Migrants and Non-Migrants Perception and Preferences

  • Na XiuEmail author
  • Benedetta Castiglioni
  • Alessia De Nardi
  • Gianpiero Dalla-Zuanna
  • Johannes Gnädinger
  • Katalin Solymosi
  • Inge Paulini
  • Dóra Drexler
Part of the RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft book series (RFSRL)


The increasing number of migrants and immigrants with Asian origin and a background of religion and philosophy like Buddhism is leading to a growing number of temple landscapes in Sweden, such as the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Building (Thai pavilion) in Jämtland and the Buddharama Temple (still under construction) in Fredrika, which would even be the largest Buddhist temple in Europe when finished. Moreover, the perception and estimation of both migrants and non-migrants are in like manner influenced by this multi-cultural environment (Buddhist Landscape). However, native and non-native people show a different recognition and understanding of temples as a result of their cultural background.


This paper focuses on immigrant and native children, comparing, by means of landscape perception analysis, the role that landscape plays in these children’s relationships with everyday life places. Landscape is here “used” to investigate children’s points of view and different experiences in the frame of integration processes. In this sense landscape is understood as a kind of catalysing tool, linking physical characteristics of a place (denotative) and meanings attributed to them (connotative).

Two study cases in the Veneto region – one urban, one rural setting – are presented, where immigration is currently changing territorial dynamics and social relations. The study focuses on Italian and foreign children aged 12 and employs a diversified qualitative approach including auto-photography as the main research method. Pictures taken by children were also used in photo-elicitation during interviews and focus groups. 462 pictures were collected and classified into different categories, accounting for both their denotative and connotative content. Concerning the last, place attachment, social relationships and functional value are more frequent as meanings assigned to everyday-life landscapes than aesthetic value, collective sense of place, and ecological value. Through statistical analysis it is possible to highlight three different styles used by children in relating with everyday life landscapes: “I am in it”, “We live in it” and “I look at it”. The latter is mostly chosen by immigrant children: their gaze seems more uncertain and hesitant, and yet also more curious and careful. These peculiarities might be enhanced and strengthen as capabilities in the integration process“.


In Romania, several traditional cultural landscapes are of special interest because of their extraordinary quality. Until today they are inhabited and managed by societies of different ethnicities. For the assessment and preservation of natural and cultural heritage, landscape perception by the given group of inhabitants – and not merely the expert’s view – is of key interest. After an introduction to the “ethnic landscapes approach” this chapter presents a method for analyzing landscape perceptions of social groups as well as the result of a first application by Solymosi (2011). We outline a research programme for a comparative landscape analysis for Romanian landscapes inhabited, managed and perceived by different ethnicities.


Green Space Cultural Landscape Landscape Element Immigrant Child Place Attachment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumann, M (1995): Creating a European path to nirvana: historical and contemporary developments of Buddhism in Europe. Journal of Contemporary Religion 10(1): 55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cawley K, English L (1999): Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid. University of Notre Dame Archives, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers A (1998): The chambers dictionary. Allied PublishersGoogle Scholar
  4. Cosgrove DE (1984): Social formation and symbolic landscape: Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan J, Duncan N (1988): (Re) reading the landscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6(2): 117–126Google Scholar
  6. Gallmo G (1980): Buddhism in Ceylon and Sweden. A Comparison. vol 50. Studia Orientalia, Helsinki, pp 43–49Google Scholar
  7. Heidegger M (1971): The origin of the work of art. Poetry, language, thought, Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Newman C, Nussaume Y, Pedroli B, Goodman T (2013) Landscape & Imaganiation. Paper presented at the Internationa Conference on Landscape and imagination, Paris, 2–4 May 2013Google Scholar
  9. Armstrong H (2004): Making the Unfamiliar Familiar: Research Journeys towards Understanding Migration and Place. Landscape Research, 29(3): 237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bagnasco A (1984): Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. Il Mulino, Bologna Barban N, White MJ (2011): Immigrants’ children’s transition to secondary school in Italy. International Migration Review 3(45):702–726Google Scholar
  11. Bianchetti C (2003): Abitare la città contemporanea. Skira, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  12. Bigando E, Bercovitz R, Quintin A, Tesson F (2011): Everyday landscapes and participations. Landscape as a mediator to involve inhabitants in the decision-making process: a singular method implemented in the town of Pau. Paper presented at the International Conference Paysages de la vie quotidienne, Perpignan-Girona, 16–18 MarchGoogle Scholar
  13. Bignante E (2011): Geografia e ricerca visuale. Strumenti e metodi. Laterza, RomaGoogle Scholar
  14. Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F (2009): No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 91(3):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne J, Wolch J (2009): Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6):743–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cardano M (2011): La ricerca qualitativa. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  17. Castiglioni B (2012): Education on landscape for children. In: Landscape facets. Reflections and proposals for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 217–267Google Scholar
  18. Castiglioni B. (ed) (2011): Paesaggio e popolazione immigrata: primi risultati del progetto LINK. vol 31. Materiali del Dipartimento di Geografia, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  19. Castiglioni B, Rossetto T, De Nardi A (2011): Young immigrants and Landscape: cultural mediation and territorial creativity. In: Roca Z, Claval P, Agnew J (eds): Landscapes, Identities and Development. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 67–79Google Scholar
  20. Castiglioni B (ed) (2010): Paesaggio e popolazione immigrata: il progetto LINK (Landscape and Immigrants: Networks, Knowledge). vol 30. Materiali del Dipartimento di Geografia, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  21. Castiglioni B, Ferrario V (2007): Dove non c’è paesaggio: indagini nella città diffusa veneta e questioni aperte. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 114(2): 397–425Google Scholar
  22. Chatterjee S (2005): Children’s Friendship with Place: A Conceptual Inquiry. Children, Youth and Environments 15 (1): 1–26Google Scholar
  23. Chawla L (1992): Childhood place attachments. In: Altman I, Low S M (eds): Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York, pp 63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cologna D, Granata E, Novak C (eds) (2007): Approssimandosi. Vita e luoghi dei giovani di seconda generazione a Torino. Fondazione Agnelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  25. Dakin S (2003): There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. The Canadian Geographer 47(2): 185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Nardi A (2013): Il paesaggio come strumento per l’educazione interculturale. Museo di Storia Naturale ed Archeologia, MontebellunaGoogle Scholar
  27. De Nardi A (2012): Paesaggio, identità e senso di appartenenza al luogo: un’indagine tra gli adolescenti italiani e stranieri. Rivista Geografica Italiana 119(1): 33–57Google Scholar
  28. den Besten ON (2009): Mapping emotions, building belonging: how children with different immigration backgrounds experience and picture their Parisian and Berliner neighbourhoods. Available via childmigration.
  29. Dodman DR (2004): Feelings of belonging? Young people’s views of their surroundings in Kingston, Jamaica. Children’s Geographies 2(2): 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dodman DR (2003): Shooting in the city: an autophotographic exploration of the urban environment in Kingston, Jamaica. Area 3(35): 293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Egoz S (2011): Landscape as a Driver for Well-being: The ELC in the Globalist Arena. Landscape Research, 36 (4): 509–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Farinelli F (1991): L’arguzia del paesaggio. Casabella, 575–576:10–12 Faulstich Orellana M (1999): Space and place in an Urban Landscape: Learning from children’s views of their social worlds. Visual Studies 14(1):73–89Google Scholar
  33. Fortin MJ (2007): Le paysage, cadre d’évaluation pour une société réflexive. In: Terrasson D, Berlan- Darque M, Luginbühl Y(eds): De la connaissance des paysages à l’action paysagère. Éditions Quae, Versailles, pp 223–231Google Scholar
