Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sense of place is increasingly advocated to support the management of social-ecological systems. Given the concept’s complexity, we suggest that an indicator for sense of place is needed to facilitate its application in practical planning. We propose such an indicator called “meaningful places,” defined as geographic locations to which (i) immediately perceived as well as socially constructed meanings are ascribed and (ii) evaluative attachments are tied. We applied the indicator in two independent case studies, Lübeck and Lahn, both of which aimed to integrate sense of place in an actual planning process. The case studies differed in the spatial scale of the meaningful places, the indicator’s operationalization, and the specific assessment methods. In the Lübeck case, semi-structured interviews and a simple mapping method were used to analyze participants’ “home-regions.” The results revealed diverse but overlapping locations characterized as aesthetic, different from others, close to nature, and quiet (place meanings). In the Lahn case, a public participation GIS (public participation geographic information system [PPGIS]) survey was conducted and yielded insights into the spatial distribution of meaningful places. The results reflect a wide range of place meanings linked to, for example, activities, aesthetic qualities, or well-being. Furthermore, participants expressed different intensities of place attachments. Although the indicator is still in an exploratory stage, it allows for reflection on potential benefits for planning practitioners. The resulting data can be combined with spatial information usually used in planning processes, e.g., about the state of the underlying physical environment and/or foreseeable drivers of change. This offers new opportunities for managers regarding the determination of priorities to conserve meaningful places, the anticipation of conflicts, and the utilization of the communicative power of meaningful places. We argue that the benefits for planning justify a new direction of research devoted to the development and further advancement of the indicator.

River landscapes are complex social-ecological systems with many benefits for people. A common challenge is to integrate social values in river planning and management. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the meaning and significance of place in river recreation and how people feel emotionally and spiritually connected to river landscapes. Based on five European case studies, this study compares different methods and approaches for mapping sense of place in river landscapes and subsequently addresses the question of how these studies can inform participatory processes. The case studies are set in diverse geographical, institutional and policy contexts, including the planning and evaluation of river restoration projects in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Spain and the monitoring of the effects of newly constructed river dams in the Netherlands. This comparative study is a first step in understanding the breadth of analytical and spatial approaches that can be used to assess sense of place in river landscapes and their implications for resilient river landscape planning and management.

ContextRiver landscapes represent hotspots for biodiversity and ecosystem services used and embraced by human agents. Changes in river landscapes are subjectively perceived by people and can be assessed through the lenses of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and sense of place (SOP).ObjectivesThis study aims to assess people–place relationships in a river landscape by integrating SOP theory and the CES concept and critically reflecting on their interplay. Research objectives relate to meanings and attachments attributed by citizens to places and the influence of the physical environment and socioeconomic settings.MethodsWe employed a spatially meaningful place indicator in a public participation GIS survey, combining meanings elucidated through a free listing exercise and multiple-choice questions. Statistical analyses were employed to investigate relationships between meanings, place attachment, and environmental and social variables.ResultsThe results showed that (1) place meaning assessments can complement place attachment data by enhancing the understanding of relationships to biophysical and socioeconomic variables, and (2) combinations of both assessment approaches for place meanings showed that CESs were reflected in many free listed meaning types, dominantly related to forms or practices, but neglect relational values, such as “Heimat” (i.e., in German expression of the long-standing connection to an area) or memories.ConclusionsThis paper explicates synergies between SOP theory and CES concept. CES research offers insights from spatial assessments, while SOP research provides theoretical depth regarding relational values linked to CES. This paper critically reflects the ostensible consent of understanding SOP as a CES and proposes considering SOP as an overarching theory for CES assessment.

This paper explores the visual, acoustic and olfactory impairments to landscape aesthetic quality in a river landscape case study, using hard- and soft-GIS approaches. The research objectives are (1) to develop a model that localizes the spatial distribution of areas likely perceived as unpleasant and assesses the intensity of visual, acoustic and olfactory impairments in those areas by using a hard-GIS method, and (2) to test the statistical validity of the model based on results gained from a soft GIS method. The case study area is the Lahn river landscape, Germany. Results show a substantial share of the study area affected by modelled impairments, especially areas close to urban environments and along rivers. The area affected by impairments is highest for visual (91%), followed by acoustic (84%) and olfactory factors (54%). However, impairment intensities are greatest for acoustics (30% of study area) and visual (18%). Soft-GIS data tests revealed statistical defensibility of modeled impaired areas. The results highlight the importance of disaggregate analyses of impairments and can provide information on suitable locations for interventions to minimize impairments. Combining hard-GIS with soft-GIS methods may contribute to the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of scientific findings for planning processes and decision-making.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) find increasing attention as actions to address societal challenges through harnessing ecological processes, yet knowledge gaps exist regarding approaches to landscape planning with NBS. This paper aims to provide suggestions of how planning NBS can be conceptualized and applied in practice. We develop a framework for planning NBS by merging insights from literature and a case study in the Lahn river landscape, Germany. Our framework relates to three key criteria that define NBS, and consists of six steps of planning: Co-define setting, Understand challenges, Create visions and scenarios, Assess potential impacts, Develop solution strategies, and Realize and monitor. Its implementation is guided by five principles, namely Place-specificity, Evidence base, Integration, Equity, and Transdisciplinarity. Drawing on the empirical insights from the case study, we suggest suitable methods and a checklist of supportive procedures for applying the framework in practice. Taken together, our framework can facilitate planning NBS and provides further steps towards mainstreaming.

Planning with nature-based solutions (NBS) presents a participatory approach that harnesses actions supported by nature to address societal challenges. Whilst Geodesign may facilitate participatory planning, manage boundaries between participants, and assess impacts of NBS, empirical insights remain scarce. This paper aims to develop and test a Geodesign process for planning with NBS, and to evaluate its contributions to boundary management. In a one-day Geodesign process, eleven stakeholders delineated priority areas, changed land uses, and observed resulting impacts on ecosystem services. Contributions to boundary management were evaluated regarding translation, communication and mediation functions, as well as perceived attributions of credibility, salience, and legitimacy. Results include spatial NBS scenarios and insights into contributions to boundary management: translating scenario stories into maps differed depending on the stakeholders involved; communication can be easily facilitated; yet mediation using an indicator tool led to frustration. Geodesign can indeed facilitate NBS co-design but needs to be integrated into a larger collaborative process.

Geodesign is a participatory research and planning process that manages diverse boundaries and combines place-based local knowledge and values, design and planning expertise, and geographic information science for the purpose of collaborative and well-informed spatial planning. It is particularly effective in managing boundaries between stakeholders, knowledge frameworks, and technology. Geodesign is valuable in the early stages of planning, facilitating problem characterization and citizen involvement, as well as impact assessment.

Geodesign is a participatory research and planning process that manages diverse boundaries and combines place-based local knowledge and values, design and planning expertise, and geographic information science for the purpose of collaborative and well-informed spatial planning. It is particularly effective in managing boundaries between stakeholders, knowledge frameworks, and technology. Geodesign is valuable in the early stages of planning, facilitating problem characterization and citizen involvement, as well as impact assessment.