretical development. Reflective interaction means a more open look at the complementary role of the two paradigms in the improvement of knowledge that enables urban planners to build more attractive places in practice.

Highlights

Conceptual ambiguity in the literature of identity and spatial attachment is the result of philosophical and structural differences in the epistemological system of research traditions.

Quantitative and qualitative approaches in place studies have different potentials in recognizing different dimensions of the individual's relationship with the environment and reflective interaction, which means increasing the exchange of knowledge and experience between these approaches, can be an effective strategy in theoretical development in this field.

Keywords

References

Alexander, C. (2002). The Nature of Order, Book One: The Phenomenon of Life: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Berkeley, CA: The Center for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C. (2012). Battle for the life and beauty of the earth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barber, M. (2020). Joint and Individual Intentionality: A Genetic, Phenomenological Approach. In R. Giovagnoli & R. Lowe (Eds.), The Logic of Social Practices (pp. 3-21). Cham: Springer.
Damayanti, R., & Kossak, F. (2016). Extending Kevin Lynch’s concept of imageability in third space reading; case study of Kampungs, Surabaya–Indonesia. A/Z ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 13(1), 57-67.
Droseltis, O., & Vignoles, V. L. (2010). Towards an integrative model of place identification: Dimensionality and predictors of intrapersonal-level place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 23-34.
Easthope, H. (2004). A place called home. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(3), 128-138.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 463-496.
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of phenomenological psychology, 28(2), 235-260.
Giorgi, A. (2017). A response to the attempted critique of the scientific phenomenological method. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 48(1), 83-144.
Giuliani, M. V., & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267-274.
Jacobs, A. B. (1993). Great Streets. Massachusetts: Mit Press.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 316-327.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-303.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230.
Lewicka, M. (2014). In search of roots: memory as enabler of place attachment. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 63-74). Routledge.
Masterson, V. A., Stedman, R. C., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D., & Svedin, U. (2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and Society, 22(1).
Mehaffy M. W., & Salingaros, N. A. (2006). Geometrical fundamentalism. In N. A. Salingaros (Ed.), A theory of architecture (pp. 172-194). UMBAU-VERLAG Harald Püschel.
Mehta, V. (2006). Lively streets: Exploring the relationship between built environment and social behavior. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.
Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2006). Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 361-380.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10.
Seamon, D. (2012). Place, place identity, and phenomenology. In H. Casakin & F. Bernardo (Eds.), The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, and design of the built environment. London: Bentham Science Publishers.
Seamon, D. (2013). Phenomenology and uncanny homecoming. In D. Boscaljon (Ed.), Resisting the place of belonging. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Seamon, D. (2014). Place Attachment and Phenomenology: The Synergistic Dynamism of Place. In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds), place attachment: Advances In Theory, Methods And Applications. London: Routledge.
Seamon, D., & Gill, H. (2016). Qualitative Approaches to Environment–Behavior Research: Understanding Environmental and Place Experiences, Meanings, and Actions. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research Methods for Environmental Psychology (pp. 115-135). John Wiley & Sons.
Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685.
Stedman, R. C. (2016). Subjectivity and social-ecological systems: a rigidity trap (and sense of place as a way out). Sustainability Science, 11(6), 891-901.
Stedman, R. C., Amsden, B. L., Beckley, T. M., & Tidball, K. G. (2014). Photo-based methods for understanding place meanings as foundations of attachment.In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.),  Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 112-124). Routledge.
Sullivan, C. (2010). Theory and method in qualitative research. In M. Forrester & C. Sullivan (Eds.), Doing qualitative research in psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Wertz, F. J. (1989). Approaches to perception in phenomenological psychology: The alienation and recovery of perception in modern culture. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology. Boston, MA: Springer.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830-840.
Urban Planning Knowledge
Volume 5, Issue 2
June 2021
Pages 1-18

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 April 2020
  • Revise Date: 03 June 2020
  • Accept Date: 25 January 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics