Abstract
This chapter presents a theoretical framework for integrating Wilson’s notion of biophilia (1984) with Tuan’s (1980) notion of topophilia (literally ‘love of place’). The natural biotic environment core to the biophilia hypothesis represents a crucial—and oft overlooked in urban areas—element of ‘place’ or neighborhood, but there are other elements—neighbors, relationships, memories, landmarks, the built environment—that are similarly emotion-laden and can serve as the basis for action that promotes community rebirth and recovery. As such, resilience in the face of both sudden disasters and slow erosion of communities requires examining these elements in tandem.
Topophilia emphasizes attachment to place and the symbolic meanings that underlie this attachment. Any place embodies a multiplicity of meanings, some nature-based and some not, although some places exhibit a wider range than others. Post-disaster reconstruction of place thus involves the re-building of attachment-affirming meanings that characterized the place pre-disaster and/or the freedom to rebuild spaces in such a way that new, desirable meanings are created and obsolete or threatening meanings jettisoned. It is crucial to remember that these meanings—including those that have biophilia and topophilia-based roots—are fundamentally social and cultural, and therefore often political, in that they vary across social groups possessing differing types and levels of power. In short, some sets of meanings will have an easier path to reconstruction than others. The implications of socioeconomic power differentials—and how they co-vary with symbolic meanings—are therefore significant in the re-creation of meanings.
The authors place red zone settings in a comparative framework. It is widely recognized that resilience is not a general principle, but must always be asked as ‘resilience of what to what’? (Carpenter et al. 2001). Communities that have faced slow erosion of community capacity through outmigration of industry, jobs, services, and youth face different immediate challenges vis-à-vis resilience than communities that have thus experienced violent conflict or catastrophic disaster. However, these challenges may shift over time in such a way as to be more consistent with those faced by communities which have been subjected to rapid devastation. Making comparisons across these community types may help us to gain a deeper understanding of the multiple manifestations of biophilia and topophilia, including how they are played out in activities such as greening, and their role as a source of resilience in social-ecological systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
We will move freely between the topophilia and place attachment language, as we do not see substantive differences between these terms. Much of the empirical research—including that conducted by the lead author in this chapter—has utilized the attachment terminology.
- 2.
References
Alkon, A. (2004). Place, stories and consequences. Organization and Environment, 17, 145–169.
Barthel, S., Colding, J., et al. (2005). History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 352–387.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Weisner, B. (1994). At risk; natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. New York: Routledge.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. P., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259–271.
Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). ‘Place’ as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 87–104.
Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek flood. New York: Touchstone.
Freudenburg, W. R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perception. Social Forces, 71, 909–932.
Freudenburg, W. R. (1997). Contamination, corrosion and the social order: An overview? Current Sociology, 45.
Freudenburg, W. R. (2000). The ‘Risk Society’ reconsidered: Recreancy, the Division of Labor and the Social Fabric. In M. J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in the modern age: Social theory, science and environmental decision-making (pp. 107–120). London: St. Martin’s Press.
Freudenburg, W. R., & Jones, T. R. (1991). Attitudes and stress in the presence of technological risk: A test of the Supreme Court hypothesis. Social Forces, 69, 1143–1169.
Fried, M. (2000). Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 193–205.
Fullilove, M. T. (1996). Psychiatric implication of displacement: Contributions from the psychology of place. The American Journal of Psychology, 153, 1516–1523.
Graff, B. (2006). Positive emotions in residential environments. The residential context of health at the European network for housing research. In Workshop at ‘Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, policy, participation and implementation’ conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59(1), 1–2.
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social-identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Ingalls, M. L. (2009). Growing home: Displaced communities, urban gardening and the re-creation of place-based identity. Ithaca: Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kasperson, J., Kasperson, R., & Turner, B. L. (1996). Regions at risk: Comparisons of threatened environments. Washington, DC: United Nations University Press.
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kroll-Smith, J. S., & Couch, S. R. (1990). The real disaster is above ground: A mine fire and social conflict. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667–688.
Massey, D. (1993). Power geometry and a progressive sense of place. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, & L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the futures (pp. 59–69). London/New York: Routledge.
Matarrita-Cascante, D., Stedman, R., & Luloff, A. E. (2010). Permanent and seasonal residents’ attachment in natural-amenity rich areas: Exploring the contribution of landscape factors. Environment and Behavior, 42, 197–220.
Meinig, D. W. (1979). Symbolic landscapes: Models of American community. In D. W. Meinig (Ed.), Interpretation of ordinary landscapes (pp. 164–192). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. S. (2006). Visualizing the corrosive community: Looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Space and Culture, 9(1), 71–73.
Molotch, H., Freudenburg, W. R., & Paulsen, K. E. (2000). History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review, 65(6), 791–823.
Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. London: Earthscan.
Pendall, R. (2003). Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environment and Planning B, 26, 555–571.
Picou, J. S., Marshall, B. K., & Gill, D. A. (2004). Disaster, litigation, and the corrosive community. Social Forces, 82, 1493–1522.
Pred, A. (1984). Place as a historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 279–297.
Quarantelli, E. L., & Dynes, R. R. (1977). Response to social crisis and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 23–49.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
Ryden, K. C. (1993). Mapping the invisible landscape: Folklore, writing and a sense of place. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Sack, R. D. (1997). Homo geographicus: A framework for action, awareness and moral concern. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development, neighborhood open space and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21, 399–412.
Sideris, L. H. (2003). Environmental ethics, ecological theology, and natural selection. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stedman, R. C. (2003a). Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science, 49(6), 1–8.
Stedman, R. C. (2003b). Is it really just a social construction: The contribution of the physical environment to a sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16(8), 1–8.
Stedman, R. C. (2008). What do we “mean” by place-meanings? Implications of place-meanings for managers and practitioners. Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management. In T. Hall, L. E. Kruger, & M. C. Stiefel (Eds.) (General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-744 U.S). Portland: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of places and discourses of power: Constructing a new sense of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 233–257.
Thomas, A. R., & Smith, P. J. (2009). Upstate down: Thinking about New York and its discontents. Maryland: United Press of America.
Tidball, K. G. (2010, October). Community based natural resource management in disaster relief contexts. Anthropology News.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2007). From risk to resilience: What role for community greening and civic ecology in cities? In A. Wals (Ed.), Social learning towards and more sustainable world. Wagengingen: Wagengingen Academic Press.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2008). “Raising” urban resilience: Community forestry and greening in cities post-disaster/conflict. In Resilience, adaptation and transformation in turbulent times, resilience alliance conference, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tidball, K. G., Krasny, M. E., et al. (2010). Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research, 16(5), 341–357. Special Issue, Resilience in social-ecological systems: The Role of learning and education.
Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: An experiential perspective. Geograhical Review, 65, 151–165.
Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspectives of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3–8.
Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. Middleton: Social Ecological Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 127, 29–38.
Winterbottom, D. (2007). Casitas, healing the wounds of displacement. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology, 8, 77–86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stedman, R.C., Ingalls, M. (2014). Topophilia, Biophilia and Greening in the Red Zone. In: Tidball, K., Krasny, M. (eds) Greening in the Red Zone. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9947-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9947-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9946-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9947-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)