Ecology and SocietyEcology and Society
 E&S Home > Vol. 23, No. 4 > Art. 4
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Van Putten, I. E., É. E. Plagányi, K. Booth, C. Cvitanovic, R. Kelly, A. E. Punt, and S. A. Richards. 2018. A framework for incorporating sense of place into the management of marine systems. Ecology and Society 23(4):4.

A framework for incorporating sense of place into the management of marine systems

1CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 3CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland BioSciences Precinct (QBP), St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia, 4Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay Campus, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 5Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 6School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, USA


Successfully managing current threats to marine resources and ecosystems is largely dependent on our ability to understand and manage human behavior. In recent times we have seen increased growth in research to understand the human dimension of marine resource use, and the associated implications for management. However, despite progress to date, marine research and management have until recently largely neglected the critically important role of “sense of place,” and its role in influencing the success and efficacy of management interventions. To help address this gap we review the existing literature from various disciplines, e.g., environmental psychology, and sectors, both marine and nonmarine sectors, to understand the ways is which sense of place has been conceptualized and measured. Doing so we draw on three key aspects of sense of place, person, place, and process, to establish a framework to help construct a more organized and consistent approach for considering and representing sense of place in marine environmental studies. Based on this we present indicators to guide how sense of place is monitored and evaluated in relation to marine resource management, and identify practical ways in which this framework can be incorporated into existing decision-support tools. This manuscript is a first step toward increasing the extent to which sense of place is incorporated into modeling, monitoring, and management decisions in the marine realm.
Key words: human dimensions; indicators; management; marine environment; place attachment; values


Marine resources provide critical goods and services that underpin societal well-being (Guerry et al. 2015). However, in common with all natural resources, their long-term sustainability is under threat from a range of complex, unpredictable, and often synergistic pressures associated with climate change (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010, Doney et al. 2012, Pecl et al. 2017) and human population growth and development (IPCC 2014). Given the complex social-ecological context in which marine resources are embedded it has become increasingly apparent that the success of marine resource management is largely dependent on understanding and successfully managing human behavior (Fulton et al. 2011). For example, the inclusion of human dimensions of resource use, e.g., cultural beliefs, community values and norms, in formal laws, regulations, and incentives is known to increase acceptance of these by diverse community groups, adding to the likelihood that these groups will foster proenvironmental behaviors (Jolls et al. 1998). Similarly, understanding human-resource interactions is essential for understanding why certain resource uses occur and persist, and how these are likely to change in the future (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995). This is critical for allowing decision makers to anticipate future changes in resource use, and to proactively develop appropriate governance responses (Boyd et al. 2015). Accordingly, incorporating human dimensions into decision-making processes for natural resource management is critical for the long-term sustainability of marine resources (Fulton et al. 2011).

In recognition of the need to better account for human dimensions in the management of marine resources, there has been a shift away from traditional hierarchical models of governance toward more holistic and participatory approaches that acknowledge and integrate the interests of all stakeholders into decision-making processes (Lange et al. 2013). We have also observed increased research effort to understand, among other things, drivers of human behaviors and indicators to measure behavioral change (Abrahamse and Steg 2013), measurements of natural capital (Smith et al. 2017), as well as ecosystem services and their impacts on human well-being. Despite this progress, models widely used in marine applications to test and evaluate alternative management strategies have neglected the social and human psychological dimension (Fulton et al. 2011), including “sense of place” (SoP). Because these models are used for management decision making, the potentially critically important role of SoP, and the ways in which it can influence the success of management interventions, remain largely unknown (Kaltenborn 1998, Cantrill and Senecah 2001).

What is sense of place?

Following Tuan’s significant work on SoP (Tuan 1974, Tuan 1976), the concept has been discussed and developed in many disciplines, including psychology, sociology, human geography, and economics (Lewicka 2011). This has resulted in wide and varied interpretations of SoP that have originated and been adapted according to practical application and understanding in various contexts. For clarity, we consider SoP under its broadest definition, referring to the emotional bond that people have with a specific place. Fundamentally a positive SoP equates with a positive emotional bond with a place (Bell et al. 2018) and contributes to well-being (Stedman 2002). In linking well-being and SoP, we take guidance from the concept of salutogenesis (Pitt 2018). This term and associated literature originates in medical sociology (Antonovsky 1979) and underscores the link between sense of place, the quality of the environment (Mittelmark et al. 2017), and health and well-being outcomes (Frumkin 2003).

The link between SoP and human behavior is underscored by the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Ajzen 1991). Attitudes and intentions are shaped by the emotional bond people form with a place, and this influences how they conduct themselves, i.e., their environmental behavior, and the decisions they make (Vaske and Kobrin 2001, Halpenny 2010, Newman et al. 2017). Examples from the literature indicate that a stronger SoP will lead to proenvironment behaviors that support conservation and management efforts (Williams and Patterson 1996, Tonge et al. 2014, Sawitri et al. 2015). In contrast, a degraded natural (or built) environment can reduce people’s SoP, which in turn can negatively influence their behavior, leading to increased environmental degradation (Brehm et al. 2006). Furthermore, not only does SoP impact people’s behavior in relation to common property resources, it has also been shown to influence their behavior in relation to privately owned property and resources (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001, Stedman 2003). However, it is important to highlight that SoP is not always positively related to improved sustainability outcomes. For instance, strong ties between identity and place and some cultural practices can affect resilience (Lyon 2014), and lead to maladaptation and poorer environmental outcomes (Câmpeanu and Fazey 2014, Fazey et al. 2016). Nevertheless, it is clear that by no longer ignoring, but instead taking account of, and better using SoP in decision making related to marine resource use, should improve the effectiveness of those decisions and potentially improve sustainable use of natural resources.

