Author:
Ghorbanzadeh Sakineh,Nordberg Kenneth
Abstract
AbstractThis paper focuses on sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service and a mediatory experience in grasping a collection of ecosystem benefits. Through phenomenological and social constructionism/relational approaches, we focus on sense of place as a relational entity at both the individual and collective levels. Using content analysis of 32 in-depth interviews with (a) environmental officials and (b) local inhabitants in the region of Ostrobothnia, Finland, the study finds that sense of place is shaped via the interactions of environmental settings and cultural practices. Here, we argue that material and non-material interactions contribute to sense of place. With a phenomenological approach, the study presents the qualities associated with places, such as tranquility, beauty, and uniqueness that are important for achieving both material and non-material ecosystem benefits, while social constructionism/relational approaches indicate that the social dimension of sense of place contributes to ecosystem service benefits through traditional cultural practices. The study also shows a shift in cultural practices from provisioning to recreation in creating meaningful places. The results highlight a multilocal dimension of senses of places, particularly in contemporary lifestyles and increased mobilities.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference41 articles.
1. Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Pérez-Rincón M (2018) Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ Values 27:29–53
2. Balvanera P, Pascual U, Christie M et al (2022) The role of the values of nature and valuation for addressing the biodiversity crisis and navigating towards more just and sustainable futures. In: Balvanera P, Pascual U, Michael C et al (eds) Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn
3. Cabana D, Ryfield F, Crowe TP, Brannigan J (2020) Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 42:101085
4. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services: a framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756
5. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465