MArch Dissertation 2012 by Calum Robinson

A comparative analysis of place attachment and place identity literature with Scottish government policy and strategy

A Dissertation submitted for Masters of Architecture (MArch) Degree University of Edinburgh by C. Robinson

First Reader: Leslie Forsyth EDINBURGH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 2011-12

AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION

I …………………………………………………………… confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and is expressed in my own words. Any use made within it of the works of other authors in any form (ideas, text, figures, tables, etc.) is properly acknowledged at the point of use. A list of the references employed is included as part of the work. Signed:………………………………………………… Date:……………………………………………………

A comparative analysis of place attachment and place identity literature with Scottish government policy and strategy

How can concepts of place attachment and place identity reframe Scottish policy on ‘placemaking’, and potentially inform the Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework?

Abstract The focus of this study has been to extract and compare theories from current place literature with Scottish Government policy in Designing Places (2001) and with the implementation of said policy in the Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (2010). After a literature review of place attachment and place identity, place relevant issues of policy and strategy are critiqued before a comprehensive, comparative analysis evaluates them relative to the place literature. The framework and models used for analysis are adaptations of Scannell and Gifford’s place attachment tripartite framework shaped by the literature review on place attachment, place identity, identity processes and intergroup threat. Key evaluations show that policy does not recognise continuity processes, a sense of belonging or national identity; and the ADF does not address the political domain or the impact of different threats to place. The study concludes with recommendations that policy could be reframed to incorporate the overlooked issues and remodelled as frameworks that align with place principles of functions, domains and scales of identity.

CONTENTS p.1

Title sheet

p.2

Authorship declaration

p.3

Abstract

p.4

Contents

p.5

List of illustrations and tables

p.7

Acknowledgements

p.8

Introduction

p.9

Chapter summary

p.10

Body of text

p.70

Conclusion

p.74

Bibliography

List of Illustrations and Tables p.13

Figure 1.

A tripartite framework of place attachment (Scannell and Gifford, 2010, p.2)

p.22

Figure 2.

Ecological systems theory model http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/tag/urie-bronfenbrenner/

p.22

Figure 3.

Ecological model for place attachment (Author, 2012)

p.23

Figure 4.

The domains of place attachment (Author, 2012)

p.25

Figure 5.

Functions of place attachment (Author, 2012)

p.36

Figure 6.

Functions of place (attachment and identity theories combined) (Author, 2012)

p.38

Figure 7.

Summary of adaptations to Scannell and Gifford’s tripartite framework (Scannell and Gifford, 2010, p.2; Author, 2012)

p.45

Figure 8.

An ecological model of the Physical domain in Designing Places (Author, 2012)

p.46

Figure 9.

An ecological model of the Social domain in Designing Places (Author, 2012)

p.47

Figure 10.

An ecological model of the Economic domain in Designing Places (Author, 2012)

p.48

Figure 11.

An ecological model of the Political domain in Designing Places (Author, 2012)

p.50

Figure 12.

The six qualities of successful place-highlighted in the functions of place framework (Author, 2012)

p.56

Figure 13.

The Hearts and connections (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012, p,20)

p.57

Figure 14.

Relationship of existing streets, neighbourhood streets, green network, nodal points and the Great City Street. (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012, p,21)

p.59

Figure 15.

Balancing the network of economies for place resilience (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012, p,17) 5

p.60

Figure 16.

Main ADF proposals grouped into place domains (Author, 2012)

p.61

Figure 17.

Highlighted focus of scales of identity evaluated in ADF (Author, 2012)

p.62

Figure 18.

ADF evaluation highlighted in the functions of place framework (Author, 2012)

p.34

Table 1.

Likely affective responses of intergroup threat (Author, 2012, based on information from Stephan and Mealy, 2010)

p.50

Table 2.

The six qualities of successful place-making cross referenced with the functions of place framework (Author, 2012)

6 Â Â

Acknowledgements I would like to pay thanks to: my friends who listened to me talk about buses, except Matt Tom F, Tom O and Duncan for their advice and counselling Niamhbags for her reassurance, optimism and patience two thousand and thirty work colleagues for their understanding, suggestions and proof reading skillz Emma for clarifying Council propaganda Luke for his advice and helping me move house close to the deadline But most of all I would like to thank my parents for their encouragement, support and optimism. They are the best.

7 Â Â

Introduction

“Place-making” is a central strategy of the Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012) and is directly informed by Scottish policy, Designing Places (City of Edinburgh Council, 2001). This study examines if urban design policy and the application of policy fully appreciate the complexity of place and therefore question if current policy is too limiting. The previous master plans for Leith and the waterfront have been controversial (edinburghsucks.com, 2008) and the current situation, with the recently rejected biomass proposal and the failure of the tram scheme, suggests that decisions by planners and developers could affect the identity of Leith which has not proven popular with the public. These contentious issues demonstrate that understanding place is not a simple analysis and that in order to design for place-making; there must be a greater appreciation for place and the person-place bond.

Policy can only be confirmed as too limiting if it is contrasted with research that establishes ideas and factors unrecognised by policy. This suggests that a study of current literature on place and identity would be beneficial to unearthing information not identified in policy. Therefore, the research question asks: how can concepts of place attachment and place identity reframe Scottish policy on ‘place-making’, and potentially inform the Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (ADF)?

To keep the research relevant to Leith, the place literature review will analyse a variety of attachment and identity based place literature, tailoring it to facilitate the evaluation of policy and of Leith’s potential threat to identity. Research is potentially valuable for architects, planners, urban designers, policy-makers and Leith. Put simply, if identifiable issues in place

literature have been overlooked in policy and the ADF, and this warrants reframing, then a more comprehensive analysis can re-evaluate place, design positive places and reduce the threat to place identity.

Chapter summary 1. LITERATURE REVIEW: PLACE ATTACHMENT AND PLACE IDENTITY 1.1 Place – An overview 1.2 Place attachment 1.2.1 Defining place attachment: a tripartite organising framework 1.2.1.1 Predictors for attachment 1.2.1.2 Functions of attachment 1.2.2 Analysis 1.3 Place identity 1.3.1 Identity processes 1.3.2 Threat 1.3.3 Analysis 2. COMPARE PLACE LITERATURE REVIEW WITH SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PLACE-MAKING 2.1 Policy 2.1.1 Designing Places 2.2 Analysis - Designing Places vs. Place literature 2.2.1 Place domains and scales of identity 2.2.2 Functions of place 3. COMPARE PLACE LITERATURE REVIEW WITH WATERFRONT AND LEITH ADF 3.1 Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (ADF) 3.1.1 Leith 3.1.2 The Process – Charrettes 3.1.3 The Results – Main strategies 3.2 Analysis - ADF vs. Place literature 3.2.1 Scales of identity 3.2.2 Place domains and functions of place 4. EVALUATION 4.1 How could place literature contribute to policy? 4.2 How could place literature contribute to the ADF? 5. CONCLUSION 9

1. LITERATURE REVIEW: PLACE ATTACHMENT AND PLACE IDENTITY

1.1 Place – An overview

The Person-Place connection is widely publicised and debated in academic research. It is a crucial area of study as we try to understand how we relate, affect and are influenced, psychologically and physiologically, by our built, natural and social environments.

Theories to formally define and understand the concept of Place were arguably first introduced by Phenomenologist Edmund Husserl with his inquiries into the structure of human experience and phenomena. These theories were developed by mid twentieth century philosophers like Ricoeur, Merlau-Ponty, Husserl’s student Martin Heidegger, and later with Christian Norberg-Schulz (1980) popularising the term ‘genius loci’ or ‘spirit of place’. Human Geography soon adapted to study the ideas and questions that emerged from this perception of a sense of place. Tuan’s influential work introduced ‘topophilia’ (1974), where ‘places acquire meaning through a steady accretion of sentiment’ (ibid, p.33) and Relph (1976) discusses ‘Placelessness’, where a sense of place is absent.

The phenomenological approaches that focused on experience and ‘meaningful space’ in the field of human geography were typically qualitatively led and criticised by empirical, quantitative based research, particularly those in environmental and community psychology (Lewicka, 2010). The early work on community, by Riger and Levrakas (1981), looked at the social nature of place in community, identifying ‘physical rootedness’ and ‘social bonding’ as key elements. This informed McMillan & Chavis’ (1986) seminal work on ‘sense of community’, which Hummon (1992) expanded on with ‘community sentiment’ and

Puddifoot (1994) with ‘community identity’. This concept of identity in place theory is part of a wider field of psychological constructs that include cognitive, affective and conative dimensions (Jorgenson and Stedman, 2001). The early work of Fried (1963) on grief and enforced location illuminated how these dimensions of cognition and affect are tied to place attachment and that the impact of place disruption, specifically relocation, can have powerful psychological consequences.

Lewicka notes in her comprehensive review of place attachment literature (2010), that relationships between place-related terms are different because authors work from varying theoretical backgrounds. If the theories cannot be unified under a larger theoretical context then concepts have no real meaning (cf. Hernandez, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006; Knez, 2005; Pretty et al., 2003). Although complicated, the rich conceptual network of place has proposed some convincing theories, notably the influential work of Altman and Low (1992) on place attachment and Proshanksy et al. (1978; 1983; 1987) on place identity. Traditionally, these two theories of attachment and identity have dominated the field of place research. However, there is very little resolution of set definitions or clarification of how terms might be related. Lewicka (2010) reinforces this as she expresses the high improbability of aligning concepts to form universal relationships.

Whether the place attachment precedes place identity (Hernandez et al., 2007; Knez, 2005), whether the two concepts are considered synonymous (Williams & Vaske, 2003), whether they are both subordinate to a more general construct, such as sense of place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006), or whether they stand in any other relation to each other (Kyle et al., 2005; Pretty et al., 2003), depends

a great deal on which items have been, a priori, considered diagnostic of particular constructs and included in particular subscales. (ibid, p.14)

In applying Scannell and Gifford’s “Defining place attachment: A tripartite organising framework” (2010) Lewicka suggests there is an imbalance of attention in theory and urges for more work to understand people’s emotional bonds with places. This tripartite framework is one of the few pieces of current literature that attempts to synthesize theories of place attachment into a dimensional framework. This study will outline in the next chapter on place attachment, each dimension of the framework, review the reasons for place attachment and then reflect on current weaknesses in the theory.