Although conceptually the importance of SoP in relation to marine resource management has been identified (Halpern et al. 2012, Gurney et al. 2017), academic scholarship regarding its practical application in relation to marine resource management has been limited to date. This is partly owing to a lack of SoP indicators that could be measured and monitored over appropriate spatial and temporal scales to inform governance responses. To address this, we develop a framework that identifies the key indicators of SoP that can allow decision makers to measure and monitor SoP in relation to marine systems. We also identify how this framework and associated indicators can be integrated into existing decision-support tools, e.g., social-ecological models, to inform the management of marine resources (see Appendix 1 for a detailed example).


The concept of SoP is not new, with theoretical origins stemming from at least Tuan’s fundamental work (Tuan 1974, Tuan 1976). SoP comprises both a person’s or group’s attachment to a place and the meaning of a place, but greater analytical emphasis has been given to place attachment (Masterson et al. 2017). In essence, place attachment is a positive emotion that people have about a place (defined by their place dependence and identity). Another important concept is “place meaning,” being the adjectives that describe the kind of place it is and the images it conveys (Stedman 2003). SoP is a more general feeling about a place (Hashemnezhad et al. 2013) and comprises both place attachment and place meaning.

SoP as a concept was explored in the 1980s through the work of Hay (1988) and Williams and Roggenbuck (1989), who identified the importance of the concept for natural resource management and subsequently proposed a psychometric approach to measure it. Since this time, SoP has been applied to a range of disciplines (reviewed by Lewicka 2011) and various methods to measure SoP have been developed, most typically to elucidate how closely people identify with a specific place and how much they depend on that place for their well-being, such as their income or achieving life goals (Tonge et al. 2014). Studies have also demonstrated that a person’s SoP is not constant, but changes over time, for instance, with experience or learning, and disruption or environmental change (Carter et al. 2007). Insights have also been gained into how SoP might be utilized in decision-making processes to improve resource outcomes (but see Brown and Raymond 2007, Acedo et al. 2017, Masterson et al. 2017). For example, SoP for rural farmers has been shown to increase as their experience in farming grows (Raymond et al. 2010). Although research into SoP has certainly intensified, exploration into its usefulness at a practical level remains limited.

Part of the difficulty associated with measuring SoP in a way that is useful and meaningful for environmental management relates to ambiguity in its exact definition and meaning (Shamai 1991). This arises because not only is SoP apparent in its biophysical attributes, it also emerges as a result of people’s interactions with interwoven and complex social, political, and psychological processes (Williams and Vaske 2003, Tonge et al. 2013). An important dimension of SoP that has implications particularly for marine management, is that a person’s SoP does not solely rely upon being physically located within a place, or being able to physically access that place. Rather, a person’s emotional bond to place also plays a large role. That is, a place can be meaningful and important to a person both in their mind and/or by being physically present (Agnew 1987, Gurney et al. 2017). Hence, a person’s SoP can exist beyond the bounds of a specific physical place, but may resonate within everyday life through memories or photographs, or objects in the home collected from that place (Booth 2008). Complex connections make SoP hard to measure. For instance, the existence of the Great Barrier Reef will contribute to people’s SoP even if they may never visit it (Marshall et al. 2018). Conversely, being forcibly displaced from an area that one has always known, for example, as a consequence of sea level rise, can be very traumatic for groups of (indigenous) people with a strong SoP (Corlew 2012).

In this paper, we use the tripartite approach developed by Scannell and Gifford (2010a) and applied by Lewicka (2011) to build our framework of SoP for marine systems. The tripartite approach conveys attachment to a place as stemming from a combination of aspects related to person, place, and process (Scannell and Gifford 2010b, Zia et al. 2014). A SoP associated with experiences that are related to person, place, and process can be visual, psychological, or spiritual, or a combination of these (Tuan 1976, Mohammad et al. 2013), resulting in an emotional bond that people have with a place (as per the previously mentioned broad definition we adhere to in this research). The various bonding routes are described below.

According to (Lewicka 2011), the person aspect of SoP has attracted more research attention than place and process. Numerous studies across disciplines have shown that strong predictors of SoP are attributes of the person whose SoP is being measured (Jorgensen and Stedman 2006). For instance, length of residence, an easily observable personal attribute, is one of the strongest predictors of SoP. Potentially related to residence length are the experience and familiarity a person has with a place, which also relate to greater SoP (Carter et al. 2007). Similarly, historical connection with a place, including family and religious ancestry and personal investments, e.g., ownership, influence SoP (Brehm et al. 2006). A recent Australian study (Brown et al. 2015) demonstrated that people from coastal areas tend to be attached to smaller defined areas, i.e., one specific beach, than noncoastal residents, who are more likely to be attached to a larger geographical space, i.e., the ocean, likely due to deeper connection to these coastal areas influenced by the factors described above.

Similarly, the place attributes of a landscape can influence a person’s SoP. Place attributes can be estimated or measured relatively easily, although difficulties do arise, given that the potential number of physical features that may affect SoP is infinite (Lewicka 2011). For example, landscapes can be characterized by features such as vegetation, color, texture, and slope (Carter et al. 2007) amongst others, and these may all impact upon SoP. In addition, there are many intangible physical features that facilitate attachment (Kaplan 1984), for example, the turning of the seasons, an enjoyable weather event, or the movement of light across a body of water. Place aspects are multiple, and their inclusion should be based on local circumstance and common sense to ensure they are useful predictors of SoP (Lewicka 2011).

