4.7 Article

Generating meaningful landscapes for globalized mobile societies: pushing an international research agenda

期刊

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 1669-1677

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-018-0696-y

关键词

Place attachment; Identity; Place; Landscapes; Inclusion; Mobile societies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context People's well-being is influenced by the ability to establish a bond with a place and attach meanings to it. Many studies show that the longer people reside in a place, the stronger their place attachment becomes. In today's global societies, the length of residency is vastly reduced because of, e.g., individualistic lifestyles, global workplaces and forced migration (e.g., caused by war or climate change). This trend challenges landscape science: people increasingly need places (landscapes) that can be appropriated easily and quickly by many cultural groups. At the same time, however, these places should not simply become trivial and exchangeable. Objectives Place attachment/place making studies have become popular in landscape science. However, we have identified a deficit in both the development and application of theory. The research agenda proposed here shall initiate a fundamental discourse on balancing the demands of a global society with the requirements for sustainable landscapes. Methods Literature review. Results/conclusions We propose a research agenda with the following pillars: (1) to expand theories and concepts of place attachment, to accommodate the new and unprecedented drivers generated by 21st century mobile societies, (2) to improve the understanding of how landscapes afford place attachment and identity-building in both long- and short-term resident and migrant groups, and (3) to establish scientific knowledge on the inclusive role of landscapes. Proposed research methods range from qualitative social science studies, in situ interviews and psychological experiments to the use of social media data and 3D landscape visualization tools.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据