Incorporating place attachment in spatial planning: A literature review

Li, Xiaozhen Book Part Incorporating place attachment in spatial planning: A literature review Provided in Cooperation with: ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft Suggested Citation: Li, Xiaozhen (2024) : Incorporating place attachment in spatial planning: A literature review, In: Finger, Anne Badelt, Ole Dahmen, Kathleen Heilen, Lydia Mai, Nora Seegers, Ronja Seewald, Eva Śnieg, Filip Wiemer, Leonie (Ed.): Transformationsprozesse in Stadt und Land: Erkenntnisse, Strategien und Zukunftsperspektiven, ISBN 978-3-88838-117-1, Verlag der ARL - Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Hannover, pp. 74-89, https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0156-1171074 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/286123 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Li, Xiaozhen: Incorporating Place Attachment in Spatial Planning: A Literature Review https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0156-1171074 In: Finger, Anne; Badelt, Ole; Dahmen, Kathleen; Heilen, Lydia; Mai, Nora; Seegers, Ronja; Seewald, Eva; Śnieg, Filip; Wiemer, Leonie (Hrsg.) (2024): Transformationsprozesse in Stadt und Land – Erkenntnisse, Strategien und Zukunftsperspektiven. Hannover, 74-89. = Forschungsberichte der ARL 23. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0156-11713 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ 74 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND Xiaozhen Li INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 The confusing terms: place attachment, sense of place, place meaning, and place identity 1.2 Understanding spatial planning 2 Methods 3 Results 3.1 Incorporating place attachment into the scoping stage 3.2 Incorporating place attachment into the stage of assessment and monitoring 3.3 Incorporating place attachment into the stage of developing spatial responses 3.4 Leveraging place attachment to promote participatory planning engagement 4 Discussion 5 Conclusion References Abstract Place attachment, usually referring to the emotional relationships between people and places, has been studied intensely by environmental psychologists and humanistic geographers for decades. Its influence on landscape planning and development has recently gained increasing attention. Place attachment can be a double-edged sword. It can be an obstacle hindering new developments. It can also be a resource, promoting and informing spatial planning and transformation processes and further enabling a higher level of sustainability. Despite numerous empirical studies highlighting the relevance of place attachment to spatial planning, it remains unclear how research on place attachment can be effectively incorporated into planning practices. This paper aims to review literature that incorporates place attachment into spatial planning and transformation. Directions for future research and potential implications for sustainable spatial transformation practices will also be discussed. Keywords place attachment – sense of place – landscape planning – landscape transformation – collaborative planning – placemaking Einbeziehung der Ortsverbundenheit in die Raumplanung: Ein Literaturreview Kurzfassung Die Bindung an einen Ort, die sich in der Regel auf die emotionalen Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und Orten bezieht, wird von Umweltpsychologinnen und -psychologen sowie Humangeographinnen und -geographen seit Jahrzehnten intensiv unter- 75INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW sucht. Ihr Einfluss auf die Landschaftsplanung und -entwicklung hat in letzter Zeit zunehmend an Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen. Ortsverbundenheit kann ein zweischneidiges Schwert sein. Sie kann ein Hindernis darstellen, das neue Entwicklungen erschwert. Sie kann aber auch eine Ressource sein, die Raumplanung und Transformationsprozesse fördert und informiert, um ein höheres Maß an Nachhaltigkeit zu erreichen. Trotz zahlreicher empirischer Studien, welche die Relevanz der Ortsverbundenheit für die Raumplanung unterstreichen, bleibt unklar, wie die Forschung zu place attachment effektiv in die Planungspraxis integriert werden kann. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, einen Überblick über die Fachliteratur zu geben, welche die Ortsverbundenheit in die Raumplanung und Transformation einbezieht. Es werden zukünftige Forschungsrichtungen und mögliche Auswirkungen auf nachhaltige räumliche Transformationspraktiken diskutiert. Schlüsselwörter Ortsverbundenheit – Ortssinn – Landschaftsplanung – Landschaftswandel – kollaborative Planung – Placemaking 1 Introduction Place attachment has been a topic of intensive study for several decades, and this heightened interest can be partly attributed to the challenges posed by globalization, increasing mobility, and worsening environmental problems, all of which threaten the bonds between people and their places (Gustafson 2001; Scannell/Gifford 2010; Arts et al. 2017). This has sparked a debate on the importance of places and people-place bonds, with some theorists suggesting