In contrast, whereas measures of person and place may be readily identifiable (observable), the process aspect relates to how SoP exists, and relies on environmental psychology to explain human responses to a landscape (Jacobs 2011, Lewicka 2011). The process component includes the behavior that a person manifests as a consequence of their emotional response to a place and their unique cognitive processes that incorporates their knowledge and memories of a place. The concept is possibly best described as a mental representation where “a place” becomes a “place of mine” via emotional and cognitive bonds. In other words, the place-related self becomes a subsystem of the self (Knez 2014). The process component of SoP reflects a sense of self-continuity, which is the ability to perceive and experience that we are the same person over time (autobiographical memory), extending temporally backward into the past and forward into the future (Hershfield 2011). Autobiographical memory will influence a person’s behavior (Lewicka 2011), but it is a dimension of a person that is not easily expressed in terms of a simple explanatory variable.

Similar explanatory difficulties apply to the (psychological) processes that inform how environmental aesthetics affect SoP and behavior (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Personal, collective, and cultural memories and background will influence how people relate to places, and these relationships are expected to change over time and with experience (Booth 2008). Because a significant part of SoP is embodied within the process of both living and remembering a place, the concept is complex and dynamic and can be hard to define, further complicated by the fact that SoP can arise from entirely individualistic, as well as shared social experiences.


For the most part, empirical investigations of SoP have ascribed meaning to terrestrial places, whereas marine systems have received less attention (although see recent paper by Gurney et al. 2017). There is a body of work on coastal landscapes and communities containing social perspectives on place attachment, from marine resource dependencies (Marshall et al. 2012), and resilience (Marshall and Marshall 2007, Clarke et al. 2018) to, for instance, climate change (Metcalf et al. 2015). There is also research around Australian indigenous people’s relationship with “sea country” (McNiven 2004). Even though this social coastal perspective exists, there is less literature related to how people may feel about, their attachment to, or their SoP, in relation to marine places (but see for instance Jacobsen 2010).

Consequently, there is a relatively low theoretical and empirical understanding of the role of SoP in relation to management of the marine environment. Some attempt has, however, been made to identify differences and complementarity in attributes of SoP in terrestrial and marine settings (Poe et al. 2016). For instance, having a water feature or water body in the environment will increase SoP in terrestrial settings (Wynveen et al. 2010, Tonge et al. 2013, Gagné and Rasmussen 2016).

The small amount of empirical research to date on SoP in a marine context has mainly focused on recreation and tourism use of marine spaces, and specifically, fringing coral reefs. For example, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, Wynveen et al. (2010) ascribed 10 place-related meanings with a balance of place attributes (the marine setting) and person and process attributes contributing to SoP. Place-based attributes included, for instance, aesthetic beauty, lack of built infrastructure/pristine environment, abundance and diversity of coral and other wildlife (Wynveen et al. 2010). Attributes related to person and process included desirable recreation activities, safety and accessibility, and experiences with family and friends (Wynveen et al. 2010; see Table 1 for more extensive list). Similarly, research in the Ningaloo Marine Park and World Heritage Area in Western Australia, also found that tourism-related SoP was influenced by the physical environment (Tonge et al. 2013). In this case, a seemingly paradoxical physical attribute that positively influenced SoP was isolation. People seek isolation in their choice of place and destination, but this isolation then encourages them to seek interaction and close proximity to other people in the camping areas, in essence reversing the isolation. Person and process attributes that influenced SoP in the Ningaloo region included recreational activities, social situations, and social ties (Tonge et al. 2013). In the industrial harbor of Gladstone in Queensland, SoP was one of several social and economic indicators in a report card that provides ongoing snapshots of progress toward specific ecosystem health goals in that harbor (Pascoe et al. 2016).

Aside from these few case studies, the exploration of SoP in relation to marine contexts has remained anecdotal and nonprescriptive, or relates to understanding community relationships to fishing (Khakzad and Griffith 2016). For example, Jentoft (2000) suggested that small fishing communities experienced deep-rooted place attachments, but did not explore the underlying drivers for this attachment. Similarly, a review of fisheries- and marine-related social-ecological assessment projects by Breslow et al. (2016) showed that SoP was one of 38 social indicators of wellbeing. However, the studies reviewed by Breslow et al. (2016) interpreted factors that explain SoP quite differently, with little consistency among studies. For instance, some studies used variables that related directly to the marine environment including “access to traditional marine and coastal use rights” and “invasive species” to contribute to strength of SoP. Others used variables of a more indirect nature, for example, the “number of people involved in place-based activity,” and “the level of engagement of place-based community, households, and families” to contribute to the strength of SoP.

It is evident that empirical studies of attributes of the marine environment that contribute to SoP are limited. Nevertheless, empirically untested attributes are currently used to evaluate SoP in various marine research contexts. A notable use of SoP in a marine context is in the Ocean Health Index (OHI), which measures the health-state of the world’s oceans by means of an index score calculated using existing global data (Halpern et al. 2012). The OHI assesses the ocean’s role in the cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic lives of people through measurement of SoP, which is inferred from two proxies. Sense of place in the OHI is quantified by estimating the following:

  1. lasting special places that are “... geographic locations that are valuable to people for aesthetic, spiritual, cultural, recreational, or existence reasons” (
  2. iconic species that are “ ... animals or plants which are important to cultural identity as shown by their involvement in traditional activities such as local ethnic or religious practices and/or which are locally or more broadly recognized for their existence and aesthetic values” (

The OHI has the potential to influence international marine policy and, although many indicators used in this index are indeed robust, the SoP indicator could potentially be improved by making a stronger link to the extensive (though mostly terrestrial-based) SoP literature and by building upon the limited number of empirical marine-based studies currently available. Clearly there are significant challenges in measuring SoP, but as described above, some progress has been made in providing snapshot measures at points in time.

