Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes

Eaton, Weston M.; Eanes, Francis R.; Ulrich‐Schad, Jessica D.; Burnham, Morey; Church, Sarah P.; Arbuckle, J. Gordon; Cross, Jennifer E.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1568653

Cited by 39 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We strongly agree with Eaton et al's (2019) point that the definition of economic dependence should be expanded and considered a standalone SOP dimension. Based on over a decade of research (from Hoag et al 2005 to Keske et al 2017) about what motivates agricultural producers to apply conservation easements on their land, we believe that researchers need to broaden the current view or working definition of economic dependence to include income, wealth generation, and internally derived benefits landowners receive from the amenities on their working lands as examples of economic benefits generated from place.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Reconceptualizing Place to Include Economic Dependence as a Standalone Dimension Eaton et al (2019) summarize mixed findings when SOP is a predictor of conservation outcomes on working landscapes. Part of their discussion explores current conceptualizations of economic dependence as a potential issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We extend its definition to include income, wealth generation, and landowner amenity rents, which are the internal economic (but non-monetary) benefits/satisfaction that landowners derive from the amenities on their working lands. We expand upon a key point made by Eaton et al (2019) in their research note about the trouble with assessing SOP on working lands. Most SOP studies to date have been conducted on high amenity landscapes that are "consumed" for recreational purposes, and the lens may be too narrow to capture SOP complexities on working lands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comment on Eaton et al.’s Reconceptualization of Economic Dependence in “Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes”

Bastian

Keske

Hoag

et al. 2020

Society & Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary expands upon Eaton et al.'s research note about the challenges of measuring sense of place (SOP). Our body of work includes qualitative and quantitative research that supports their finding that landowners have a strong SOP and conservation ethic about their working lands. However, we deliberate on the importance of considering a broader interpretation of "economic dependence" in the context of SOP, which may include financial and non-financial benefits to the landowner. Eaton et al. report mixed results in its predictive power for conservation decisions on working lands. Yet, several issues negatively impacting economic dependence may override conservation management decisions and explain the "mixed" results reported by the authors. We posit that the definition of economic dependence should include both income and wealth generation as well as landowner amenity rents (defined as the landowner's internally derived benefits or satisfaction from the amenities on their working lands).

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comment on Eaton et al.’s Reconceptualization of Economic Dependence in “Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes”

Bastian

Keske

Hoag

et al. 2020

Society & Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, more and more research has examined relationships between farmers' conservation/stewardship ethic and conservation behavior. This "ethic" or stewardship identity relates to a person's sense of responsibility toward land management that improves on-and off-farm resources and/or the well-being of people (Eaton et al 2019). It is possible that underlying farmer values feed into farmer identity, and these identities can influence conservation behavior (Floress et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature

Prokopy¹,

Floress²,

Arbuckle³

et al. 2019

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

349

299

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a comprehensive review of all published, quantitative studies focused on adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States between 1982 and 2017. This review finds that, taken as a whole, few independent variables have a consistent statistically significant relationship with adoption. Analyses showed that variables positively associated with adoption include the farmer self-identifying primarily as stewardship motivated or otherwise nonfinancially motivated, environmental attitudes, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, previous adoption of other conservation practices, seeking and using information, awareness of programs or practices, vulnerable land, greater farm size, higher levels of income and formal education, engaging in marketing arrangements, and positive yield impact expected. Some variables often thought to be important, such as land tenure, did not emerge as consistently important in this cross-study review. Other variables, such as farmers' sense of place, training, presence of institutional conditions supporting adoption, and the role of collective decision making are not measured in enough studies to draw conclusions but potentially have a relationship with adoption decisions. Implications for how to promote conservation adoption and directions for future research are discussed. Because positive attitudes and awareness of conservation programs or practices are positive predictors of adoption, practitioners should share benefits of specific practices and programs and leverage existing practice adoption. Further work to explore relationships between conservation adoption and the role of farmer identity, nuances of land tenure, and the influence of structural factors is needed. Moreover, we suggest that future research should focus on the impact of different messages and avenues of reaching farmers in order to continue to inform conservation practices. Future research should consider both individual and institutional factors that facilitate and constrain adoption.

show abstract

“…Place attachment is hypothesized to lead to behavioural responses when importantly held meanings are threatened, triggering changes in people's experiences and satisfaction with a setting (Devine-Wright, 2009;Stedman, 2002;Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). However, behavioural thresholds may exist whereby additional concepts such as exposure to change, beliefs about consequences, conservation ethics, and perceived threat mediate the relationship between sense of place and engagement in place-protective behaviour (Adger, 2006;Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010;Eaton et al, 2019;Jacquet & Stedman, 2014;Zajac, Bruskotter, Wilson, & Prange, 2012). Understanding when sense of place leads to behaviour change requires understanding the multiple ways meanings create, define, and maintain what a person considers an appropriate relationship with a place.…”

Section: Con Clus Ionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The meaning(s) of place: Identifying the structure of sense of place across a social–ecological landscape

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sense of place holds promise to understand how people perceive and respond to social and ecological change; however, using this concept to explore vulnerability and adaptation first depends on identifying the multiple ways people define their relationship with a place. We introduce the meaning‐dependence framework to account for the broad array of person–place connections within social–ecological landscapes. We applied this framework to private landowners in the Southern Great Plains of the United States, a working landscape experiencing ecological transformation from grasslands to degraded woodlands. Using a mail survey, we explored the structure of sense of place based on the relationship between place meanings and place attachment. We employed complementary analytical methods: correlation analysis, ordinary least squares regression, and machine learning through a regression tree and random forest. Place meanings explained a large amount of variation in place attachment and were characterized by intercorrelations and interactions. Across analyses, experiential meanings reflecting personal psychological connections to one's land were the predominant drivers of landowners' place attachment. Way of life emerged as a central meaning for understanding sense of place on private lands. The meaning‐dependence framework builds on existing research to account for the multiple ways meanings inform human connections to a place. This framework is broadly applicable to any setting and can capture diverse configurations of person–place relationships and increase the utility of sense of place in social–ecological research. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes

Cited by 39 publications

References 50 publications

Comment on Eaton et al.’s Reconceptualization of Economic Dependence in “Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes”

Comment on Eaton et al.’s Reconceptualization of Economic Dependence in “Trouble with Sense of Place in Working Landscapes”

Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature

The meaning(s) of place: Identifying the structure of sense of place across a social–ecological landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About