1.2. Place attachment 1.2.1 Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organising Framework

Place attachment has proven to be a particularly important area of research in terms of interpreting psychological processes, such as Fried’s work on relocation and the grief and distress it causes. Research that involves fundamental emotional bonds with place have led to studies in Disaster Psychology (Brown and Perkins, 1992), Mobility (Giuliani, Ferrara, & Barabotti, 2003; Gustafson, 2001) and Immigration (Ng, 1998). Work by Deutsch (2005) into immigration and refugee displacement takes this a step further focussing on the attachment intensity for longing of place. This body of literature identifies the first of three dimensions of Place attachment, Process, as organised by Scannell and Gifford (2010, see Figure 1) in their Tripartite Framework. Process is split into the three further levels of ‘affect’, ‘behaviour’ and ‘cognition’. 12

Figure 1.

A tripartite framework of place attachment (Scannell and Gifford, 2010)

Affect is commonly thought of as the emotional component of the process dimension in place attachment. Tuan (1974) described the emotional connection as ‘topophilia’ or a ‘love of place’, while Hummon (1992) defines it as ‘an emotional investment in place’. It is usual for positive valence attachment, (i.e. not emotionally attached due to negative feelings like trauma, hatred, fear) to create a conscious desire to remain physically close to the place in an attempt to experience these potential positive emotions again (Guiliani, 2003).

This desire to remain close to place is expressed as behaviour, another sublevel of Process. It can be thought of as a form of attachment expressed through actions, which usually manifests itself as the desire to “maintain close proximity to place” (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001, p.274). Studies in residence length (Hay, 1998; Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974 cited in Scannell and Gifford, 2010, p.) prove to be some of the strongest indicators that attachment results in 13

wanting to stay longer in a place or by returning to it often. This also suggests that behaviour is tied closely to affect, reinforced by the literature on homesickness (Riemer, 2004), place restoration, social support and religious pilgrimage (Low, 1992). Some studies also identify the effect that being away from place can strengthen an individual’s attachment and help them to understand and appreciate their desire to maintain proximity (Case, 1996). This reminiscence and other forms of a desire for familiarity are powerful emotions that can command attachment behaviour. A consequence of attachment through ownership and control however, can result in territoriality (Altman, 1975), which in turn can demand its own behaviours of marking, personalisation, aggression and territorial defence (Scannell and Gifford, 2010).

The final part of the Psychological Process of attachment is cognition. This is a crucial element of the construct from individual and personal perspectives because it incorporates memories, beliefs and knowledge, creating place meaning and binds it to the self. Sears, Freedman and Peplau (1985, cited in Scannell and Gifford, 2010, p.3) suggest that “individuals structure social information so that it is maximally coherent and easy to process” by organising information such as knowledge, history, stories, facts and beliefs into sets of cognitions or ‘schemas’. Schemas can examine how we structure and access information, incorporating this into our ‘self’ (Immamoglu, 2009). They draw similarities between self and place and form self definitions derived from places. These ideas form a large part of the identity processes that make up place identity; a complex cognitive structure that is somehow intertwined with attachment (Immamoglu, 2009). Schemas will be examined later in detail along with more theories of identity processes.

The second dimension of place attachment is the Place itself, which is split in the framework between ‘Social’ and ‘Physical’ typologies. Studies into the social element of place have been built on the early work of urban sociologists that studied (not necessarily place specific) ‘communities of interest’ and ‘community of place’, a concept referring to places where social interaction occurs and ties can form (such as a park, a bar, neighbourhood) (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). The ‘Physical’ form of Place refers to the physical amenities and resources that help people support their goals, which can form the basis for ‘place dependency’ (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981). Attachment of people to the Place dimension is conditioned by environmental factors such as density and pollution, combined with the proximity and influence of social arenas and amenities (Fried, 2000). Studies by Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) found that the strength of attachment through social dimensions was stronger than physical dimensions and that attachment also varies through different place scales such as home/neighbourhood/city/region/county/country. Lewicka (2010) expands on this, identifying the lack of comparison between place scales in research and the disproportionate amount of attention towards neighbourhood, perhaps due to its accessibility and middle ground within the place scale.

The third and final dimension of place attachment is Person, which is divided into ‘Individual’ and ‘Group’ forms of attachment. Twigger-Ros and Uzzell (1996) and Manzo (2005) suggest that individual attachment to place is characterised by the memories, experiences and realisations that occur in specific place settings; experiences that create meaning and affect our personal growth. Similarly, group attachment to place is commonly developed through membership of a group or culture with shared historical experiences, memories, values and symbolic meanings (Low, 1992). This could be membership in the form of religious, ethnic, gender, social class, or any form of culture based attachment that

associates certain places with specific values or meanings. Studies have shown that the reasons for attachment may be to protect the ability to practice and therefore preserve the culture of the group (Fried, 1963; Gans, 1964; Michelson, 1976, cited in Scannel and Gifford, 2010).

1.2.1.1 Predictors for attachment

There is a wealth of research, primarily empirical, that looks at the different factors that can effect attachment. For more comprehensive and exhaustive overviews and reviews of place see Giuliani, 2003; Trentelman, 2009; Lewicka, 2010, but for the purposes of this essay, there will be a brief outline of the factors of place attachment, known as ‘predictors’.

Lewicka (2010, p.10-12) summarises that predictors for attachment fall into three main categories: Social, Socio-Demographic, and Physical-Environmental. Socio-Demographic variables include age, social status, education, home ownership, size of community, having children, mobility and by far the most consistent positive predictor, residence length. Studies by Freedman (1990, cited in Lewicka, 2010, p.10) into mobility provide interesting reading as he suggests that as societies become more mobile, people develop a form of ‘settlement identity’. Freedman asserts that instead of being attached to a specific place, people become attached to general classes of place, i.e. people see themselves as being a town, country, city or maybe mountain person. Although relevant, this work at present is still ambiguous in terms of its associations with attachment and identity processes.

The Social predictors of place attachment are generally attributed to the influence of ‘community ties’ and also a sense of security (Brown et al, 2003). Community ties can be thought of as emotional bonds that form as a result of the strength and extensiveness of involvement in social activities (Bonaiuto et al., 1999).

Physical predictors are extensive, interrelated and therefore difficult to independently examine, which leads researchers to question the real value of such study. ‘Studies that seek to “see what relates to what” cannot contribute to any coherent knowledge. In the absence of a theory, the choice of variables either must be very selective, mostly based on common sense, or it must use categories that are very broad [and] must include almost all possible physical features of residential settings.’ (Farnum, Hall and Kruger, 2005, p.42, cited in Lewicka, 2010). Studies can look at certain physical features objectively, such as building size and density but the perceptions of more subjective predictors are much less reliable. Physical-environmental variables that fall under subjective measures include perception of cleanliness, pollution, quiet areas, range and quality of municipal services, aesthetically pleasant buildings, access to nature, control, incivilities, stability of neighbourhood and a sense of safety (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2003, 2004; Fried, 1982). In terms of access, it has been shown (Sugihara and Evans, 2000) that physical features can facilitate the social dimension of place attachment with short and functional travel distances and shared facilities such as enclosed resident gardens. Kaplan (1984, p.131) recommended that research should not focus on the physical features of the environment that can be empirically defined but to concentrate on the physical features that make the environment easier to become attached. She called these the ‘intangibles’, listing mapability and legibility; scale, enclosure, spatial diversity; and the degree to which the setting supports goals and plans, as future studies that warrant interest.

The relativity of physical vs social predictors can also be conditioned by factors such as socio-economic status, resident’s age and place scale. Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) suggest a positive correlation with Beckley (2003) that as the scale of place extends beyond a person’s social networks, attachment is more heavily influenced by ecological (physical) factors (Lewicka, 2010, p.12).

1.2.1.2 Functions of attachment

Understanding predictors however, does not directly help us understand why we create people-place bonds. The reasons, or ‘functions’ behind these bonds have the potential to inform how we design and plan the built environment; to create places that people will want to feel attached to. According to Scannell and Gifford (2010) the most common predictors speculated in literature are survival and security, goal support, self-regulation, sense of belongingness, to enhance self-esteem and temporal or personal continuity.

Evolution demands and validates that actions, behaviour and cognitive psychological processes are a result of adaptations to consequences borne out of a necessity to survive. It could be argued that all the functions of place attachment stem from an overarching commitment to survival, be it physically or psychologically. The first and possibly most significant reason is simply how attachment to place directly aids survival and is split between the physiological and psychological. The physiological context includes the physical resources and amenities like water, food and shelter that keep us alive. The psychological context allows the utilisation of these resources and is expressed through a) behaviour i.e. maintaining proximity to these resources (Schumaker and Taylor, 1983) and b) cognitive

processes i.e. the knowledge of how these resources are used. Fullilove (1996) asserts that the survival benefits also accrue from an intimate knowledge with our environment to find food, avoid predators and travel safely, but also to create complex cognitive models of familiar environments that provide us with a source of ease and comfort. This can be thought of as a sense of security, which, according to Fried (2000), attributes to individuals maintaining proximity to a significant place. This offers a sense of protection and safety which results in increased confidence and promotes exploration. Fried also posited that these place attachment bonds were emotionally stronger in more vulnerable populations such as immigrants and refugees.

Fullilove’s (1996) work into the psychiatric implications of displacement

reinforces this and emphasises not only the emotional connection to place but also the physical, bodily sensations such as feeling numb, limp, dazed or even physical pain that can come with the sudden disconnection to a familiar place. She maintains that the loss is perceived as a loss of the self, as the familiar world is ‘indelibly etched’ on the nervous system of individuals.

Stokols and Schumaker (1981) observed that another reason for place attachment is due to how well a place supports or facilitates the attainment or the pursuit to attain a person’s goals. They suggested that places that specifically support or facilitate goals frequently, the “instrumental bonds”, can lead to place dependence. The concept of self-regulation (Korpela, 1989, 2001; Carver and Scheier, 2001) is closely linked to goal attainment, in that it is the evaluative process of the current progress towards one’s goals with relation to one’s expectations and standards. Further to this, Korpela (1989) has shown that place attachment serves self-regulation as a necessary restorative function. This is because self-regulation is a cognitive and affective tool that needs emotional regulation and a psychological structure to balance and, when necessary, reduce cognitive load. Stress relief, self-reflection and self

evaluation are therefore beneficial self-regulatory processes resulting from positive attachment to safe, secure and comfortable environments that maintain high self-esteem.