that these bonds become less critical as personal experiences become increasingly disconnected from local places (Gustafson 2001). However, numerous empirical studies demonstrate that place remains a vital factor despite the trend of increasing globalization (Lewicka 2011). Furthermore, from the perspective of socio-ecological systems, the importance of place attachment for sustainability and resilience has also been acknowledged (Manzo/Perkins 2006; Brunckhorst 2010). The significance of place attachment for individuals and socioecological systems has highlighted the need to promote it in planning practices (Manzo/Perkins 2006). Despite numerous empirical studies highlighting the relevance of place attachment to spatial planning, the ways in which research on place attachment can be effectively incorporated into planning practices remain unclear. This literature review seeks to explore the approaches available for effectively incorporating place attachment into spatial planning, as well as to identify potential areas for future research. 1.1 The confusing terms: place attachment, sense of place, place meaning, and place identity Humanistic geographers such as Tuan and Relph have emphasized the importance of perceptions and experiences in creating valuable places since the 1970s, leading to a foregrounding of place-related research across various disciplines (Cresswell 2004; Trentelman 2009). Approaches to place research have been enriched over time, with 76 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND Morgan (2010) recognizing three incompatible approaches and Williams/Miller (2021) detailing six more. Meanwhile, a large number of place-related concepts such as place attachment, sense of place, place identity, and place meaning have emerged, but their broad definitions can cause confusion (Hidalgo/Hernández 2001; Manzo 2003; Lewicka 2011). The proliferation of place-related concepts has necessitated clarification of their relationships. Quantitative studies have commonly explored the hierarchical relationships among these concepts. Hernández/Hidalgo/Ruiz (2021: 96 et seq.) identified three types of relationships between place attachment and other place-related concepts: (1) treating place attachment as a one-dimensional concept alongside place identity and place dependence; (2) considering place attachment as a multidimensional and encompassing construct that covers other concepts; and (3) regarding place attachment as a subconcept of other constructs such as sense of place and place identification. While hierarchical approaches have been used to clarify relationships among these concepts, they may oversimplify the unique focus of each concept and their interrelationships (Drasdo 2018: 178). These concepts should be considered independent of each other but also related. Lewicka (2008: 212) also shared a similar view when comparing place attachment and place identity. Multi-dimensional frameworks, such as Scannell and Gifford’s (2010) model, are therefore needed to capture the complexity and interrelatedness of various placerelated concepts. Scannell and Gifford’s model organizes existing studies into three dimensions: place, people, and psychological processes, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationships among place-related concepts. In this multi-dimensional framework, place attachment is regarded as the overarching concept and defined broadly as “a bond between an individual or group and a place that can vary in terms of spatial level, degree of specificity, and social or physical features of the place, and is manifested through affective, cognitive, and behavioral psychological processes” (Scannell/Gifford 2010: 5). The authors further note that not all dimensions need to be considered in each research project and encourage researchers to tailor their definitions to specific contexts with different emphases. Sense of place is a concept originating from humanistic geography, which emphasizes the significance and uniqueness of places (Cresswell 2004). Since the 1970s, humanistic geographers have characterized it as a feeling of immersion and belonging to a place, emphasizing the subjective emotions and connections people have with places and arguing that places are fundamental to human existence (Cresswell 2004). Since the 1990s, Massey has introduced the idea that places are constructed by external objects and processes, and that sense of place, as a characteristic of a place, is it appears that a citation is missing here. To avoid the need for further modifications in the references section, the citation I would like to add here is (if it is possible): „constructed by linking that place to places beyond“ (Massey 1997, cited in Cresswell 2004: 70). This conceptualization gives rise to the concept of a “progressive sense of place”, underlining the characteristics of openness and change. Although the focus has shifted from subjective feelings to external relationships over time, the concept of sense of place continues to emphasize the distinctiveness of places. Currently, the 77INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW terms sense of place