Relationships between Personal and Collective Place Identity and Well-Being in Mountain Communities

Abstract

The aim was to investigate the relationships between landscape-related personal and collective identity and well-being of residents living in a Swedish mountain county (N = 850). It was shown that their most valued mountain activities were viewing and experiencing nature and landscape, outdoor recreation, rest and leisure, and socializing with friends/family. Qualitative analyses showed that the most valued aspects of the sites were landscape and outdoor restoration for personal favorite sites, and tourism and alpine for collective favorite sites. According to quantitative analyses the stronger the attachment/closeness/belonging (emotional component of place identity) residents felt to favorite personal and collective sites the more well-being they perceived when visiting these places. Similarly, the more remembrance, thinking and mental travel (cognitive component of place identity) residents directed to these sites the more well-being they perceived in these places. In both types of sites well-being was more strongly predicted by emotional than cognitive component of place-identity. All this indicates the importance of person-place bonds in beneficial experiences of the outdoors, over and above simply being in outdoor environments.

Foraging for identity: the relationships between landscape activities and landscape identity after catastrophic landscape change

“…They provide experiences shared across generations, as well as settings for communal interactions important to cultural ties' (Daniel et al, 2012, p. 8814). In line with this, Knez and Eliasson (2017) revealed that both personal and collective landscape identities are related to well-being (in a study of inhabitants near mountain landscapes).…”

Feeling at Home in the Wilderness: Environmental Conditions, Well-Being and Aesthetic Experience

“…As there are similarities and differences between one group during forest-stormy and another group during plateau-cold, there is much more to understand than preference into different landscapes (Oishi et al, 2015). Also, as all students were presented with a new landscape, the bonding effect based on former experiences (Knez and Eliasson, 2017) could not explain the connection between place and wellbeing. In neither of the groups, students had been in this particular environment before.…”

“…There might be differences in personality traits and preference of places, whereas introverts prefer mountains more than extroverts, and introverts are happier in wooded landscapes than in open areas (Oishi et al, 2015). Emotional experiences of landscapes were moreover enhancing the relationship between place-identity and well-being in Swedish mountains (Knez and Eliasson, 2017). The more bonded one felt with the place, the better well-being.…”

Heritage Planning in Practice and the Role of Cultural Ecosystem Services

“…Although the literature on the ecosystem services concept and approach has exploded since the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, there is a clear tendency to separate these categories into specialized research fields, and CES dimensions have been assessed only marginally (e.g. Schaich, Bieling, and Plieninger 2010;Setten, Stenseke, and Moen 2012;Tengberg et al 2012;Tema Nord 2015;Blicharska et al 2017;Knez and Eliasson 2017;Hølleland, Skrede, and Holmgaard 2017;Díaz et al 2018). The CES dimensions are defined by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a, 40) as "the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences."…”

“…Furthermore, despite the great amount of research on the ecosystem services concept and approach in the past decade, the scientific literature clearly shows a lack of knowledge about the CES dimensions and lack of consensus about their role in the ecosystem approach (e.g. Schaich, Bieling, and Plieninger 2010;Setten, Stenseke, and Moen 2012;Tengberg et al 2012;Tema Nord 2015;Blicharska et al 2017;Knez and Eliasson 2017;Hølleland, Skrede, and Holmgaard 2017;Díaz et al 2018). Consequently, there is a lack of integration of CES dimensions into the ecosystem services approach, which can be explained by their intangible nature, evaluation difficulties, and methodological and conceptual issues (e.g.…”