The descriptions of control of a favourite place, its humanization, the fixing of memories in it, and naming it, seemed to be the mechanisms connecting the physical environment to psychic self-regulation, so that one's self-esteem and sense of coherence can be regained when necessary. (Korpela, 1989, p.247).

Lewicka (2010) suggests further functions of place attachment such as a ‘sense of belongingness’ and ‘continuity’. ‘Sense of belonging’ (Korpela, 1989; Guiliani, 2003) is tied to Rowles’ work on ‘insideness’, a three tiered structure of belonging divided into ‘physical insideness’ (tacit knowledge of physical environment), ‘social insideness’ (sense of connection to local community) and ‘autobiographical insideness’ (a sense of rootedness) (Rowles, 1983; cited in Dixon and Durrheim, 2000, p.29). The process of continuity is a component of Breakwell’s Identity Process Theory (1986) and therefore a component of identity. This theory of place continuity is structured between place-congruent continuity and place-referent continuity. Self-continuity is the ability to perceive how one’s sense of the past, and of the future, contribute to the continuity of one’s identity. It is a rich tapestry of ever evolving place-meaning associations that we assess and re-evaluate as we go through life. Place-congruent continuity is the cognitive function recognising that individuals are usually attached to environments that they believe best represent them and match their personal values. These values develop over time and are influenced by place-referent continuity (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, 1996). This is the representation of past history through personal memories and past connections which are used to compare past and present selves

and maintain a firm self-identity. Further components of identity will be examined in more detail in the chapter on place identity.

1.2.2 Analysis

The literature on place attachment research is dominated by studies (Lewicka, 2010) that centre on predictors of i) individual attachment (because of a focus on the subjective experience) and ii) the scales of home and neighbourhood, perhaps because they are the most accessible. From the perspective of the tripartite framework it is clear that research emphasises the Person dimension. It specifically targets individual attachment, overlooking the varying levels of group attachment, or what may be classed as ‘group identification’.

Many studies focus on the individual’s relationship at community or neighbourhood scales, but little research or theory attempts to resolve a deeper understanding of how these and other scales may be interrelated. Manzo and Perkins (2006) suggest an ecological model of attachment based on Urie Bronfenbrenner’s original ecological systems theory (1979), which suggests that development of an individual is reflected by the influence of different environmental systems. Figure 3 suggests how an ecological model for place attachment could be structured with relation to Bronfenbrenner’s model (figure 2).

Figure 2. Ecological systems theory model

Figure 3. Ecological model for place attachment

Defining terms that researchers agree upon within place literature seems to be a debatable field. The use of the term Place as a dimension of Place attachment within the tripartite framework is confusing because it could be construed as the attachment to its own concept. I felt the term ‘domain’ is better suited to this dimension as it suggests a place area that can be interpreted as abstract as well as physical. Further to this, research in place attachment and place disruption by Corcoran (2002), Manzo (2005) Dixon and Durrheim (2000, p.33) and in particularly Devine-Wright and Lyons (2007) argues that political and economic processes are often overlooked domains of place. This supports a restructuring of Place as Domains to include political and economic domains as well as the more evident social and physical domains (see figure 4).

Figure 4.

The domains of place attachment

The Process dimension of place attachment is split into affect, behaviour and cognition within the tripartite framework. The concern here with the framework is that it implies that different constructs of the same dimension are comparable in terms of their relationship with attachment. It groups elements into dimensions because they are related but in real terms it confuses their significance. Therefore this shows that the affect is an emotional response to a physical or symbolic event or setting. This response is a product of attachment and therefore should be viewed as a predictor or mechanism but not as a function of attachment. The tripartite framework also implies that the behavioural process is comparable to the psychological process of cognition but again one could view behaviour as a product or mechanism for attachment and not a function It is clear that different behaviours and affects must have functional roles but these should be understood as concepts that sit within in a larger branch of functions, that ultimately serves place attachment. For example, one would 23 Â Â

contend that affect processes result from a wider function of self-esteem. Some behaviour processes could also be included within the function of self-esteem but it is ultimately ineffective to split behaviour into categorised functions because the range of processes is simply too extensive. It could also be argued that any behaviour can act as a function of attachment because it is simply the act of performing a process to achieve attachment.

This review of place attachment literature provoked an appraisal of how designers and planners might practically apply these insights of psychological and physiological attachment to place. Understanding the functions, or ‘why we attach’, rather than the predictors, or ‘how we attach’, could help identify deeper motivations that designers need to try to support and maintain. It may prove useful to apply theory from evolutionary psychology (i.e. Dual Inheritance Theory) to help explain the nature and nurture of place psychology, in order to fully understand why we have adapted in such a way that makes ‘place’ so important to us. However, it is outside the scope of this essay to incorporate a full psychological assessment of environmental evolution and so it will concentrate on the identified physical and mental functions of place from the tripartite organising framework and place attachment review. The new framework (see figure 5) assumes that functions of place can be separated into physiological (goal support, health, security) and psychological (self-regulation, continuity, ownership and ‘sense of belonging’) processes.

Figure 5.

Functions of place attachment

The author is not aware of a similar framework based around the functions of place. As the overview on place research explained, theories have attempted to split, or show the relationship between identity and attachment as concepts rather than assess them functionally. This framework accepts that identity and attachment are, to some extent, arbitrary names used to label processes that have a wider goal of providing physiological and psychological functions. The aims are to compare the functions of place attachment with the functions identified in place identity literature and restructure the framework to establish a model for the function of place. This model is more holistic and less complicated by the domains (figure 4) and scales (figure 3) of place.

25 Â Â

1.3 Place Identity

Proshansky first coined the term ‘place identity’ in his 1978 essay concerning the role of self identity in the city, asserting that place identity, like social class and gender, is a cognitive substructure of self-identity and that place attachment is a subgroup within place identity. Proshanksy and colleagues (1978; 1983; 1987) developed this theory suggesting that personplace relationships are dynamic cognitive and behavioural processes, in constantly changing social and physical environments, and are organised and accessed through different relationships depending on the context.

Although influential for their introduction of the term, Proshansky and colleagues have been subject to criticism for their insubstantial information to account for what processes guide action in identity, their lack of empirical data to verify place identity theory and for their emphasis on identity rather than place (Speller, 2000, p.25; Korpela, 1989, cited in TwiggerRoss, 1996, p.205). Korpela suggests that the psychological structure of place identity is built around a core of ‘belongingness’ which effects the social, cultural and biological definitions and cognitions of a person’s place identity and therefore their processes of self definition and self identity (Korpela, 1989, p.246, cited in Dixon and Durrheim, 2000, p.29). Attachment associated with feelings of belonging is more commonly formed through social dimensions, like local communities (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001); however, a sense of belonging could also be conceived through place identification, as a form of distinctiveness, built from the physical qualities of the identified environment.

Hogg and Abrams (1988) respond to the connection between place and identity through this idea of place identification. They suggest that it is not a form of identity in its own right but

actually forms part of the wider concept of social identity. Social identification explains how identity derives from membership within different social categories (i.e. gender, class, nationality). Place identification, therefore is an expression of membership of a particular location. However, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996, p.206) express concern that although place can be seen as a part of social identity, it is not completely subsumed by the concept. In a study on attachment and identity processes with people from the Docklands (1996) they refer to ‘settlement identification’, ‘place identification’ and ‘local identification’ to distinguish between different levels of identification. Feldman (1990) explains that settlement identity refers to how a personal perspective classifies a type of settlement and lets it represent who they are. Place identification is a similar form of expression but at a smaller and less restrictive scale. People may see themselves as being a more specific type of person and use comparative techniques to differentiate between who they are (e.g. a Londoner or a West Ham person) with people from other areas (e.g. a Liverpudlian or a Soho person). Local identification refers to what extent a person feels a part of the local community i.e. his/her recognisability and is more a measure of how socially attached they are rather than how much they identify with the local, as this is a form of place identification. All of these identifications are forms of group identification within social categories and are therefore classed as social identifications or our ‘social identity’.

1.3.1 Identity Processes

Theories of identity and identity processes are a large part of Social Science research, particularly within Social Psychology and Developmental Psychology. Scholars widely accept that identity can form at two different levels: i) the individual process of identification commonly known as personal identity and ii) the group processes of self categorisation and

social comparison found in Social Identity theory (Stets and Burke, 2000). Location based identifications have been acknowledged earlier in this essay as forms of place identification, but these group identifications do not consider the broader social components of identity in Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978; 1981) or the more unifying psychological concept, as developed by Breakwell (1986-present) of Identity Process Theory. This holistic view of identity will not necessarily show how place identity and place attachment definitively relate as both are spatially and temporally dynamic concepts, but they could serve to re-evaluate the framework I posited earlier in this study, as the functions of place attachment.

Breakwell’s Identity Process Theory (IPT) (1986), and developed over subsequent years with colleagues, is widely regarded as one the strongest models of identity theory for Western industrialised culture in the social sciences. Her analysis of psychological and social forms of identity led her to examine the expression and development of different identity processes in a response to threat. Breakwell suggests that identity is a ‘dynamic social product’ (2010, p.6.1) that employs psychological processes to organise our perceptions of physical and societal structures. It manifests itself through thought, action and affect (or cognition, behaviour and affect, to equate it with Scannel and Gifford’s tripartite framework) but can also be considered a structure of identity as well as processes.

The structure of identity does not divide personal identity from social identity and so structures the model of identity into the content dimension and the value dimension. The content dimension identifies what the characteristics are of that identity and what makes them unique; however, these observations are organised in the content dimension but do not remain static. The organisation of characteristics is split by the degree of centrality, the hierarchical arrangement, and the relative salience of components and is responsive to inputs and

demands from the social context as well as from the conscious will of the individual. Each of these characteristics has a positive or negative value attached to it, that when mentally combined, comprises the value dimension of that identity. The value dimension is constantly open to revision if any modification to a social value occurs within any given social situation, through the psychological regulation processes of accommodation/assimilation and evaluation. The accommodation/assimilation split component process principle is derived from the Piagetian theory (Breakwell, 2010) of cognitive development to explain why some adaptations are made and others revised. Accommodation explains the adjustment in an existing structure in order to find a place for a new characteristic or element while assimilation is the absorption of new elements into the identity structure. The process of evaluation constantly assigns and re-evaluates meaning and importance of the identity structures. This evaluation is however, subject to bias in that the individual is guided by “identity principles” that aim to satisfy (at least for western, industrialised culture): distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Breakwell, 2010).

Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996) used Breakwell’s principles of distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy and applied them in practice to analyse the identity processes of 9 non-attached and 10 attached residents of the Surrey Docks, London, a contentious development that occurred throughout the 1980s. The role of distinctiveness was understood as the means of feeling unique and this is no different for place identity. It is a form of identification, be it settlement or a smaller scale of place, and is important because it gives the individual a positive perspective of their place, in comparison to the identity of an incongruent place. For example, a ‘city person’ may feel superior to a ‘rural person’ because the city represents a more advantageous setting compared to living in the country. This sense of distinctiveness is closely tied to the congruency a person forms between a place and their

identity which links it to continuity. Continuity, in the forms of place-referent and placecongruent, has been identified as a function of attachment but can be briefly summarised as the powerful psychological processes that validate the experiences and symbolic values of a place over time (place-referent) to be sympathetic to an individual’s identity (placecongruent). Living in an area that is congruent with identity will undoubtedly improve levels of self-esteem. Self-esteem can be viewed as a measure of self worth, or of social value within a group, which is essential in social groups as it helps maintain a positive conception of the self (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, 1996, p.208). It is important to note the distinction between simply evaluating a place positively from qualities of place that people treasure to maintain positive self-esteem. For example, pride is often felt as an association with an historic town or place (Lalli, 1992) or in times of distress, a favourite place can act as a place of self-regulation which Korpela (1989) posited could be a component to help maintain selfesteem.

Finally, the last process, self-efficacy, denotes the belief an individual has in their own competence which Breakwell added in a revised model of IPT (1992). Regarding place, this process extends to the manageability of a place, or how easy an individual or group finds it to facilitate their goals, be they physical or psychological. In Twigger-Ross and Uzzell’s experiment (1996) they found that self-efficacy to be affected by levels of crime, perceived incivilities, the standard of public services, pollution levels (noise/air) and racial tension. Depending on the level attachment, they found that manageability was less of an issue for an attached individual with positive congruent identity, unlike a non-attached individual with incongruent identity, where an unmanageable environment could be seen as the ‘last straw’ and would have fewer concerns with leaving (ibid, p.217).

These identity principles are continuously built by accommodation, assimilation and evaluation processes to form and reform schemas. Schemas are organised knowledge structures of an environment’s physical or social features stored cognitively to simplify the enormous overabundance of information found in any one setting (Imamoglu, 2009). Bartlett (1932, cited in Lee, 2003) first posited that it is schemas that store representations of the past for us to access them again for future actions. What he defined as ‘levelling’ and ‘sharpening’ we now refer to as processes of assimilation and accommodation respectively. These permit the merging of new information into an existing structure (assimilation) or the alteration of an existing schema to fit with the new information (accommodation). Due to its dynamic nature, schemas are also subject to i) hierarchical and subtype organisation; ii) decline in the strength of stored traces; iii) interference from other schemata; and iv) an organising ‘balance’ principle (Lee, 2003, p.36). A number of categories have been labelled to define the different areas of schemas such as: action schemas, person schemas, self schemas, role schemas, social schemas. More relevant to theories on place however are socio-spatial schemas and event schemas. Socio-spatial forms of schema are shared internal representations of an environment suggesting that schemas are not just individual but can be consensual and built by a group, community or society. Event schemas (also known as ‘scripts’) include information on social patterns, activities, expectations and order of events (Imamoglu, 2009). Experiments with schemas to support verbal learning have suggested that if encoded i.e. read/understood beforehand, an individual gains an advantage in processing new information.

1.3.2 Threat

When an element of the person-place bond is challenged it can expose itself as either a form of disruption to attachment or a threat to place identity.

A threat to identity occurs when the processes of assimilation-accommodation are unable, for some reason, to comply with the principles of continuity, distinctiveness, self-efficacy and self-esteem (Breakwell, 2010, p.6.5)

It is reasonable to assume that the identity processes that govern place identity are as susceptible to threat as any other medium of self identity. A credible threat will, however, only be experienced affectively if it is successful in accessing consciousness. This awareness is a result of a schema modification through assimilation or accommodation processes that could not be averted (Breakwell, 2010; Devine-Wright, 2009)

Marc Fried’s (1963) longitudinal experiment on the enforced relocation of working class people from the West End of Boston, Massachusetts, was the first to identify the psychological forces of disbelief, anger and depression that result in the powerful emotional processes of anxiety, grief and mourning. He points towards the effect of place disruption on the negative psychological product of damaged positive identity principles and suggests that they derive from the fragmentation (or discontinuity) in spatial and group identity processes. He links the social networks to a sense of belongingness and proposes that this ‘spatial identity’ is fundamental to human functioning.

Fullilove’s (1996) work on the psychiatric implications of displacement develops Fried’s work to speculate that the sense of belonging arises from processes of familiarity, attachment and identity and that these are affected by disorientation, nostalgia and alienation respectively (p.1518). Familiarity is a source of ease and comfort for people when navigating their environment. The disorientation that comes from a sudden removal of familiar surroundings is proven to be experienced physically as well as psychologically and so Fulliove hypothesizes that this indicates to some extent that our geographic orientation is embedded in our nervous system (ibid, p.1518). Nostalgia, Fullilove clarifies, is from the Greek nostos meaning ‘a return home,’ and algos, meaning ‘pain’ and used to be considered a serious illness of sadness and longing for a lost attachment. It can signify a longing for a better time but Fullilove stresses that to lose a home or a community for example would be a loss of many accumulative relationships and attachments which could lead to psychiatric illnesses (ibid, p.1519). One could suggest here that nostalgia, as a set of memories of experiences, milestones and realisations, is embedded in the identity process of place referent continuity as it is used to orientate the present self with reference to the past and to the future. It seems reasonable to base nostalgia within place-referent continuity, as they seem to share the same process of creating a sense of self from past experiences and that moving away can affect an individual psychologically. It is important to note however, that nostalgia as a term is charged with a positive sense of remembering and there is no reason why processes in place-referent continuity may reflect negative associations with a place. This is supported to some extent by Hormuth’s discussion of relocation (1990, cited in Twigger Ross and Uzzell’s, 1996, p.207) suggesting that people equate physical relocation with psychological relocation and that by choosing to move, represents a conscious change of the self-concept.

Finally, Fullilove suggests that alienation stems from a threat to the identity process of selfesteem. Place identity here has socially and politically symbolic elements that need individual appreciation and to be appreciated by a larger society to deter estrangement and encourage positive self-esteem.

If identity can occur at individual and group levels, then it makes sense that threat too will occur at these different levels and that contention can arise between groups with dissimilar values. Intergroup threat theory (Stephan and Mealy, 2010) proposes that intergroup conflict (of an ingroup and outgroup) operates from two different dimensions: realistic (tangible), and symbolic (intangible) threats. Realistic threats are issues that endanger group welfare such as threats to territorial, political, economic or physical harm while symbolic threats oppose the values, ideas and beliefs held by the ingroup. The perception of threat can either be felt by individual members or as a whole and that these four different forms of threat (realisticindividual, realistic-group, symbolic-individual and symbolic-group) will have different consequences which (usually) evoke specific affective responses (see Table 1).

THREAT Level Individual Likely affective Fear response Apprehension

Table 1.

Group Anger Resentment

Type Realistic Insecurity Frustration Anxiety

Symbolic Contempt/disgust (toward outgroup)

Likely affective responses of intergroup threat

These responses will likely reduce the emotional empathy for members of the outgroup perceived responsible for the threat. This evaluation of the outgroup is also effected by schema principles that contradict the outgroup through biased perceptions such as ‘negative 34

stereotyping, distorted perceptions of the outgroup’s intentions and motives, dehumanization of its members, an inflated sense of the moral legitimacy of the ingroup’s cause, a perception that the outgroup is homogeneous, negative attributions to explain outgroup conduct, a magnification of perceived intergroup differences, and a heightened belief in the difficulty of resolving conflicts with the outgroup’ (Stephan and Mealy, 2010, p.562).

1.3.3 Analysis

It is interesting that continuity is identified as a component in the tripartite framework of place attachment but that the other processes from IPT are not. Restructuring the functions of place attachment framework to include these identity processes would create a more comprehensive framework that acknowledges the roles both identity and attachments play in facilitating the person-place bond.

The new framework (see figure 6) assumes that as identity is a psychological construct, the four processes that make up identity also form the top four processes for the psychological functions of place.

Figure 6.

Functions of place (attachment and identity theories combined)

Distinctiveness, distinguishing place identification from others; self-efficacy, the perceived level of manageability; and self-esteem, the positive social worth or value, sit alongside continuity and its subdivisions of place-congruent and place-referent continuity. Korpela (1989) convincingly argues that self-regulation and the sense of belonging are processes that both contribute to self-esteem and so become subdivisions of this process in the framework. Korpela (1989) also suggests that control may too be a factor of self-regulation but it is not clear if it is exclusive to self-regulation. It could be argued that control is a process that regulates processes of affect and behaviour for self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-esteem and 36 Â Â

place-congruent continuity. This would suggest that control is a ‘function of place’ and a regulating process for these larger psychological processes. However, for the purposes of this essay, control may be considered as a function that suitably expresses the positive affective processes of command and empowerment, as supported by Altman’s work (1975) on territoriality and ownership and Korpela’s work (1989) on familiarity. As control seems to be related to self-regulation in this was to benefit self-esteem, it seems more appropriate to align control as another subdivision of self-esteem.

The literature on the threat to place attachment and identity reinforces the significance of multiple scales of analysis through ecological models of attachment and identity. Historical, collectively shared and politically contested natures of place (Dixon and Durrheim (2010; Devine-Wright and Lyons, 1997; Devine-Wright 2009; 2010) are particularly crucial to our understanding to inform more holistic understanding of place for planning and community participation purposes (see Manzo and Perkins, 2006, p.345, ecological framework for community planning and development that explores these multiple domains and scales of analysis associations). Understanding and identifying potential threats to place is of great importance to planners but most dialogue between planners/architects and community groups usually concerns practical and functional concerns rather than deeper, complex and sometimes more salient issues (Speller, 2000, p.29). This is possibly because participants are not always consciously aware of the deeply embedded psychological constructs that work in different domains and within the different scales of analysis.

The next section attempts to reveal how these complex issues are acknowledged in current policy, specifically the Scottish government’s Designing Places. Policy will be tested against the functions of place framework, the place domain model and the ecological scales of

identity model. Figure 7 below, illustrates a summary of the adaptations to Scannell and Gifford’s tripartite framework as a result of the place literature review.

