“We love this place”: place attachment and community engagement in urban conservation planning

• Autorzy: Jordaan T. , Puren K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Conservation planning becomes signifi cant as globalisation and rapid urbanisation challenge the preservation of historical urban sites. As an integral part of communities’ place identities, the destruction of built heritage for development challenges local identities. Protecting built environment heritages can preserve local identity. Also, a paradigm shift in conservation planning supports including local perspectives and knowledge systems for sustainable urban conservation planning and democratic participation processes. Community engagement in urban conservation planning offers town planners insight into emotional values that communities attach to built heritages for incorporation in physical planning proposals. Emotional attachments are traditionally not considered as valid constructs in public participation. However, place attachments can propel communities to constructively participate in development processes if such developments strengthen their place identity, or prompt obstruction if communities perceive developments as threats to place identity. This research aims to explore communities’ place attachment through community engagement to inform urban conservation planning proposals. An action research approach was followed to explore place attachments associated with built heritage resources in two South African communities, Khuma and Stilfontein. The research indicates that specifi cally socio-economic, natural, and aesthetic place attachments assisted the communities to envision urban conservation proposals for future built environments for Khuma and Stilfontein that will be cherished. These proposals were unique for each community due to diff erent underlying place attachments. The implication of this research is that urban conservation should acknowledge communities’ place attachments, as they can optimise the fit between communitiesand urban conservation eff orts.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

place attachment; community engagement; public participation; urban and regional planning; built environment heritage

• Wydawca: Foundation for Young Scientists
• Czasopismo: Challenges of Modern Technology
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 3, no. 3
• Strony: 39--45
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Jordaan T.

• Subject Group Urban and Regional Planning, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa

autor

Puren K.

• Subject Group Urban and Regional Planning, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Bibliografia

• [1] United Nations (Department of Economic and Social Aff airs/Population Division). 2008. World urbanization prospects: the 2001 revision. New York: United Nations.
• [2] Beall, J. and S. Fox. Cities and development. London: Routledge, 2009.
• [3] Cohen, N. Urban planning conservation and preservation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001
• [4] Hague, C. and P. Jenkins (eds.). Place identity, participation and planning. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2005.
• [5] Ferreira, S. “Role of tourism and place identity in the development of small towns in the Western Cape, South Africa”. Urban Forum 18(3), 2007: 191–209.
• [6] Townsend, S. and K. Whittaker. “Being accounted for qualitative data analysis in assessing ‘place’ and ‘value’.” In: J. Schofi eld and R. Szymanski (eds.). Local heritage, global context: cultural perspectives on sense of place. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011: 65–78.
• [7] Altman and Low, 1992. Altman, Irwin, and Setha Low. Human behavior and environments: Advances in theory and research. Vol. 12: Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 1992.
• [8] Proshansky, H., A.K. Fabian and R. Kaminoff . “Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self ”. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1983): 57–83.
• [9] Vedru, G. “Memory and the value of place in Estonia”. In: J. Schofi eld and R. Szymanski (eds.). Local heritage, global context: cultural perspectives on sense of place. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011: 53–64.
• [10] Williams, D.R. and M.E. Patterson. “Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management”. In: H.K. Cordell and J.C. Bergstrom (eds.). Human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Champaign, IL.: Sagamore Press, 1999: 141–160.
• [11] Schofi eld, J. and R. Szymanski. “Sense of place in a changing world”. In: J. Schofi eld and R. Szymanski (eds.). Local heritage, global context: cultural perspectives on sense of place. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011: 1–11.
• [12] Manzo, L.C. and D.D. Perkins. “Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning”. Journal of Planning Literature 20(4), 2006: 335–350.
• [13] Windsor, J.E. and J.A. McVey. “Annihilation of both place and sense of place: the experience of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation within the context of large--scale environmental projects”. The Geographical Journal 71(2), 2005: 146–165.
• [14] Healey, P. “Planning theory and urban and regional dynamics: a comment on Yiftachel and Huxley”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(4), 2000: 917–921.
• [15] Townsend, L.F. “Heritage surveying/mapping/recording: Its integration into the planning processes within the context of community participation and training and job creation”. City and Time 1(1), 2004: 52–64.
• [16] Damer, S. and C. Hague. “Public participation in planning:a review”. Town Planning Review 42 (1971): 217–232.
• [17] Yuen, B. “Searching for identity in Singapore”. Habitat International 29 (2005): 197–214.
• [18] Mason, R. “Assessing values in conservation planning:Methodological issues and choices”. In: M. de la Torre (ed.). Assessing the values of cultural heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002.
• [19] Ife, J. Human rights from below: Achieving rights through community development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• [20] Pearce, J. Participation and democracy in the twenty-fi rst century city. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
• [21] Pateman, C. Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
• [22] Huxley, M. and O. Yiftachel. “New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory”. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (2000): 333–342.
• [23] Sandercock, L. Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1998.
• [24] Puren, K. (ed.). Heritage sensitivity mapping for Khuma and Stilfontein. Unpublished research report for the City of Matlosana, 2011.
• [25] Roos, V., H. Coetzee and K. Puren. “People’s experiences in a natural environment in the Vredefort Dome, South Africa: Implications for spatial development”. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 51(1), 2011: 68–85.
• [26] Jordaan, T., K. Puren and V. Roos. “Exploring placemaking in the Vredefort Dome, South Africa: a mixedmethod approach”. Stads- en Streekbeplanning 55 (2009): 3–15.
• [27] Puren, K., E. Drewes and V. Roos. “A sense of place and spatial planning in the Vredefort Dome, South Africa”. South African Geographical Journal 90(2), 2008: 134–146.
• [28] Jordaan, T., K. Puren, and V. Roos. “The meaning of place-making in planning: Historical overview and implications for urban and regional planning”. Acta Structilia 15(1), 2008: 91–117.
• [29] Neuman, W.L. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011.
• [30] Roos, V. “The MmogoTM method: discovering symbolic community interactions”. Journal of Psychology in Africa 18(4), 2008: 659–668.
• [31] Lynch, K. Image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1960.