  34. Fua G, Zacchia C (eds) (1983): Industrializzazione senza fratture. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  35. Gabrielli G, Paterno A, Dalla Zuanna G (2013): Just a Matter of Time? The Ways in Which the Children of Immigrants become Similar (or not) to Italians, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 9(39) 1403–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gabrielli G, Paterno A, Strozza S (2007): Characteristics and Demographic Behaviour of Immigrants in Different South-European Contexts. Proceeding of International Conference on “Migration and Development”, vol I. Moscow State Lomonosov University, Moscow, pp 336–368Google Scholar
  37. Garrod B (2008): Exploring place perception. A photo-based analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2):381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gordon J (2010): Place matters: the significance of place attachments for children’s well-being. British Journal of Social Work 40(3):755–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Greenacre M (2007): Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hay R (1998): Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18(1): 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Indovina F (1990): La città diffusa. Daest, VeneziaGoogle Scholar
  42. Joliveau T, Michelin Y, Ballester P (2008): Eléments et méthodes pour une médiation paysagère. In: Wieber T, Brossard JC (eds): Paysage et information géographique. Hermes, Lavoisier, Paris, pp. 257–286Google Scholar
  43. Jutla RS (2000): Visual image of the city: tourists’ versus residents’ perception of Simla, a hill station in northern India. Tourism Geographies 4(2):404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kloek ME, Buijs AE, Boersema JJ, Schouten MGC (2013): Crossing Borders: Review of Concepts and Approaches in Research on Greenspace, Immigration and Society in Northwest European Countries. Landscape Research 38(1):117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leyshon M, Bull J (2011): The bricolage of the here: young people’s narratives of identity in the countryside. Social & Cultural Geography 12(2):159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lim M, Calabrese Barton A (2010): Exploring insideness in urban children’s sense of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3): 328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loebach J, Gilliland J (2010): Child-Led Tours to Uncover Children’s Perceptions and Use of Neighborhood Environments. Children, Youth and Environments, 20(1):52–90Google Scholar
  48. Lombard M (2013): Using auto-photography to understand place: reflections from research in urban informal settlements in Mexico. Area 45(1):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lowenthal D (2007): Living with and looking at landscape. Landscape Research, 32(5): 635–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luginbühl Y (2006): Landscape and individual and social well-being. In: Landscape and sustainable development. Challenges of the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp 29–51Google Scholar
  51. Matthews H, Limb M, Percy-Smith B (1998): Changing worlds: the microgeographies of young teenagers. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(2):193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munarin S, Tosi MC (2001): Tracce di città. Esplorazioni di un territorio abitato: l’area veneta, Milano, Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar
  53. Ng C F (1998): Canada as a new place: the immigrant’s experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nogué J, Puigbert L, Bretcha G (eds) (2008): Paisatge i Salut. Olot, Landscape Observatory of Catalonia, Barcelona, Department of Health of the Generalitat of Catalonia.Google Scholar
  55. Olwig, KF (2003): Children’s places of belonging in immigrant families of Caribbean background, In: Olwig KF, Gulløv E (eds): Children’s Places: Cross-cultural perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 205–217Google Scholar
  56. Olwig KR (1991): Childhood, artistic creation and the educated sense of place. Children’s environmental quarterly 8(2):4–18Google Scholar
  57. Proshansky H, Fabian A K, Kaminoff R (1983): Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1):57–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ramezani S, Said I (2013): Children’s nomination of friendly places in an urban neighboorhood in Shiraz, Iran. Children’s Geographies 11(1):7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rishbeth C, Powell M (2013): Place Attachment and Memory: Landscapes of Belonging as Experienced Post-migration. Landscape Research 38(2):160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rishbeth C, Finney N (2006): Novelty and nostalgia in urban greenspace: refugee perspectives. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97(3):281–295Google Scholar
  61. Roca Z, Claval P, Agnew J (eds) (2011): Landscapes, Identities and Development, Ashgate FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  62. Rose G (2007): Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Relph E (1976): Place and placeness. Pilon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Rudkin J, Davis A (2007): Photography as a tool for understanding youth connections to their neighborhood. Children, Youth and Environments 17(4):107–123Google Scholar
  65. Sevenant M, Antrop M (2010): Transdisciplinary landscape planning: Does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 27(2):373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simkins I, Thwaites K (2008): Revealing the hidden spatial dimensions of place experience in primary school-age children. Landscape Research 33(5):531–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stobbelaar DJ, Pedroli B (2011): Perspectives on Landscape Identity: A Conceptual Challenge. Landscape Research 36(3):321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tattara G, Anastasia B (2003): Come mai il Veneto è diventato così ricco? Tempi, forme e ragioni dello sviluppo di una regione di successo. MPRA Paper No. 18458, available via MPRA.