Figure 7.

Summary of adaptations to Scannell and Gifford’s tripartite framework 38

2. COMPARE PLACE LITERATURE REVIEW WITH SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PLACE-MAKING

The focus of this essay has been to extrapolate deeper information from current psychological place literature and compare this with Scottish Government policy in Designing Places (2001) and with the practical implementation of policy in the Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (2010). After a literature review of place attachment/identity based predominantly in Environmental Psychology; place relevant issues of the policy and strategy documents are critiqued in some detail before a comprehensive, comparative analysis evaluates them relative to the place attachment, identity and threat literature.

2.1 Policy

Documentation within the planning stage of the Scottish planning system can be considered to be divided between Policy and Strategy. Policy documentation consists of Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010), Designing Places (2001), Designing Streets (2010) and Circulars. Strategy documentation is a tiered structure aimed at the different spatial scales of National strategy (National Planning Framework or NPF) (July 2009); Regional strategy (Structure Plans); and Local strategy (Local Plans). Within Local Plans lie more specific planning strategies of frameworks, master plans and Local Development Briefs. To confuse matters, the NPF is also considered a policy document as it coordinates policies and aims to align them with strategic investment priorities (Scottish Government, 2009, p.13).

39 Â Â

2.1.1 Designing Places

Designing Places (Scottish, Executive, 2001) recognises that the value of design is imperative to the successful creation of places, economically, socially and environmentally. It suggests that poor management (ibid, p.19) and ‘forgotten places’ (ibid, p.16) can result from poor planning policy, poor design or poor development decision which miss opportunities to appreciate the values and qualities the site already has to offer. Designing Places bases its policy for ‘place-making’ which proposes that ‘the most successful places, the ones that flourish socially and economically, tend to have certain qualities in common’.

• Distinct identity • Safe and pleasant • Easier movement • Sense of welcome • Adaptable • Resource efficient

Designing Places does recognise the significance that architecture and the environment play in reflecting and shaping the cultures, traditions and heritage that inform identity. This sense of history provides a sense of continuity when designing places to marry identities of tradition with modern needs (ibid, p.13). The document also touches on how the impact of design can effect identity ‘at all scales’ noting that it is structured from local, to regional, to national. Further explanations on the structure or importance of identity to place is limited to the emphasis of the built and natural environment’s distinctiveness, encouraging a ‘sense of identity’ that gives the rather ambiguous aspiration to ‘inspire patterns of new building’.

The quality of a place feeling safe and pleasant is characterised by the physical form of the built environment that creates a sense of safety from enclosure, encourages activity throughout the day and differentiates private space and public space. The risk of such enclosure can sometimes border on senses of suffocation and intimidation that comes from an imposing built environment. To reduce this, the policy clarifies that design should be ‘of a scale that feels right’ (ibid, p.32) but this again, does not qualify how or offer any design guidance.

The ease of movement focuses on better connections to public transport in higher density urban areas and for promoting easier, direct travel on foot or by bicycle, thus reducing the need for vehicular transport around the city. The points raised here are simple, practical and potentially very effective. At this level of general guidance, there is no point identifying specific issues without addressing a specific location.

Creating a sense of welcome proposes ideas that essentially help people find their way around, safely and easily by highlighting landmarks and disguising eyesores. The problem with this is who decides what an ‘eyesore’ is and why is their opinion any more valuable than another? A building that is considered physically unpleasant to one person may mean a lot to another or another group of people for completely different, often psychological, meanings. The wording and flippant use of the term ‘eyesore’ is too weighed down in subjective opinion to be of valid use for assessment.

The opportunities for making place adaptable involve designing, or redesigning, places for different uses, at different times of day or for the potential to adapt them in the longer term.

Policy suggests that they should not be constrained to one single, tightly designed use. This is logical and assuring, but designers should of course be aware that the risk comes from a place that serves many functions poorly or one function well; the balance of quality vs. quantity is a long-standing economic debate.

The final quality that Designing Places presents is to be resource efficient. Suggestions consider employing passive solutions, using local materials, and emphasising the natural environment and its biodiversity. In a separate section on sustainable issues, policy does identify energy efficiency, mixed uses, water quality and transport as specific areas that warrant attention for a greener lifestyle. It also implies a level of appreciation for the impact that development can have on social, economic and environmental conditions for people in the future and ‘in other places’ (ibid, p.11). There are, however, no examples or evidence to specifically suggest how or why place could be better designed to contribute to a more sustainable lifestyle at an individual, local, regional or national scale.

Designing Places also identifies the elusive and unquantifiable concept of beauty which is ‘less easy to plan for’ and suggests that beauty may be the product of these six qualities combined with the patterns of human life and the skills of talented designers (ibid, p.12). This suggestion does not elucidate further or offer any other explanations of beauty’s position within the network of place. Admittedly, given the abstract nature of beauty, it is probably not within the capacity of this document to pin a definition down; however, suggesting that beauty may simply be a product of six qualities is rather naïve, undermining the concept of beauty, one that warrants more than a brief sentence.

Designing Places stresses the importance of the context appraisal, using the six design qualities to understand place and people, and balance the inevitable conflict of interests that accompany development. It stresses the importance of the development process capitalising on public participation and stakeholder collaboration to understand, design and build places. However, the advice that it should be ‘carefully planned’ does not offer much guidance, nor does it suggest a sister document that could offer direction for the various scales of development.

The acknowledgment of the impact on future generations from a sustainable perspective, is positively reflected in the policy’s assertion that time should not be neglected as a factor of design. It is promising that policy should identify that places will evolve and change in ways that are almost impossible to predict and will not ever align with a strategy or master plan exactly. Nevertheless, it is crucial to have a sufficient enough comprehension of the factors that affect place to understand why it changes, how to manage change and how positively respond.

2.2 Analysis - Designing Places vs. Place literature

2.2.1 Place domains and scales of identity

The place literature review identified that attachment or identifying with place can occur not just in the physical and social domains but in political and economic domains also. It drew attention to the unresolved understanding of how levels of identity vary at different scales of attachment and how these are interrelated. An ecological model (based on figure 2) judges

how well the qualities of policy measure with respect to the four different place domains (see figures 8-11). Generally, policy suggestions could be categorised to fit into the relevant domains but there was a level of subjective assessment for a few suggestions that implied an effect in other domains. If a policy suggestion was not clear, it was not included in the domain. This uncertainty was likely due to the interrelated nature of the domains, such as socio-physical, socio-economic or socio-political.

Designing Places states its target place identifications in its opening paragraph. ‘Creating successful and sustainable places will depend on a shift in attitudes, expectations and practices about the design of cities, towns, villages and the countryside’ (Scottish, Executive, 2001, p.1). An exception to this is the one acknowledgment of national identity “What we build can be important to our sense of identity at all scales, from local to regional and national” (ibid, p.13) but this short reference to national identity does not offer any more information as to how or why place is important to national identity. The diagrams (figures 811) below illustrate the domains and scales that the six qualities from Designing Places recognise and consequently, the domains and scales they do not.

Figure 8. An ecological model of the Physical domain in Designing Places

Recognition of the physical domain is, as expected, the main focus of Designing Places; with all six qualities contributing in some form to the inherent physical nature of the built environment. As previously observed, the exception to this is the unaddressed significance of qualities at a national scale. Guidance however, for the qualities of distinctiveness is rather limited and exclusive to the physical domain. ‘Distinctive landscapes, natural features, buildings, streets, street patterns, spaces, skylines, building forms, practices and materials that should inspire patterns of new building.’(ibid, p.32). There is no indication of any benefit that distinctiveness may contribute to the political, economic or even social domains and the policy remains vague in how the quality of distinctiveness is complimentary to the creation or maintenance of place attachment or identity. 45

Although Designing Places does not specifically target sustainability at a national or global scale, it is important to be aware of the impact that smaller scale practices and development can have on the physical environment at larger scales. For this reason I have included a global identity scale for resource efficiency to highlight the wider issues of global warming and climate change.

Figure 9. An ecological model of the Social domain in Designing Places

Policy focuses on the Social domain in qualities of adaptability, safety, movement and sense of welcoming, predominantly at wider community/city scales but not at all at a national scale. The policy fails to identify the input of social class systems, religion, culture, gender and age as factors that might indicate or inform distinct social identities. It is surprising that the only mention of culture and heritage is with respect to architecture as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;repository of common 46 Â Â

culture and heritage’ which provides ‘a unique sense of history’ (ibid, p.13). This identifies the physical domain as an embodiment of culture but still does not detail the social identity factors that contribute to the social domain. There is also nothing to suggest that social attitudes or systems could affect sustainable resource efficiency such as community projects, or social sustainability measures that promote diversity, connectedness or equitable opportunities.

Figure 10. An ecological model of the Economic domain in Designing Places

The Economic domain within Designing Places is only really supported by qualities of resource efficiency and adaptability and at all scales except national and global. The economic factors that could appraise distinct identity may again understand the social class structures, the levels of affluence and poverty and the main forms of industry. This is linked 47

to the value of a stable economy (safe and pleasant); if it is viewed as prosperous with high employment (welcoming); and how accessible and available goods are (ease of movement).

Figure 11. An ecological model of the Political domain in Designing Places

The striking indication from the political domain comparison is that policy does not consider the political domain of place at all, at any scale. It is perhaps unsurprising, given established urban analysis, that place-making focuses on the more accessible domains of physical and social place with the aim of improving the economy, which may in itself not be traditionally considered a domain of place. Factors that contribute to our perception of political place are grounded in the liberties, choices, freedoms and human rights that an individual or group deserve (or believe to deserve). Distinct identity is again characterised by social class but could also be affected by other social identifications of gender, sexual orientation, education, 48 Â Â

religion and political party associations. These social identifications affect the sense of welcoming and the perception of how safe and pleasant a place might be. Ease of movement may consider how accessible places are and our rights to access them, for example: disabled access, land rights, squatters, and homelessness.

Adaptability may be affected by the level of control people believe they have or, conversely, the amount of support they might need in order to adapt. The political debate of climate change characterises this as individuals, communities, towns, cities and nations try to adapt to more become sustainable.

2.2.2 Functions of place

In terms of a comparison with policy this analysis focuses on the unaddressed functions rather than addressed. The six qualities of place have been cross-referenced with the functions of place framework in table 2 and diagrammatically highlighted on the framework in figure 12.