and place attachment are often used interchangeably as the overarching concepts for the emotional relationships between people and places (Trentelman 2009). However, Kyle et al. (2004) found that place attachment is more commonly used as the overarching concept when studying recreational contexts, where participants are mostly visitors, while sense of place is more likely to be used for local respondents in residential contexts. It can be inferred that sense of place refers more to rootedness, feelings of belonging and immersion in places, reflecting its deep roots in the humanistic approach. In contrast, place attachment relates more to relatively weak and superficial emotional connections, considering that people can attach to places without incorporating them as a part of their existence. The cognitive aspect of place attachment is widely recognized, but there is a lack of clarity surrounding the term of place meanings. This term is often used without clearly indicating what it refers to, and it is sometimes confused with the cognitive aspect of place attachment, a conflation that has been criticized by Stedman (2002). Williams (2014) provides a framework for understanding multiple forms of place meanings, ranging from the surface to the deep, including inherent, instrumental, socio-cultural, and identity-expressive. However, Raymond/Kyttä/Stedman (2017) argue that this framework neglects the sensory dimension of place meanings. They propose that place should also be understood as a perception-action process that forms immediately perceived place meanings; this constitutes the third important branch of place enquiry, alongside place as a locus of attachment and place as a center of meaning. Place identity is a multifaceted concept that encompasses both people’s internalization of external places and the perceived uniqueness of places themselves (Peng/Strijker/ Wu 2020). People’s place identity is closely intertwined with place attachment and is based on subjective valuation and personal place meanings (Twigger-Ross/Uzzell 1996), while the place identity of places is more related to the perceived and constructed distinctiveness of places and may overlap with the concept of sense of place. It is important to note that place identity, whether referring to people or places, is not solely focused on subjective relationships but always involves how these relationships contribute to the valuation and characterization of individuals and groups as well as the places themselves. Place-related concepts are distinguished by the fact that scholars often use place attachment and sense of place interchangeably, and place meanings may serve as their concrete manifestations. In contrast, place identity emphasizes the characteristics of people or places formed under the influence of people-place relationships. Thus, this paper focuses on place attachment, sense of place, and place meanings as key constructs, while excluding place identity. 1.2 Understanding spatial planning Spatial planning is a complex term with various perspectives and interpretations (Healey 2004; Alexander 2016). Healey (2004: 46) notes that “spatial” refers to the location of objects and their relationships within a specific area, while “planning” 78 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND involves decision-making that shapes future socio-spatial relations. The Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning (Council of Europe 1983) defines spatial planning as the geographical expression of economic, social, cultural, and ecological policies. This interdisciplinary approach aims for balanced regional development and the physical organization of space according to an overall strategy. Another definition characterizes spatial planning as the public sector’s methods to influence the distribution of people, activities, infrastructures, recreation, and nature areas in various spaces (von Haaren/Galler 2016). Despite the various conceptualizations, spatial planning ultimately aims to shape future socio-spatial relationships (Loupa Ramos et al. 2019) and optimize space and environmental conditions through decision-making (von Haaren et al. 2014: 161). In Europe, spatial planning serves as an overarching concept and is conducted by public authorities on behalf of a society or particular stakeholders. It aims to manage the spatial impacts of sectoral policies and establish objectives for controlling future activities through intervention in the physical environment, often via statutory spatial plans (von Haaren/Galler 2016). Landscape planning and design are related to spatial planning, but it is important to distinguish them for methodological reasons. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) defines landscape broadly as a spatial entity with territorial properties, experienced sensually and meaningfully by humans, composed of various interacting elements that are hierarchically structured, with a spatial organization and management that is largely influenced by humans, and inherently dynamic (Antrop/ van Eetvelde 2017: 57). Landscape planning involves proactive actions to enhance, restore, or create landscapes, as defined in the ELC. However, in Germany, landscape planning is mainly concerned with nature conservation and protection, with a narrow focus on natural and ecological concerns, and can be reactive in character (Gantioler 2018: 102). This understanding of landscape planning is generally applicable across Europe, with differences primarily concerning legal influence and the role of participation (von Haaren et al. 2014: 161). Landscape design and landscape planning are distinct activities in landscape architecture, with landscape design focusing on visible changes and characterized by subjective and intuitive elements, while landscape planning has a more proactive and rigorous approach to enhancing, restoring, or creating landscapes (von Haaren et al. 2014: 160). The tasks, application contexts, and methodological approaches of landscape design and planning differ. Although landscape architecture is widely considered to be the overarching discipline encompassing both (von Haaren et al. 2014: 167; Thompson 2014), there remains no complete consensus on this matter. According to von Haaren et al. (2014: 161 et seq.), the term landscape architecture is sometimes used interchangeably with landscape design, but is explicitly differentiated from landscape planning. In this review, which focuses on integrating place attachment into planning processes, the term planning is more appropriate due to its rigorous and standardized characteristics. 79INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW According to the definitions, spatial planning and landscape planning are important constructs in this review. However, it should be noted that some studies may use the term landscape design to refer to the final outcome of landscape planning, especially in studies with a heavy US influence (von Haaren et al. 2014). Therefore, both landscape design, spatial design, and landscape architecture were included as search strings. The final selection of studies was based on their demonstration of rigorous and standardized characteristics rather than intuitive and creative ones. Additionally, some scholars may use a specific landscape or spatial type as a prefix to the term planning to emphasize planning within a particular spatial context, such as forest planning. The term planning is also included as a search string in this review to guarantee that related literature is included. While there are different planning models available, they share common underlying principles of analyzing the current situation, identifying problems and objectives, and implementing selected proposals. The landscape planning process model proposed by von Haaren/Lovett/Albert (2019: 27 et seq.) consists of five steps: scoping, assessment, developing responses, implementation, and monitoring. The authors also underline that all stages should be accompanied by public participation. In the scoping stage, officials, stakeholders, and planners collaborate to identify pressing issues, future development goals, potential contributions of landscape planning, and higher policy-level drivers. The assessment stage involves evaluating the current state and future prospects of the landscape, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Response measures are then proposed to decision-makers and the public, prioritizing which pressures to reduce, which sites to maintain or protect, and which impacted areas to rehabilitate. Implementation of the selected plan can be triggered by a political decision made by the regional or municipal council. Information resulting from implemented plans is used to inform future choices and reduce uncertainty over time. Monitoring is a key tool to assess the effectiveness of decisions made. Different planning stages may occur concurrently, although with various focuses, and may not follow sequential order (Gantioler 2018). 2 Methods The literature search was conducted on 14 January 2023 using Scopus and Web of Science databases, with the search strings outlined in Figure 1. The selected time range was from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022, as research on place attachment has experienced rapid growth since 2000 (Lewicka 2011). This review includes only English language publications, and due to time constraints, only journal articles, conference articles, and book chapters were selected for inclusion. A four-step process, as shown in Figure 2, was employed to select relevant articles. The process involved merging search results from different databases, excluding duplicates, screening articles by reading titles, abstracts, and full-texts, and applying the criteria and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 1. The final selection resulted in the inclusion of 13 articles. Additionally, one article that appeared relevant but was not identified in the initial search results was manually added to the review. 