From a management perspective, it would be useful to be able to quantify how SoP changes over time, both to understand how changes in natural and human-development of environments mediate changes in SoP and how this in turn creates two-way dynamic feedbacks between the human and natural systems. Understanding drivers of SoP, and dynamic feedbacks in social-ecological systems would improve the ability to make forward predictions under alternative, plausible scenarios, e.g., alternative development scenarios, as well as increase the potential for using SoP as a performance statistic to quantify the performance of alternative management scenarios.


Exploring the ocean’s role in people’s SoP is not easy, particularly when compared to the more straightforward measurement of biological or ecosystem indicators, i.e., fish size, biodiversity, or habitat type. Traditional valuation techniques, as, for instance, used by economists, cannot easily measure perceptual and emotional qualities that make marine locations feel special and distinct from anywhere else. Nevertheless, other social survey techniques can give insight, as evidenced by the extensive empirical terrestrial literature (Lewicka 2011). The empirical evidence that is available in Australia is centered on recreation and tourism in protected coral reef areas (e.g., Gurney et al. 2017), where place-based aspects of SoP might be more apparent. The limited number of applicable valuation techniques, and the exclusive focus on special places, means there is little empirical insight into the influence of various attributes of the broader marine environment on SoP.

As we showed in the previous section, the rationale for choice of attributes is sometimes obscure in studies where marine-related attributes have been used to derive a measure of SoP. This is no doubt partly due to limited observational data (Halpern et al. 2012) and the lack of theoretical insight. Nevertheless, the (mostly) terrestrial literature suggests that SoP influences people’s environmental behavior. This behavioral response is likely to be equally relevant in the marine environment. It would therefore seem prudent to attempt to better understand the different attributes of the marine environment that influence SoP.

As a first step, we develop a list of 35 marine related attributes (or indicators). We present the environment and the human domains separately, but acknowledge that they comprise a social-ecological system and are intricately linked (Masterson et al. 2017). From a social-ecological systems perspective, the various attributes are assumed to comprise an interconnected social and biophysical reality (Masterson et al. 2017). The 35 indicators for the marine environment and human domain can be loosely organized into five categories. These categories were developed inductively based on the reviewed literature and relate to the marine environment (A and B) and the person interacting with this environment (C, D, and E) forming a total of five indicator categories reflecting the dimensions of SoP.

  1. marine flora and fauna,
  2. marine ecosystems,
  3. marine connections,
  4. marine experiences and uses, and
  5. objects, stories, and memorabilia.

The 35 attributes (see Table 1) were identified differently for the marine environment and the human domain. The attributes that relate to the marine environment (categories A and B) drew largely on the combined experience of the authors. They were chosen on the basis of indicators[1] commonly used in ecosystem based management (EBM; Rochet and Rice 2005, Shin et al. 2012, Plagányi et al. 2014) and for the purpose of management strategy evaluation (MSE) of fisheries and marine systems (Punt et al. 2001, 2016, Dichmont et al. 2014, Fulton et al. 2014, Pascoe et al. 2017), explained in more detail in the Future Directions section below[2]. The attributes for the human domain (categories C, D, and E) were more substantially based on the above reviewed literature, but also drew on the combined experience of the authors in MSE and EBM (Sainsbury et al. 2000, Punt et al. 2001, Plagányi et al. 2013). Each of the attributes were checked against the bonding routes that theoretically and practically link them to SoP.

We provide a rationale for the inclusion of various SoP attributes under each category and use published evidence where available. For each of the attributes, we identify if there is an associated place, person, and process aspect (Table 1). Where a process aspect is associated with the marine environment (i.e., charismatic and iconic species contribution to SoP is related to a place, but also process in Table 1), it means that the values are location-specific but also a consequence of the emotional response that is person-specific and time-dependent. As described earlier, process-related attributes are sensitive to a person’s different emotional responses to the environment they are in (and their attachment to it) because people are shaped by their personal history and experiences. For instance, a resident in a coastal community might be particularly attached to their local marine environment because of their interactions with charismatic species when they were a child. These memories might make the marine environment a special place for them and their family and affect their SoP.

The list of indicators (Table 1) is not intended to be exhaustive. Moreover, the list needs to be used with the understanding that SoP does not develop through simple cumulative addition of attributes because this would not adequately reflect the nuance of SoP processes. It provides a framework to help construct a more organized and consistent approach to data gathering. Moreover, this ensures that the marine environment is considered and better represented in SoP studies, and incorporated into models used to drive management of the marine environment. This list provides a first attempt to generate discussion and future research relating to SoP in the marine context that will inform future refinements and improvement to this framework. However, as further empirical evidence relating to SoP becomes available, this list should be refined.

Some interesting observations can be made on the attributes in each of the subcategories in Table 1. Most of the attributes in the first two categories (marine flora, fauna, and marine ecosystems) are place-based, with 4 of the 15 attributes also having a process component. The 6 marine connections attributes relate mainly to person and process, while the 10 commercial and noncommercial marine uses are mainly related to place and person. The 4 attributes for marine perceptions and symbolism are person and process-based.