49 Â Â

Interrogating the highlighted framework reveals three primary issues:

1) That qualities do not address place-congruent continuity, place-referent continuity and a ‘sense of belonging’ functions 2) That quality suggestions within ‘safe and pleasant’ and ‘welcoming’ cover the most functions 3) That the function of self-efficacy is the most addressed function by the qualities on a whole

The first point is the most relevant for potentially reframing policy. Designing Places does not identify or explain the importance of places that match personal values and are seen as a representation of the self (place-congruent). This is influenced by the comparison people make with the past (place-referent) through personal or collective memories and connections to maintain positive self-identity. If policy does not appreciate these functions, then an altered perception of place values chances a threat to accommodation/assimilation principles, which may lead to anxiety, distress, grief and alienation. The policy document does mention that architecture provides ‘continuity and a unique sense of history and tradition’ but this narrow description does not inform one of its qualities nor does it take into account political, economic or even social domains of place.

The six qualities also do not identify the function of a ‘sense of belonging’, which incorporates a ‘sense of social worth’ and a ‘sense of community’. This forms a large part of the social domain of place, which from analysis seems to be the focus of ‘welcoming’ and ‘safe and pleasant’ qualities. These qualities are characterised by strategies that enhance, enliven and protect the physical domain or help an individual orientate and navigate

themselves within it, rather than suggest methods to strengthen or maintain community projects, networks, interaction and participation. Here, the political, social and economic perspectives of a sense of community are all interrelated in the perception of a positive social worth.

Although policy advocates qualities that support functions of control over the physical domain, these qualities do not acknowledge ownership, familiarity or territoriality processes. Instead the general approach in policy seems to emphasise self-efficacy, the perceived capability of an individual to manage their environment. It is unsurprising that the function of self-efficacy is highly regarded as an integral approach to facilitating successful placemaking, because we require this psychological self-belief to achieve goals. If self-efficacy is weak and we do not trust a place to successfully achieve goals (mentally or practically) then the perceived inadequacy may encourage an inclination to leave and find somewhere that will.

3. COMPARE PLACE LITERATURE REVIEW WITH WATERFRONT AND LEITH ADF

3.1. Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework (ADF)

The concerns for proposed development in Granton, Newhaven and Leith have been well documented in the media, local community groups and people within the field of urban design. Subject of much criticism has been that previous master plans have not integrated new development positively at a local level or to the city centre of Edinburgh. The result of

52 Â Â

revisiting proposals has been an Area Development Framework (ADF) for the Waterfront and Leith that focuses on place-making and place resilience, to ensure physical and social development of places that respond to current economic circumstances (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012, p.3). A brief background to Leith will precede an analysis of i) the ADF process; and ii) the resulting main strategies.

3.1.1 Leith

Edinburgh acquired Leith as a port under contentious circumstances in 1329, expanding as a merchant port to fuel Edinburgh’s success and importance as Scotland’s most profitable city. In 1833 Leith was established as an independent Municipal and Parliamentary Burgh, expanding substantially through the railways, manufacturing and port based industries of the 19th century, only to amalgamate back into the City of Edinburgh in 1920. The decline of the fishing industry after the First World War and the slum clearance programmes of the 1950s and 1970s affected Leith dramatically, causing high unemployment, closure of the working ports and forcing young people to find new accommodation. (This information and more on the character and historical background of Leith can be found in the Leith Conservation Area Character Appraisal, 2002).

Today, the recent gentrification of the shore has brought high profile businesses and prosperity to pockets of Leith but there still remain high levels of overcrowding, health problems and unemployment (City of Edinburgh Council, 2012, p.15). Leith has however, developed a strong art culture community, and community groups that focus on health and sustainability.

3.1.2 The Process – Charrettes

The ADF has been coordinated by the City of Edinburgh Council, Architecture+Design Scotland (A+DS), the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment and the National Health Service (NHS). The process began as a series of public and private ‘charrettes’ (design workshops) that informed the preparation of a draft ADF in December, 2010. The Urban Design Review Panel (February 2011) noted that use of the term ‘charrette’ may have discouraged participation in the process as the term is unfamiliar. This would seem a fair assumption as it seems unnecessary to apply a term to describe an event where community participation is crucial, yet has the potential to alienate those from contributing to a process that is, ironically, grounded in communication.

The charrettes were initiated by an internal charrette for the relevant council service departments of Economic Development, Transport, Social Infrastructure, Children and Families, Health & Social Care, and Sports Facilities. Short, medium and long term investment opportunities were explored and prioritised, with the Waterfront being identified as the key opportunity. The second charrette worked with community groups, key stakeholders and developers to analyse strength of the social (community), public (local authority) and commercial economies and consider areas that they might define as ‘hearts’. Leith was identified to have a strong commercial economy, but weaker public and social economies that would need to be nurtured to rebalance the local economy. ‘Hearts’ were locations that people identified as important to them, the wider area or that would facilitate better connectivity between the waterfront, its adjoining neighbourhoods, and the city beyond. The Record of Charrettes (City of Edinburgh Council, 2010) are slightly unclear in their definition of ‘hearts’ other than they are ‘important’ or facilitate connectivity.

Measuring and prioritising the importance of these hearts is crucial to analysing the variety of subjectivity that blends different place domains and individual/group levels of analysis. The charrettes recognised that historical and cultural identities are part of the character of the built environment, but also combine with the cultural and social sense of community that affects individual and group perceptions of importance. Attendees were also asked to consider the quality of ‘place’ ambition, the quality of life ambition and the quality of service ambition for Edinburgh Waterfront, and to contemplate how these may be achieved. The final charrette, speculated potential ‘outcomes and scenarios’ to explore how the identified hearts might develop and become resilient over time.

3.1.3 The Results – Main strategies

The ADF summarises the developmental potential for Leith Docks as a long term, mixed use, regeneration scheme as recommended by the Edinburgh Council Local Plan (2010), but also considers the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan’s (N-‐RIP) alternative proposal for Leith Docks as the primary manufacturing and maintenance location for Scotland’s offshore renewable energy industry. In both cases, the main strategies of the ADF have been to ensure that any future development adopts a positive approach to place-making and that places are resilient to future public, commercial or social economic change. The primary strategy of place-making has been the metaphorical ‘hearts’ (see figure 13), which capitalise on heritage and animated key junctions (nodal points) to link Leith’s East-West axis along the ‘Great City Street’ (see figure 14).

Figure 13.

The Hearts and connections 56

Figure 14.

Relationship of existing streets, neighbourhood streets, green network, nodal points and the Great City Street.

The Great City Street is a direct response to celebrate the distinctive coastal location and connect the Waterfront as a strategic heart, to its hinterland and to the city centre. The aspiration is that a successful linkage of ‘beating hearts’ (vibrant, mixed use) will reinforce the local economies, generate employment opportunities and develop over time, a character for Leith, congruent with its residents. Safe and easy travel into Leith, between the hearts and around the neighbourhoods was stressed as essential to connect the hearts to North-South and to the boost the network of economies, particularly with the implementation of the tram 57

scheme. To meet the sustainable vision for Leith, the ‘green network’ is championed by community groups such as SPOKES and Greener Leith to encourage walking and cycling and potentially increase density.

Place resilience is a fundamental strategy of the ADF. It is a response to the aggravation local economies have suffered in Leith, particularly working class communities, as a result of local, national and global economic forces. However, place resilience is not elucidated much in terms of how a place should respond or under what conditions a change/threat may occur. It states that resilience is more concerned with i) being ready to take on opportunities; ii) responding to shocks; iii) dealing with change; iv) being adaptable; and v) ensuring local economies do not go ‘belly up’. Incidents are ambiguously labelled ‘shock’ or ‘change’ and suggested reactions are equally vague: ‘be adaptable’ and ‘ready to take on opportunities’. This does not predict how change may affect social, public or commercial economies, but it does suggest that to prevent the local economy from collapsing, rebalancing these economies will be fundamental to resilience. It would be ineffective to try to list specific responses to any given scenario but there may have been some call for considerations that acknowledge principal effects and responses to changes within economic, physical, social and political contexts.

3.2 Analysis - ADF vs. Place literature

3.2.1 Scales of identity

The ADF addresses most scales of identity although does not look at national identity as it is not part of its remit (see figure 15). It recognises the ‘City/Region’ as the historical, financial and physical connection Leith has with the City of Edinburgh but its dominant focus is that of the ‘District’ i.e. Leith, and how residents and non residents identify with Leith; and the ‘Close community’ i.e. the local communities that make up the mixed neighbourhoods. Although it does not directly target individual identity structures, the guidance and strategies will inevitably affect individual identity as this is the core structure of the ecological model.

Figure 15.

Highlighted focus of scales of identity evaluated in ADF

3.2.2 Place domains and functions of place

The ADF acknowledges that urban design needs to consider the physical-place and the people-place. The ‘balancing of economies’ (see figure 16) suggests that social, public and commercial economies are related to the place domains. Social economy can be viewed as a combination of the social domain (community) and a social-economic domain (the social financial economy) from place literature. Public economy (local authority/public expenditure) within the ADF relates to a political-economic domain of place literature. Commercial economy (private industry) can be thought of as solely part of the economic domain.

Figure 16.

Balancing the network of economies for place resilience (N.B. ‘Community Economy’ in the top blue circle should say ‘Commercial Economy’)

It is clear that place literature fails to differentiate public, social and commercial economies within the economic domain. In practice, it is critical to understand the relationships within the different economies. What is also clear, however, is that the ADF does not explicitly 60

acknowledge the political domain. The local authority aspect of public economy does imply a political-economic nature but this does not equate to the wider political domain of place liberties, public/private access, property rights and contested spaces.

Figure 17 identifies how the main proposals of the ADF relate to each place domain. This shows that although the ADF does not directly recognise the political domain, certain political issues have been anticipated through public consultation, and implemented into strategy. This may start to validate Speller’s (2000, p.29) argument that deeper, psychological issues are more complex but no less valid than more accessible issues. Interestingly, the same political issues relate to the other domains in the ADF’s main proposals. This again indicates how interrelated the overall concept of place is, and how difficult it may be for public planning consultations to isolate problems within domains and evaluate potential consequences.

Figure 17.