  69. Tolia-Kelly DP (2010): Landscape, Race and Memory. Material Ecologies of Citizenship, Asghate FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuan Y F (1980): Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape 24:3‐8Google Scholar
  71. Tuan YF (1977): Space and place: the perspective of experience. University of Minnesota press Minneapolis‐LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Vallerani F, Varotto M (eds) (2005): Il grigio oltre le siepi. Geografie smarrite e racconti del disagio in Veneto. Nuova Dimensione, PortogruaroGoogle Scholar
  73. Vanderstede W (2011): Chilling’and ‘hopping’in the ‘teenage space network’: explorations in teenagers’geographies in the city of Mechelen. Children’s Geographies 9(2):167–184Google Scholar
  74. van Lieshout M, Aarts N (2008): Outside is where it’s at! Youth and immigrants’perspectives on public spaces. Space and Culture 11(4):497–513Google Scholar
  75. Woolley H, Ul Amin N (1995): Pakistani children in Sheffield and their perception and use of public open spaces. Children’s Environment 4(12):127–143Google Scholar
  76. Young L, Barrett H (2001): Adapting visual methods: action research with Kampala street children. Area 33(2):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ANL – Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (2009): Die Zukunft der Kulturlandschaft – Entwicklungsräume und Handlungsfelder. In: Laufener Spezialbeiträge 1/08, LaufenGoogle Scholar
  78. Barth F (1969): Introduction. In: Barth F (ed): Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Prospect Heights, Waveland Press, pp 9–38Google Scholar
  79. Bürger-Arndt R, Reeh T (2006): Landschaftsästhetik: theoretische Grundlagen. In: Konold W, Böcker R, Hampicke U (eds): Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Ecomed, LandsbergGoogle Scholar
  80. Drexler D (2010): Landschaft und Landschaftswahrnehmung. Untersuchung des Zusammenhanges von symbolischem Bedeutungswandel der Landschaft und aktuellen Tendenzen in der Landschaftsentwicklung anhand eines europäischen Ländervergleichs. Dissertation, Technische Universität München. Available via TU München. Accessed 14 June 2010Google Scholar
  81. Fairclough G (2003): Ein zukunftsweisendes Übereinkommen: europäische Landschaften für das 21. Jahrhundert. In: naturopa 98: 5–7Google Scholar
  82. Federal Union of Europe Nationalities (2002):,
  83. Finke P (2006): Integration and conflict in Central Asia. Available via MPG. Accessed 21 Sep 2014
  84. Gnädinger J, Drexler D (2005): Nachhaltige Perspektiven für Transsilvanien? Politische Ökologie 96: 58 Gnädinger J, Drexler D, Heinemann T, Solymosi K, Paulini I (2011): Ethnische Landschaften – Ein neuer Ansatz zur Analyse, zum Schutz und zur Entwicklung traditioneller Kulturlandschaften. In: Laufener Spezialbeitrage 2011: 134–137Google Scholar
  85. Gnädinger J, Heinemann T, Drexler D (2006): Perspektiven für eine osteuropäische Kulturlandschaft: die Firtos-Region in Siebenbürgen (Transsilvanien, Rumänien). In: ANLiegen Natur (Berichte der ANL) 30: 5–12Google Scholar
  86. Inglehart R, Baker W (2000): Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, vol 65, pp 19–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kazal I, Voigt A, Weil A, Zutz A (eds.) (2006): Kulturen der Landschaft: Ideen von Kulturlandschaft zwischen Tradition und Modernisierung. Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung, Schriftenreihe der Fakultät Architektur, Fachbereich Umwelt und Gesellschaft, vol 127. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  88. Korff C (2005): Mit den Augen des Urlaubsgastes. Studien zur Natur- und Kulturlandschaftswahrnehmung am Beispiel regionskundlicher Themenwege. [With the eyes of the visiting guest. Studies on nature – and cultural landscape perception on the example of regional thematic paths.]. Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  89. Mitchell T (ed) (1994): Landscape and power. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  90. Moore N, Whelan Y (eds.) (2007): Heritage, memory and the politics of identity: new perspectives on the cultural landscape. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  91. Pelican M (2006): Getting along the Grassfields: interethnic relations and identity politics in northwest Cameroon. Dissertation, University of Halle-Wittenberg. Available via ETH. Accessed 21 Sep 2014
  92. Robertson R (1992): Social Theory and Global Culture. Theory Culture and Society Series. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  93. Sallay A, Drexler D, Gnaedinger J, Heinemann T (2006): Landscape protection and development in the Firtos Region: Experiences of an international student’s project. In: Tájépítészeti és Kertmüvészeti Folyóirat 4/2006: 31–36Google Scholar
  94. Solymosi K (2011): Landscape perception in Marginalized Regions of Europe: The Outsider‘s View. Nature and Culture 6(1): 64–90Google Scholar
  95. The Council of Europe (2000): The European Landscape Convention. CETS No.: 176. Accessed 13 June 2010
  96. UN Statisitcs Division (2003): Social and Housing Statistics Section. Demographic and Social Statistics Branch. Accessed 07 July 2014
  97. Weil A, Trepl L (1998): Warum ist das Heimische schön? Landschaftswahrnehmung in aufklärerischer und gegenaufklärerischer Tradition. In: Stadt und Grün 47 (2): 95–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Na Xiu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Benedetta Castiglioni
    • 2
  • Alessia De Nardi
    • 2
  • Gianpiero Dalla-Zuanna
    • 2
  • Johannes Gnädinger
    • 3
  • Katalin Solymosi
    • 4
  • Inge Paulini
    • 5
  • Dóra Drexler
    • 6
  1. 1.UppsalaSchweden
  2. 2.PadovaItalien
  3. 3.MünchenGermany
  4. 4.Washington D. C.USA
  5. 5.BonnGermany
  6. 6.BudapestUngarn

Personalised recommendations