We list several bonding routes (i to xiii in Fig. 1) in line with our broad definition of SoP (the emotional bond that people have with a specific place). The bonding routes in the human domain are based on the reviewed literature, and are empirically conceptualized by Poe et al. (2016), who suggest that a person’s SoP is derived from four processes (not to be confused with the process component of SoP): use of the marine environment; connections to the marine environment; emotional and sensory experiences; and associated human interactions. We also support our choice of bonding routes by additional literature not reviewed above, including the influence of the following: aesthetics (Yi-Fu 1974), cultural use (Poe et al. 2016, Thompson 2016); the telling of stories (Ryden 1993, Marks et al. 2016); being engaged and through exposure (Brinckerhoff 1994), and having mythical and spiritual connections (Steele 1981, Low 1992). For the bonding routes for the marine environment, links are made via native/endemic areas (Forristal et al. 2014); natural areas (Lin and Lockwood 2014); unspoilt environments (Cox et al. 2006, Keske et al. 2017); system health (Horwitz et al. 2001); and waterscapes (Pitt 2018).

The link between bonding routes, attributes, and SoP can be best illustrated through an example. SoP is expected to be greater for marine areas with a high abundance of marine life and a diverse array of species (attributes A1 and A2 in Table 1, respectively). A marine area with rich and abundant marine life is likely to render it aesthetically pleasing (bonding route iv in Fig. 1) and the marine environment is more likely to appear healthy and unspoiled (bonding route iii in Fig. 1; Cox et al. 2006, Keske et al. 2017).


The sustainable management of our oceans relies on the ability to influence and guide human use of the marine environment (Costanza et al. 1998). As outlined in the preceding sections, SoP is likely to influence environmental behaviors and thus outcomes. Most extractive uses of the marine environment, such as fishing, and nonextractive uses, including recreation and tourism, are managed by government authorities, who have different management tools and control methods at their disposition (Cochrane 2002). These same authorities will need to monitor the outcomes of their management actions, and ensure that it is sustainable, both spatially and temporally.

Gaining a measure of SoP can be helpful in several ways. Specifically, our proposed SoP framework can be incorporated into sustainable marine management as a means of capturing the often neglected social and human psychological dimension. Understanding and characterizing SoP could expand the toolbox of management approaches that can be used as levers to achieve desired outcomes. Importantly, SoP can also be integrated into existing approaches for evaluating management strategies and impacts before they are implemented, so-called management strategy evaluation (MSE). MSE is widely used in marine applications to evaluate how effective alternative management strategies are likely to be before they are implemented, and what the potential trade-offs are in terms of achieving prespecified objectives (Punt et al. 2016). MSE is a modeling-based approach that aims to evaluate and compare the robustness of possible management strategies (Sainsbury et al. 2000, Punt et al. 2001). MSE essentially evaluates the consequences of several management strategies to determine the trade-offs in meeting operational objectives (Punt et al. 2016). Some common biological and economic operational objectives for fisheries include maintaining biodiversity, profitable fishing fleets, protecting iconic species, safe employment, and maintaining cultural traditions. For each objective, several indicators give insight into whether objectives may be met (Rice and Rochet 2005), i.e., indicators such as species diversity, mean trophic levels, and average fish size (Kaplan and Leonard 2012, Coll et al. 2016) provide insight into the biodiversity objective.

To date, the indicators (related to each of the operational objectives) that are used to summarize MSE model outputs have been largely restricted to the natural sciences and economics (Dichmont et al. 2008, van Putten et al. 2012, Österblom et al. 2013, Plagányi et al. 2013, Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2017, Nielsen et al. 2017). Even when natural components of the models are well resolved, the relational aspects that underpin their human components often only incorporate economic behavioral drivers, i.e., profit maximization, whereas social, i.e., networks, and psychological behavioral drivers, i.e., social norms, are frequently underrepresented. Indicators that add extra complexity about social aspects of the human system, such as equity, health, and safety, are missing (Fulton et al. 2011). Moreover, indicators that apprise of how people may relate to the marine environment, such as SoP, are exceedingly rare (Lewicka 2011), but could certainly be included as part of MSE frameworks. This includes SoP related to remoter, perhaps unvisited marine environments, because some of the factors impacting these environments can also be the result of human behaviors and activities that originate at a distance, e.g., the consumption and disposal of plastics, and greenhouse gas emissions. We anticipate that the next step, in terms of use of SoP as part of decision-making frameworks, would be to dynamically capture changes in SoP in response to changes in other system components, as well as two-way feedbacks between human and natural systems, to further enhance the predictive power and breadth of decision making tools.

Here, we provide an important first step for incorporating SoP into marine resource management approaches, such as MSE. As we have described above, SoP affects the emotional bond that people have with a place, influencing their attitudes and intentions (Ajzen 1991), and thus their behavior in a terrestrial context, and SoP’s influence on behavior with respect to marine resources is likely to proceed likewise. It is recognized that the marine environment plays a role in our SoP (Tonge et al. 2014), but little is known about the empirical reality of this. A number of ocean and marine studies and indices have used SoP as an objective outcome of a healthy marine environment (Halpern et al. 2012). However, the attributes used to measure SoP are not based on observational studies and neither to date have they been robustly tested. The framework of potential marine attributes that might contribute to SoP that we have proposed serves as a starting point for improving use of the concept in marine studies. In particular, in terms of evaluating and testing the robustness of possible management strategies and the likelihood of meeting operational objectives (Sainsbury et al. 2000, Punt et al. 2001), we also anticipate that the indicators will identify how various management strategies might affect SoP and will provide important information that can guide its research development.