Main ADF proposals grouped into place domains

Identifying the place domains for each strategy enables a comparison of strategies with the functions of place framework. Figure 18 applies the ADF strategies to the functions of place framework. The strategies have been assessed and arranged into their respective place domains, many of which are analogous with other domains. 61

The result confirms that all functions of place are identified by ADF strategies. However, the degree to which these strategies facilitate the psychological or physiological processes within the framework is varied. As in policy, this analysis will focus on the effectiveness of vague strategies, the functions that have not been identified and the unaddressed relevant place domains.

The comparative framework reveals how m uch physical and social domains are acknowledged, how specific the economic domain is to certain functions and how political domain is overlooked in comparison. It is clear that the physical domain is strongly considered in the ADF, as strategies provide support for nearly all functions of place, with the exception of ‘sense of belonging’. As discussed earlier, the physiological impact of place is the most comprehendible and accessible character of the physical environment. Examples within the ADF include water and air quality, being cycle friendly and quality architecture, although the subjective ambiguity of quality architecture is not a very useful strategy to critically analyse its psychological functions of place. The physical domain also affects psychological functions however, such as the waterfront/coastal location’s input in processes of self-regulation; distinctiveness, as a form of place identification; place-congruent, if the new waterfront is congruent with the values and meanings that it represents for either the local community, Leith, Edinburgh, or the stakeholders. This congruency and its related place-referent continuity could potentially be greatly affected by development because of these woven identity processes shared between people and Leith. A scheme that is not congruent with the waterfront/coastal location, therefore poses a serious threat to self-esteem (self-regulation and control), continuity or distinctiveness functions. This may make schema processes difficult to reject, accommodate or assimilate these changes, resulting in distress, grief and possible relocation.

The social domain is also equally well employed in the ADF to study Leith. Social strategies mark every function except ‘Health’ and interestingly, have a bias towards psychological functions of place. Like the physical domain, the social context of ‘connecting the waterfront’ and the related issue of a ‘working port’ reflect significant issues that affect identityvulnerable functions of belonging, control, place-congruent continuity, place-referent continuity and distinctiveness. Similarly, factors that encourage diverse, empowered and sustainable communities also target these functions of self-regulation, distinctiveness, selfefficacy, control, place-congruency and belonging. Social domain strategies are the only strong indicators that a sense of belonging is being targeted. The charrettes acknowledged there are new and established local communities and the ADF does suggest the beating/pulsating/resuscitating hearts metaphor to engage with the sense of community and belonging. The measure of social worth for each heart will be conditioned by distinctiveness, place-congruent and referent functions and, if successful, should strengthen the perceived level of ownership for control. Linking the hearts along the Great City Street parallel with the waterfront is a positive step to connect movement hubs and incorporate the unique costal location. However, if the green network and neighbourhood streets do not successfully bind these pockets of communities to the hearts and Great City Street, it may threaten self-efficacy at an individual or community level.

The ADF focuses a great deal of attention on balancing economies as a strategy to build place resilience. This primarily encourages physiological functions of goal support and security but also broadly sustains self-efficacy and, to a lesser extent, distinctiveness and control. Stable employment is evidently important to these functions because it promotes growth, gentrification and solidifies the sense of control residents need in order to feel like their community and district is worth something. It could also be argued that creating a working

dock with stable employment will be influential in creating place-congruent values and specifically counteract the negative nostalgia of unemployment. This reinforces positive place-referent continuity; the sense of history and pride that many Leither’s feel, as a result of the port’s historical and symbolic significance of Leith’s, Edinburgh’s and even Scotland’s success.

The economic pressures of the stable employment and port industry are also political. The ADF’s preferred option for the redevelopment of the port includes 5600 housing units, supporting the case for taking the trams to Leith. The character of this proposal compared to N-‐RIP’s alternative proposal for a national offshore renewable energy industry is incredibly dissimilar and the consequences will likely affect place-congruent/referent continuity, distinctiveness, control and sense of belonging. This situation is reflected in the tram scheme where economic and political pressures threaten functions of self-efficacy, goal support, control and distinctiveness.

The ADF does recognise the socio-economic importance of renewable energy, affordable housing and making facilities that are desirable to residents and visitors. However, all these issues are also political and suggest that their influence helps primarily maintain goal support and self-efficacy. Access to green space is also noticeably important as it supports selfefficacy, self-regulation, distinctiveness, health and place-congruent continuity over physical, social and political domains. Any threat to access green space would therefore have a knock on effect in many psychological and physiological functions. This would make any prospective coping strategy difficult and any negative affect response much more likely.

Finally, the community charrette identified that local community members wanted Leith to be linked but independent of Edinburgh. This independence implies that ownership, territoriality and the functions of control, distinctiveness and self-efficacy are desirable to Leithers which implies that they may already experience the threat to ownership and control as existent issues and want this to change.

4. EVALUATION

4.1 How could place literature contribute to policy?

Perkins et al. (2004) Â suggestion of an ecological model to study place attachment is a clear and simple method to understand the relationship that individuals and groups have at different scales of identity. This ecological model for place demonstrates the inadequacy of current policy as it focuses place-making on city and town scales with little attention at the local community scale.

Communication in identifying the scale of place identity is therefore crucial to understand the potential requirements for psychological and physiological place functions and to predict the likely threats. These threats could be anticipated, perhaps with a detailed understanding of the realistic and symbolic threats of Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan and Mealy, 2010) to shape an informed revaluation of the place and its salient characteristics.

Understanding why we identify or attach to place is more beneficial to architects, designers, planners and policy-makers than how we attach. Attempting to satisfy a function rather than

66 Â Â

mimic a predictor will provide a wider range of solutions to place issues that are domain and scale specific. It may also generate more creative solutions that are not constricted by a formal, idealised place, one that is possibly too far removed from the real place being analysed. In terms of Designing Places the qualities failed to identify functions of belonging, place-congruent continuity and place-referent continuity. Research by Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) suggests that social factors are stronger than physical factors and that belonging (social worth and sense of community) is more commonly formed through social domains. This supports a reappraisal of policy on the impact that the social domain can have on all three unidentified functions of place.

Although, policy does not identify the national scale of identity, the practical application of it is perhaps not always pertinent. However, Devine-Wright and Lyons (1997) experiment into Irish national identity did show that important places can have national significance, particularly in contested places. Devine-Wright and Lyons (1997) also suggest that contested place must imply a less conventional perception of place and the review has shown that many researchers agree that place is much more than just physical place. Manzo and Perkins (2006) support the evaluation of place domains (physical, social, economic and political) as the key dimensions of place. Breakwellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suggestion that identity is a dynamic social product (2010, p.6.1) is shared by the character of place domains. The relationships between place domains and their associations with place functions and varying scales of identity are constantly changing and will be entirely unique for different places. Even within the physical domain, policy appears to focus on the urban model of place, essentially ignoring the natural physical domain.

67 Â Â

Policy is fundamentally rooted in the concept of place-making. This sense of making gives the impression of creation from little or nothing. A sense of place may well be concealed or be difficult to evaluate given the inaccessible abstract nature of certain domains. Placekeeping, place-maintaining, place-sustaining and even place-destroying could better express the position planners may want to take in any given situation. What this review of place literature recommends is that a successful policy will establish the importance of place for creating and sustaining a sense of self.

4.2 How could place literature contribute to the ADF?

Comparing the evaluated functions of place frameworks for the ADF and policy reveals that the ADF’s review of place with respect to Leith is more comprehensive than Designing Places. This may suggest that planners would agree that current policy is limiting and warrants reframing.

The ADF’s management strategy to prevent threat is to rebalance the commercial, public and social economies. While this does acknowledge the relationship between social and economic domains the identification of threats to place are mainly physical and economic. The response strategies to threat are all quite similar. They equate to place (primarily economic but to some degree social) being adaptable and ready for change. The ADF does not take into account politically charged functions of control, place-congruency and distinctiveness nor the deeper social functions of belonging, and self-regulation as factors that may threaten individual or collective place identity processes.

Ignoring or incorrectly evaluating the value and salience of these functions and domains can have serious negative effects on individual, families and communities as so it is imperative that the ADF is at least aware of the potential consequences. Fullilove’s (1996) research on nostalgia and alienation attest to the possible psychiatric implications of displacement of overlooking significant threat based issues. Similarly, Fried’s study (1963) (although more extreme) raises awareness that neglecting the deep social bonds embedded in place can cause alienation, distress and grief. For Leith, this implies that any socially contentious issues could be magnified by Leith’s social diversity and strong sense of community. Social functions of control and belonging could also trigger negative affects if Leith’s city scale perception of its independence from Edinburgh is threatened.

Dixon and Durrheim (2000, p.31) stress that place is not individualistic, mentalistic, uncontested or apolitical. It is therefore important to directly acknowledge the political domain because it demonstrates to the relevant parties that issues have been considered in terms of liberties rather than be too sensitive to physical and economic conditions. This reaffirms the value of structured communication between the public and the planner/designer, to uncover the salient functions of place and understand which place domains are relevant.

When the theoretical framework of place functions is practically applied, the salience of each function will vary over time and will be subject to what is more important in any given place domain and at any given scale. If an event occurs that affects the level of importance of one function, it may heighten and decrease the importance of another. A critical example of this is in the Leith ADF will depend on the use of the port as either housing/industry or as the centre for Scotland’s renewables industry. The congruency of both options be conditioned by the perceived positive distinctiveness, how far they support personal and collective goals, and the

measure of social worth. Challenged place-referent continuity could become subservient to the distinctiveness and pride residents may feel through a positive sense of social worth. However, a strong incongruence may threaten continuity and distinctiveness functions, aggravating belongingness to possibly experience shame, contempt, anger and resentment.

5. CONCLUSION

This study has reviewed literature on place attachment and place identity to examine why the person-place bond exists and to test if current theories serve to reframe Scottish policy and strategy on place-making.

The initial literature review informed a revision of Scannell and Giffordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2010) current place attachment framework to incorporate four principles of place: scales, threats, functions and domains. This involved adapting the place dimension into a model that highlighted the place domains (Manzo and Perkins, 2005; Devine-Wright, 1997); the person dimension into an ecological model of place scales (Perkins et al., 2004); and the process dimension into a framework that divides place into physiological and psychological functions. The comparative analysis of these models and framework with policy (Designing Places) and strategy (ADF) revealed that there are certainly areas within place literature that are overlooked. It will be beneficial to architects, planners, developers and policy-makers if these overlooked issues are evaluated and incorporated into existing policy or reframed entirely to focus on the scales, domains, functions and threats to place.

