Speaker
Description
Emotional bonds between people and their neighborhoods are important for urban planning because they influence how individuals engage with and contribute to their communities. These bonds create a sense of belonging, attachment, and identity that can enhance the quality of life and foster stronger, more resilient neighborhoods. These bonds have been extensively studied, primarily under the concept of place attachment (Lewicka, 2011). Place attachment has been shown to offer numerous positive benefits, such as improved well-being, social behavior, and environmental engagement (Kamani Fard & Paydar, 2024). The broad body of literature has identified several key components influencing place attachment, such as homeownership, age, and length of residence (Lewicka, 2010).
Our study expands this understanding by measuring people-place bonds not only through place attachment, but also through place making, emphasizing the agency of residents in shaping their neighborhoods (Switalski et al., 2023). We used data from a large-scale online survey completed by 5356 respondents across five European cities: Brussels, Geneva, Hamburg, Turin, and Zurich, and conducted exploratory factor analysis and k-means clustering. This analysis revealed three distinct groups of residents characterized by varying sociodemographic profiles and behavioral patterns related to people-place bonds. Our findings challenge the traditional emphasis on homeownership as a predictor of place attachment (Pasanen et al., 2024). Instead, we discovered that other, less commonly discussed variables significantly influence people-place bonds. Moreover, the distribution of these groups varied considerably across the five cities, reflecting local contextual differences. We discuss these variations and their implications for urban planning, highlighting the importance for inclusive approaches that account for the diverse needs of urban dwellers to foster stronger people-place bonds.
References
Kamani Fard, A., & Paydar, M. (2024). Place Attachment and Related Aspects in the Urban Setting. Urban Science, 8(3), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8030135
Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Pasanen, T. P., Lanki, T., Siponen, T., Turunen, A. W., Tiittanen, P., Heikinheimo, V., Tiitu, M., Viinikka, A., & Halonen, J. I. (2024). What Makes a Liveable Neighborhood? Role of Socio-Demographic, Dwelling, and Environmental Factors and Participation in Finnish Urban and Suburban Areas. Journal of Urban Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00927-y
Switalski, M., Torres, M. G., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2023). The 3P’s of place-making: Measuring place-making through the latent components of person, procedures and place. Landscape and Urban Planning, 238, 104817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104817
| Keywords | urban livability; neighborhood satisfaction; well-being; quality of life; comparative study |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