In this study, we have used the tripartite organizing structure by Scannell and Gifford (2010a) and discussed in Lewicka (2011) to develop a SoP framework with 5 categories encompassing 35 marine environment attributes (Table 1), and the processes by which they may affect SoP. By addressing the complex and interrelated dimensions of the person, place, and process that constitute SoP, we offer a holistic approach to understanding and measuring an important human-dimensions concept. This also ensures that our suggestions can be practically applied in existing management to achieve EBM, using approaches such as MSE.

This paper is intended to be a significant first step in understanding, measuring, and incorporating marine SoP, to ultimately improve management of our oceans. Because SoP is an important determinant in how people behave in relation to marine places and environments, incorporating this social dimension into marine management appears essential for sustainable resource use. It should no longer be overlooked, but can in many cases enhance how we manage marine systems. Research on SoP in the marine realm will need to be further developed through trial and application, and we make no claims that such a complex concept will be easy to define and operationalize. We also acknowledge that our framework leaves unanswered questions as to how changes in the marine environment might affect SoP and how SoP dynamics might change behavior in a system feedback. We highlight these as important areas for future modeling research.


[1] The term “indicators” is commonly used in modeling applications, but in the context of this research we use it interchangeably with attributes.
[2] The authors of this current paper initially became interested in better understanding the utility of sense of place in a marine context because they were modeling a local multiple-use marine system to evaluate different management approaches for the marine system and also to better represent traditional owners’ interaction with the oceans (van Putten et al. 2013) and reflecting this in management (Plagányi et al. 2013). The marine environmental attributes and categories are partly based on the authors combined experience in modeling these social-ecological marine systems.


Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.


This research was funded by CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere. We would also like to thank the project workshop participants who contributed ideas and encouraged this research to be undertaken. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their thorough and insightful comments.


Abrahamse, W., and L. Steg. 2013. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change 23(6):1773-1785.

Acedo, A., M. Painho, and S. Casteleyn. 2017. Place and city: operationalizing sense of place and social capital in the urban context. Transactions in GIS 21(3):503-520.

Agnew, J. 1987. Place and politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. Allen & Unwin, Winchester, Massachusetts, USA.

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179-211.

Antonovsky, A. 1979. Health, stress and coping. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Bell, S. L., R. Foley, F. Houghton, A. Maddrell, and A. M. Williams. 2018. From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: a scoping review. Social Science and Medicine 196:123-130.

Booth, K. 2008. Risdon Vale: place, memory, and suburban experience. Ethics, Place & Environment 11(3):299-311.

Boyd, E., B. Nykvist, S. Borgström, and I. A. Stacewicz. 2015. Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio 44(Suppl 1):149-161.

Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995. Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society & Natural Resources 8:381-398.

Brehm, J. M., B. W. Eisenhauer, and R. S. Krannich. 2006. Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. American Behavioral Scientist 50(2):142-165.

Breslow, S. J., B. Sojka, R. Barnea, X. Basurto, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolšak, J. Donatuto, C. García-Quijano, C. C. Hicks, A. Levine, M. B. Mascia, K. Norman, M. Poe, T. Satterfield, K. S. Martin, and P. S. Levin. 2016. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management. Environmental Science & Policy 66:250-259.

Brinckerhoff, J. J. 1994. A sense of place, a sense of time. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Brown, G., and C. Raymond. 2007. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27(2):89-111.

Brown, G., C. M. Raymond, and J. Corcoran. 2015. Mapping and measuring place attachment. Applied Geography 57:42-53.

Câmpeanu, C. N. and I. Fazey. 2014. Adaptation and pathways of change and response: a case study from Eastern Europe. Global Environmental Change 28:351-367.

Cantrill, J. G., and S. L. Senecah. 2001. Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science & Policy 4:185-203.

Carter, J., P. Dyer, and B. Sharma. 2007. Dis-placed voices: sense of place and place-identity on the Sunshine Coast. Social & Cultural Geography 8(5):755-773.

Clarke, D., C. Murphy, and I. Lorenzoni. 2018. Place attachment, disruption and transformative adaptation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 55:81-89.

Cochrane, K. L. 2002. A fishery manager’s guidebook - management measures and their application. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Coll, M., L. J. Shannon, K. M. Kleisner, M. J. Juan-Jordá, A. Bundy, A. G. Akoglu, D. Banaru, J. L. Boldt, M. F. Borges, A. Cook, I. Diallo, C. Fu, C. Fox, D. Gascuel, L. J. Gurney, T. Hattab, J. J. Heymans, D. Jouffre, B. R. Knight, S. Kucukavsar, S. I. Large, C. Lynam, A. Machias, K. N. Marshall, H. Masski, H. Ojaveer, C. Piroddi, J. Tam, D. Thiao, M. Thiaw, M. A. Torres, M. Travers-Trolet, K. Tsagarakis, I. Tuck, G. I. van der Meeren, D. Yemane, S. G. Zador, and Y.-J. Shin. 2016. Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 60:947-962.

Corlew, L. K. 2012. The cultural impacts of climate change: sense of place and sense of community in Tuvalu, a country threatened by sea level rise. Dissertation. University of Hawai'i, Manoa, Hawai'i, USA.

Costanza, R., F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. van den Belt, D. Boersma, D. F. Boesch, F. Catarino, S. Hanna, K. Limburg, B. Low, M. Molitor, J. G. Pereira, S. Rayner, R. Santos, J. Wilson, and M. Young. 1998. Principles for sustainable governance of the oceans. Science 281(5374):198-199.