70 Â Â

The critique positively established that policy recognises little of the economic domain and does not address the political domain at all; analysis that concurs with Dixon and Durrheim (2000) and Manzo and Perkins (2005). This was also apparent in Leith’s application of policy where political, contentious place was not well addressed; a significant issue considering Leith’s socio-political character. Policy and the ADF could both benefit from a deeper understanding of how political issues are relevant to place through physical, economic and crucially, social domains. Practical application of the domains suggests that it may be advantageous for theory to divide the economic domain into commercial, public and social economies because the Leith ADF shows that they carry different identities and symbolise dissimilar meanings in real life.

The comparison also recognised that the scales of identity in policy were primarily aimed at urban areas of a city/town scale and not at all at a national scale of identity. This limits the scope of policy to consider the rural environment and local community place identifications. Devine-Wright and Lyons’ (1997) study revealed that national identity is a measurable issue, particularly in contentious places, which suggests that policy should integrate guidelines that considers national identity in place. Theory could go further to understand how the scale structure is interrelated or if the boundaries are less rigid than the ecological model suggests. Research could also try to ascertain if certain scales are more likely to be affected by certain domains or if each domain is relevant to every scale.

The functions of place framework illustrated that within policy, sense of belonging and continuity functions were not addressed. Applying the same framework to Leith showed that a function’s salience is not static and that it changes relative to other functions, domains, scales and time. This theory suggests that identifying the importance of any a function with a

domain is not clear without understanding how the other domains and functions relate. The major limitation with this framework is that not enough research has been done to understand the exact structure. For example, a clearer comprehension of the role of control in the structure would be valuable (Korpela, 1989) to psychological place in order to question if control is a regulating process for self-esteem, self-regulation, self-efficacy or a standalone function in its own right.

Recognition of threats to scales, domains and functions in place are vague in both policy and the ADF. The ADF suggests strategies of place resilience to combat threat but these limited to the economic domain. The review of threat in place literature suggests that understanding a threat is synonymous with understanding the result and response to a threat. Integrated threat theory (Stephan and Mealy, 2010) clarifies that threat can be individual/group and realistic/symbolic but theory could expand on this, perhaps through Social Identity Threat or Social Dominance Theory.

The direction of this essay focussed on the psychological connections people have with place, but it consciously steered away from the origins of place from a phenomenological perspective because of its ambiguity but also due the amount of research that has been made with little progress since Tuan (Lewicka, 2010). However, to conclude, I would like to draw attention to Bartlett’s assertion that we have developed the ability to ‘reprogram’ schemas.

“An organism has somehow to acquire the capacity to turn around upon its own schemata and to construct them afresh. This is a crucial step in organic development. It is where and why consciousness comes in, it is what gives consciousness its most prominent function” (Bartlett, 1932, p.206 cited in Lee, 2003, p.29)

This point suggests that the development of consciousness is of an evolutionary nature. Evolution could explain this psychological process of self awareness, but could it also present a connection between consciousness and the appreciation of beauty? Could the awareness of beauty be a side effect, or possibly a result of consciousness? Perhaps this abstract and subjective internal awareness is what draws homo-sapiens to the unquantifiable beauty of place, which may even suggest that the sense of beauty in place is in fact the equally unquantifiable phenomenon of ‘sense of place’.

The psychological structure and evolutionary development of place identity is still unclear and further research is required to explain why exactly the person- place exists. Investigations into evolutionary psychology, place, beauty and schema could establish this deeper understanding of the purpose of place in human psychology. This will benefit architects, planners and policymakers in order for them to create and maintain places that people can make sense of, grow attached to, and enjoy.

Word count: 14568

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Altman, I. & Low, S.M. (eds) (1992). Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

Bonaiuto M., Aiello A., Perugini M., Bonnes M. and Ercolani A. (1999) Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (4): 331-352

Breakwell, G.M. (1986) Coping with Threatened Identities Methuen, London and New York.

Breakwell, G., (2010) Resisting Representations and Identity Processes Papers on Social Representations Volume 19, 6.1-6.11

Brown B., Perkins D.D. and Brown G. (2003) Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3): 259-271

Brown B.B. and Perkins D.D. (1992) Disruptions to Place Attachment, in I Altman, S M Low (eds.) Place Attachment. Plenum Press, London, pp 279-304

Bronfenbrenner, U., (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, Cambridge, MA.

74 Â Â

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 31–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Case, D. (1996). Contributions of journeys away to the definition of home: an empirical study of a dialectical process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1–15.

City of Edinburgh Council (2002) Leith Conservation Area Character Appraisal Online, Available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/10205/leith_conservation_area December 2011

City of Edinburgh Council (2010) Record of Charrettes Online, Available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2145/waterfront_and_leith_area_devel opment_framework_charrettes, October 2011

City of Edinburgh Council (2012) Waterfront and Leith Area Development Framework: Final Version, Online, Available: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/207/planningpolicies/1059/area_development_frameworks/3, March 2012

Devine-Wright, P. & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: the construction of national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17:33-45.

Devine-Wright P. (2009). Rethinking Nimbyism as place disruption. Paper presented at the European Network of Housing Research ENHR Conference 'Shrinking Cities, Sprawling Suburbs, Changing Countrysides', Dublin

Devine-Wright P. and Clayton, S., (2009). Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 267–270

Deutsch, N. (2005). A second home. In B. J. Hirsch (Ed.), A place to call home: Afterschool programs for urban youth (pp. 41–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dixon, J. and Durrheim, K. (2000) Displacing place-identity - A discursive approach to locating self and others. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 27-44 The British Psychological Society

Easthope H. (2004) A place called home. Housing, Theory and Society, 21 (3): 128-138 Edinburghsucks.com, The dirty smell down forth ports way, online, Available: www.edinburghsucks.com/2008/01/31/the-dirty-smell-down-forth-ports-way/

November

2011

Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement identity: psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society. Environment and Behavior, 22, 183–229.

Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. Duhl (ed.) The Urban Condition. New York: Basic Books

Fried M. (2000) Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 (3): 193- 205

Fullilove, M. (1996) Psychiatric Implications of Displacement: Contributions From the Psychology of Place, Am J Psychiatry. 153(12):1598-606

Giuliani M.V. (2003) Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment, in M Bonnes, T Lee, M Bonaiuto (eds.) Psychological Theories For Environmental Issues. Ashgate Publishing Limeted, Hants, pp 137-170

Giuliani, M., Ferrara, F., & Barabotti, S. (2003). One attachment or more? Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.

Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 33, 667–686.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row.

Hernández B., Carmen Hidalgo M., Salazar-Laplace M.E. and Hess S. (2007) Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (4): 310-319

Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications. London: Routledge.

Hidalgo M.C. and Hernández B. (2001) Place Attachment: Conceptual And Emperical Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (3): 273-281

Hugh-Jones, S. and Madill, A. (2009) 'The air's got to be far cleaner here': A discursive analysis of place-identity threat British Journal of Social Psychology. 48. 601-624

Hummon D.M. (1992) Community attachment: local sentiment and sense of place, in I Altman, S M Low (eds.) Place Attachment. Plenum Press, London, pp 253-278

Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fried, M. (1963) Grieving for a lost home. In L. J . Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition. New York: Basic Books, 151-171

İmmamoglu, C., (2009) The role of schemas in understanding places METU (26:2) 153-173

Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owner’s attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233–248.

Kaplan, S. (1984). Affect and cognition in the context of home: The quest for intangibles. Population and Environment, 7, 126-133.

Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241–256.

Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., and Fuhrer U. (2001) Restorative Experience and Self-Regulation in Favorite Places Environment and Behavior Vol. 33 No. 4, July 572-589

Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207-218.

Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285e303.

Lee, T., (2003) Schema Theory and the Role of Socio-Spatial Schemata in Environmental Psychology. In Bonnes, M., Lee, T. and Bonaiuto, M. (Eds) Psychological Theories For Environmental Issues London: Antony Rowe Ltd

Lewicka M. (2005) Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4): 381-395

M. Lewicka (2010) Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 1-24

Livingstone M., Bailey N. and Kearns A. (2008). People's Attachment To Places; The Influence Of Neighbourhood Deprivation. York: The Chartered Institute of Housing/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. Place attachment in the plaza. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165-185). New York and London: Plenum Press.

79 Â Â

Manzo, L. (2005) For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25(1): 67–86

Manzo, L. and Perkins, D. (2006) Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 20, No. 4

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.

Moser G., Ratiu E. and Fleury-Bahi G. (2002) Appropriation and Interpersonal Relationships: From Dwelling to City Through the Neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 34 (1): 122136

Nielson, J. N. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory model, Online Available: http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/integral-ecology, March 2012

Ng, C. (1998). Canada as a new place: the immigrant’s experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 55–67.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius Loci: Toward a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli

Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: the discriminating features of place attachment, sense of

community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273–287.

Proshansky H.M., Fabian A.K. and Kaminoff R. (1983) Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3 (1): 57-83

Puddifoot, J. E. (1994). Community identity and sense of belonging in a northeastern English town. Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 601–608.

Riemer, J. W. (2004). Job relocation, sources of stress, and sense of home. Community, Work & Family, 2, 205–217.

Relph, E., (1976) Place and Placelessness, London, Pion Ltd

Riger S. and Lavrakas P.J. (1981) Community ties: patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9 (1):55-66

Rollero C. and De Piccoli N. (2010) Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology

Scannell L. and Gifford R. (2010) Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (1): 1-10

Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people place relationships: a model of attachment to place. In N. R. Feimer, & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 219–251). New York: Praeger.

Scottish Executive (2001) Designing Places, Online, Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-PlanningPolicy/Designing, January 2012

Scottish Executive (2009) NPF2, Online, Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/0, January 2012

Speller G. (2000) A Community in Transition: a longitudinal study of place attachment and identity processes in the context of an enforced relocation. University of Surrey, Surrey

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

Stets, J.E. and Burke, P.J. (2000) Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63 No.3, p.224-237

Stephan, W. G. & Mealy, M. (2010). Intergroup Threat Theory. In Christie, D.J and Montiel, C.J. (Eds.). Encyclopaedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Stokols D. and Shumaker S.A. (1981) People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings, in J H Harvey (ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The psychological context of residential mobility and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 38, p149-171.

Sugihara, S., & Evans, G.W. (2000). Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 400e409.

Tajfel, H (1978) Differentiation Between Social Groups London: Academic Press

Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Trentelman, C. K. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 191210.

Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Twigger-Ross C.L. and Uzzel D.L. (1996) Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 (3): 205-220

83 Â Â