80 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND Figure 1: The search strings / Source: the author Figure 2: The working flow of reviewing the literature, drawing on Wen/Albert/von Haaren (2018) / Source: the author 87INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW should also be adjusted accordingly. Future research should also address these differences in utilizing place attachment for participatory planning in different planning stages. Although this literature review shows that only a few studies have focused on the issue of integrating place attachment into spatial planning, it does not necessarily indicate that planners have given the matter little thought. Since planning is a discipline that closely intertwines practice and scholarship, practitioners have likely developed several effective methods in specific project practice that have not yet been reflected upon and theorized. Therefore, case studies analyzing existing programs that address this issue would be promising. As this literature review was conducted by a single author, inter-rater reliability is limited. However, the criteria for screening and selecting articles remained consistent throughout the entire process. Therefore, the results can still provide a reliable overview of the current research status regarding the integration of place attachment into spatial planning. 5 Conclusion This literature review identifies four approaches for incorporating place attachment into spatial planning, including integrating it into various stages of the planning process and utilizing it in participatory planning as an empowerment tool. It emphasizes the need for further research in this area, as many of the reviewed papers lack a pertinent focus on this topic. Furthermore, it suggests that participatory planning should be tailored to each planning stage, and strategies for utilizing place attachment for citizen empowerment or conflict coordination should vary accordingly. Finally, the review underscores the importance of analyzing existing practical planning projects that address this issue, as planning is a discipline that closely intertwines practice and scholarship. References Alexander, E. R. (2016): There is no planning – only planning practices: Notes for spatial planning theories. In: Planning Theory 15 (1), 91-103. Antrop, M.; van Eetvelde, V. (2017): Landscape Perspectives: The Holistic Nature of Landscape. Dordrecht. = Landscape Series 23. Arts, B.; Buizer, M.; Horlings, L.; Ingram, V.; van Oosten, C.; Opdam, P. (2017): Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review. In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 (1), 439-463. Brunckhorst, D. J. (2010): Using context in novel community-based natural resource management: landscapes of property, policy and place. In: Environmental Conservation 37 (1), 16-22. Brown, G.; Raymond, C. M. (2014): Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 122, 196-208. Cresswell, T. (2004): Place: A Short Introduction (1st). USA, UK, Australia. Drasdo, F. (2018): Der Mensch im Raum. Über verschiedene Verständnisse von Raum in Planung und Sozialwissenschaften und theoretische Ansätze zu Mensch-Raum-Beziehungen. Universität Stuttgart. 88 23 _ TRANSFORMATIONSPROZESSE IN STADT UND LAND Escobar-Avaria, C.; Fuster, R.; Silva-Urrutia, K.; Bauer, C.; de la Fuente, A. (2022): Understanding Conditioning Factors for Hydroelectric Development in Chile: Bases for Community Acceptance. In: Sustainability 14 (22), 15224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215224 Fenster, T., Misgav, C. (2014): Memory and place in participatory planning. In: Planning Theory & Practice 15 (3), 349-369. Gustafson, P. (2001): Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(1), 5-16. Gantioler, S. (2018): The Right to Ecological Space in the City. The Technical University of Munich. Glover, T. D.; Stewart, W. P.; Gladdys, K. (2008): Social Ethics of Landscape Change. In: Qualitative Inquiry 14 (3), 384-401. Gottwald, S.; Brenner, J.; Albert, C.; Janssen, R. (2021): Integrating sense of place into participatory landscape planning: merging mapping surveys and geodesign workshops. In: Landscape Research 46 (8), 1041-1056. Healey, P. (2004): The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional research 28 (1), 45-67. Halpern, B. S.; Longo, C.; Scarborough, C.; Hardy, D.; Best, B. D.; Doney, S. C.; Katona, S. K.; McLeod, K. L.; Rosenberg, A. A.; Samhouri, J. F. (2014): Assessing the health of the U.S. west coast with a regional-scale application of the Ocean Health Index. In: PLoS One 9 (6), e98995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098995 Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M. C.; Ruiz, C. (2021): Theoretical and methodological aspects of research on place attachment. In: Manzo, L.C.; Devine-Wright, P. (eds.): Place Attachment Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications (2nd). London and New York, 95-110. Hidalgo, M. C.; Hernández, B. (2001): Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (3), 273-281. Jones, L.; Holland, R. A.; Ball, J.; Sykes, T.; Taylor, G.; Ingwall-King, L.; Snaddon, J. K.; Peh, K. S. H. (2020): A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space. In: People and Nature 2 (1), 123-137. Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. (2004): Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2), 213-225. Lewicka, M. (2008): Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (3), 209-231. Lewicka, M. (2011): Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (3), 207-230. Loupa Ramos, I.; Bianchi, P.; Bernardo, F.; van Eetvelde, V. (2019): What matters to people? Exploring contents of landscape identity at the local scale. In: Landscape Research 44 (3), 320-336. Manzo, L. C. (2003): Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 47-61. Manzo, L. C.; Perkins, D. D. (2006): Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. In: Journal of Planning Literature 20 (4), 335-350. McIntyre, N.; Moore, J.; Yuan, M. (2008): A Place-Based, Values-Centered Approach to Managing Recreation on Canadian Crown Lands. In: Society & Natural Resources 21 (8), 657-670. Morgan, P. (2010): Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1), 11-22. Puren, K.; Drewes, E.; Roos, V. (2008): A sense of place and spatial planning in the verdefort dome, South Africa. In: South African Geographical Journal 90 (2), 134-146. Puren, K.; Roos, V.; Coetzee, H. (2018): Sense of place: using people’s experiences in relation to a rural landscape to inform spatial planning guidelines. In: International Planning Studies 23 (1), 16-36. Peng, J.; Strijker, D.; Wu, Q. (2020): Place Identity: How Far Have We Come in Exploring Its Meanings? In: Frontiers in Psychology 11 (294). DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00294 Raymond, C. M.; Kyttä, M.; Stedman, R. (2017): Sense of Place, Fast and Slow: The Potential Contributions of Affordance Theory to Sense of Place. In: Frontiers in Psychology 8 (1674). DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01674 Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. (2010): Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1), 1-10. 89INCORPORATING PLACE ATTACHMENT IN SPATIAL PLANNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW Stedman, R. C. (2002): Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. In: Environment and Behavior 34 (5), 561-581. Stewart, W. P.; Glover, T. D.; Barkley, J. R. (2013): Sharing Stories of Place to Foster Social Learning. In: Stewart, W. P.; Williams, D. R.; Kruger, L. E. (eds.): Place-Based Conservation: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Dordrecht, 137-150. Stevens, N.; Salmon, P. (2014): Safe places for pedestrians: Using cognitive work analysis to consider the relationships between the engineering and urban design of footpaths. In: Accident Analysis and Prevention 72, 257-266. Twigger-Ross, C. L.; Uzzell, D. L. (1996): Place and Identity Processes. In: Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 (3), 205-220. Trentelman, C. K. (2009): Place Attachment and Community Attachment: A Primer Grounded in the Lived Experience of a Community Sociologist. In: Society & Natural Resources 22 (3), 191-210. Thompson, I. (2014): Landscape Architecture: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. Upham, P.; Johansen, K.; Bögel, P. M.; Axon, S.; Garard, J.; Carney, S. (2018): Harnessing place attachment for local climate mitigation? Hypothesising connections between broadening representations of place and readiness for change. In: Local Environment 23 (9), 912-919. von Haaren, C.; Warren-Kretzschmar, B.; Milos, C.; Werthmann, C. (2014): Opportunities for design approaches in landscape planning. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 130, 159-170. von Haaren, C.; Galler, C. (2016): Spatial and Landscape planning: A place for ecosystem services. In: Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R.; Robert, F.; Kerry Turner, R. (eds.): Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. London, New York, 568-581. von Haaren, C.; Lovett, A. A.; Albert, C. (eds.) (2019): Theories and Methods for Ecosystem Services Assessment in Landscape Planning. In: Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services, 19-42. Wen, C.; Albert, C.; von Haaren, C. (2018): The elderly in green spaces: Exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. In: Sustainable Cities and Society 38, 582-593. Williams, D. R. (2014): Making sense of ‘place’: Reflections on pluralism and positionality in place research. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 131, 74-82. Williams, D. R.; Miller, B. A. (2021): Metatheoretical moments in place attachment research: Seeking clarity in diversity. In: Manzo, L.C.; Devine-Wright, P. (eds.): Place Attachment Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications (2nd). London and New York, 13-18. Zhang, C.; Liao, L. (2022): The active participation in a community transformation project in China: constructing new forums for expert-citizen interaction. In: Journal of Chinese governance 7 (3), 372399. Acknowledgments This work was supported by China Scholarship Council. The author would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions for the manuscript. Author Xiaozhen Li (*1992) is a doctoral candidate at the Technical University of Munich. She focuses on the interdisciplinary field where environmental psychology, sociology and landscape planning meet. Specifically, she is dedicated to the transformation research of industrial landscapes.