Cox, M. E., R. Johnstone, and J. Robinson. 2006. Relationships between perceived coastal waterway condition and social aspects of quality of life. Ecology and Society 11(1):35.

Dichmont, C. M., A. Deng, A. E. Punt, N. Ellis, W. N. Venables, T. Kompas, Y. Ye, S. Zhou, and J. Bishop. 2008. Beyond biological performance measures in management strategy evaluation: bringing in economics and the effects of trawling on the benthos. Fisheries Research 94(3):238-250.

Dichmont, C. M., L. X. C. Dutra, O. Thébaud, E. I. van Putten, R. Deng, R. Pascual, J. Dambacher, R. Owens, M. Read, C. Thompson, D. Wachenfeld, E. Jebreen, R. Quinn, M. Dunning, J. Davies, M. Warne, J. Playford, and J. Bennett. 2014. Design and implementation of management strategy evaluation for the Great Barrier Reef inshore (MSE-GBR). Report to the National Environmental Research Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns, Australia.

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, J. E. Duffy, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, and L. D. Talley. 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 4:11-37.

Fazey, I., R. M. Wise, C. Lyon, C. Câmpeanu, P. Moug, and T. E. Davies. 2016. Past and future adaptation pathways. Climate and Development 8(1):26-44.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA.

Forristal, L. J., X. Y. Lehto, and G. Lee. 2014. The contribution of native species to sense of place. Current Issues in Tourism 17(5):414-433.

Frumkin, H. 2003. Healthy places: exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public Health 93(9):1451-1456.

Fulton, E. A., A. D. M. Smith, D. C. Smith, and P. Johnson. 2014. An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level management strategy evaluation. PLoS ONE 9(1):e84242.

Fulton, E. A., A. D. M. Smith, D. C. Smith, and I. E. van Putten. 2011. Human behaviour: the key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 12(1):2-17.

Gagné, K., and M. B. Rasmussen. 2016. Introduction - an amphibious anthropology: the production of place at the confluence of land and water. Anthropologica 58(2):135-149.

Guerry, A. D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I. J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M. W. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P. M. Kareiva, B. L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers, T. H. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira. 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24):7348-7355.

Gurney, G. G., J. Blythe, H. Adams, W. N. Adger, M. Curnock, L. Faulkner, T. James, and N. A. Marshall. 2017. Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(38):10077-10082.

Halpenny, E. A. 2010. Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: the effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(4):409-421.

Halpern, B. S., C. Longo, D. Hardy, K. L. McLeod, J. F. Samhouri, S. K. Katona, K. Kleisner, S. E. Lester, J. O'Leary, M. Ranelletti, A. A. Rosenberg, C. Scarborough, E. R. Selig, B. D. Best, D. R. Brumbaugh, F. S. Chapin, L. B. Crowder, K. L. Daly, S. C. Doney, C. Elfes, M. J. Fogarty, S. D. Gaines, K. I. Jacobsen, L. B. Karrer, H. M. Leslie, E. Neeley, D. Pauly, S. Polasky, B. Ris, K. St Martin, G. S. Stone, U. R. Sumaila, and D. Zeller. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488(7413):615-620.

Hashemnezhad, H., A. A. Heidari, and P. M. Hoseini. 2013. “Sense of place” and “place attachment.” International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development 3(1):5-12.

Hay, R. 1988. Toward a theory of sense of place. Journal of Ecosyophy 5(4):159-164.

Hershfield, H. E. 2011. Future self-continuity: how conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1235:30-43.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J. F. Bruno. 2010. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523-1528.

Horwitz, P., M. Lindsay, and M. O'Connor. 2001. Biodiversity, endemism, sense of place, and public health: inter-relationships for Australian inland aquatic systems. Ecosystem Health 7(4):253-265.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R. K. Pachauri, M. R. Allen, V. R. Barros, J. Broome, W. Cramer, R. Christ, J. A. Church, L. Clarke, Q. Dahe, P. Dasgupta, N. K. Dubash, O. Edenhofer, I. Elgizouli, C. B. Field, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, J. Fuglestvedt, L. Gomez-Echeverri, S. Hallegatte, G. Hegerl, M. Howden, K. Jiang, B. Jimenez Cisneroz, V. Kattsov, H. Lee, K. J. Mach, J. Marotzke, M. D. Mastrandrea, L. Meyer, J. Minx, Y. Mulugetta, K. O'Brien, M. Oppenheimer, J. J. Pereira, R. Pichs-Madruga, G. K. Plattner, H. O. Pörtner, S. B. Power, B. Preston, N. H. Ravindranath, A. Reisinger, K. Riahi, M. Rusticucci, R. Scholes, K. Seyboth, Y. Sokona, R. Stavins, T. F. Stocker, P. Tschakert, D. van Vuuren, and J. P. van Ypserle, editors. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jacobs, M. 2011. Psychology of the visual landscape. Research in Urbanism Series 2(2011)41-54.

Jacobsen, L. 2010. Steam trawling on the south-east continental shelf of Australia: an environmental history of fishing, management and science in NSW, 1865-1961. Dissertation. University of Tasmania, Australia.

Jentoft, S. 2000. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy 24(1):53-60.

Jolls, C., C. R. Sunstein, and R. H. Thaler. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review 50:1471-1550.

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitude towards their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3):233-248.

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. 2006. A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management 79(3):316-327.

Kaltenborn, B. P. 1998. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: a study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Applied Geography 18(2):169-189.

Kaplan, I. C., and J. Leonard. 2012. From krill to convenience stores: forecasting the economic and ecological effects of fisheries management on the US West Coast. Marine Policy 36(5):947-954.

Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kaplan, S. 1984. Affect and cognition in the context of home: the quest for intangibles. Population and Environment 7:126-133.

Keske, C. M. H., R. P. Bixler, C. T. Bastian, and J. E. Cross. 2017. Are population and land use changes perceived as threats to sense of place in the new West? A multilevel modeling approach. Rural Sociology 82(2):263-290.

Khakzad, S., and D. Griffith. 2016. The role of fishing material culture in communities’ sense of place as an added-value in management of coastal areas. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures 5(2):95-117.

Knez, I. 2014. Place and the self: an autobiographical memory synthesis. Philosophical Psychology 27(2):164-192.

Lange, P., P. P. J. Driessen, A. Sauer, B. Bornemann, and P. Burger. 2013. Governing towards sustainability - conceptualizing modes of governance. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 15(3):403-425.

Lewicka, M. 2011. Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(3):207-230.

Lin, C.-C., and M. Lockwood. 2014. Assessing sense of place in natural settings: a mixed-method approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57(10):1441-1464.

Low, S. M. 1992. Symbolic ties that bind: place attachment in the plaza. Pages 165-186 in I. Altman and S. Low, editors. Place attachment. Plenum Press, New York, New York, USA.

Lyon, C. 2014. Place systems and social resilience: a framework for understanding place in social adaptation, resilience, and transformation. Society & Natural Resources 27(10):1009-1023.

Marks, M., L. Chandler, and C. Baldwin. 2016. Re-imagining the environment: using an environmental art festival to encourage pro-environmental behaviour and a sense of place. Local Environment 21(3):310-329.

Marshall, N., M. L. Barnes, A. Birtles, K. Brown, J. Cinner, M. Curnock, H. Eakin, J. Goldberg, M. Gooch, J. Kittinger, P. Marshall, D. Manuel-Navarrete, M. Pelling, P. L. Pert, B. Smit, and R. Tobin. 2018. Measuring what matters in the Great Barrier Reef. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16(5):271-277.

Marshall, N. A., and P. A. Marshall. 2007. Conceptualizing and operationalizing social resilience within commercial fisheries in northern Australia. Ecology and Society 12(1):1.

Marshall, N. A., S. E. Park, W. N. Adger, K. Brown, and S. M. Howden. 2012. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters 7(3):034022.

Masterson, V. A., R. C. Stedman, J. Enqvist, M. Tengö, M. Giusti, D. Wahl, and U. Svedin. 2017. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22(1)49.

McNiven, I. 2004. Saltwater people: spiritscapes, maritime rituals and the archaeology of Australian indigenous seascapes. World Archaeology 35(3):329-349.

Melbourne-Thomas, J., A. J. Constable, E. A. Fulton, S. P. Corney, R. Trebilco, A. J. Hobday, J. L. Blanchard, F. Boschetti, R. H. Bustamante, R. Cropp, J. D. Everett, A. Fleming, B. Galton-Fenzi, S. D. Goldsworthy, A. Lenton, A. Lara-Lopez, R. Little, M. P. Marzloff, R. Matear, M. Mongin, E. Plagányi, R. Proctor, J. S. Risbey, B. J. Robson, D. C. Smith, M. D. Sumner, and E. I. van Putten. 2017. Integrated modelling to support decision-making for marine social-ecological systems in Australia. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74(9):2298-2308.

Metcalf, S. J., E. I. Van Putten, S. Frusher, N. A. Marshall, M. Tull, N. Caputi, M. Haward, A. J. Hobday, N. J. Holbrook, S. M. Jennings, G. T. Pecl, and J. L. Shaw. 2015. Measuring the vulnerability of marine social-ecological systems: a prerequisite for the identification of climate change adaptations. Ecology and Society 20(2):35.

Mittelmark, M. B., S. Sagy, M. Eriksson, G. F. Bauer, J. M. Pelikan, B. Lindström, and G. A. Espnes. 2017. The handbook of salutogenesis. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

Mohammad, N. M. N., M. Saruwono, S. Y. Said, and W. A. H. W. Hariri. 2013. A sense of place within the landscape in cultural settings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105:506-512.

Newman, G., M. Chandler, M. Clyde, B. McGreavy, M. Haklay, H. Ballard, S. Gray, R. Scarpino, R. Hauptfeld, D. Mellor, and J. Gallo. 2017. Leveraging the power of place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making. Biological Conservation 208(Supplement C):55-64.

Nielsen, J. R., E. Thunberg, D. S. Holland, J. O. Schmidt, E. A. Fulton, F. Bastardie, A. E. Punt, I. Allen, H. Bartelings, M. Bertignac, E. Bethke, S. Bossier, R. Buckworth, G. Carpenter, A. Christensen, V. Christensen, J. M. Da-Rocha, R. Deng, C. Dichmont, R. Doering, A. Esteban, J. A. Fernandes, H. Frost, D. Garcia, L. Gasche, D. Gascuel, S. Gourguet, R. A. Groeneveld, J. Guillén, O. Guyader, K. G. Hamon, A. Hoff, J. Horbowy, T. Hutton, S. Lehuta, L. R. Little, J. Lleonart, C. Macher, S. Mackinson, S. Mahevas, P. Marchal, R. Mato-Amboage, B. Mapstone, F. Maynou, M. Merzéréaud, A. Palacz, S. Pascoe, A. Paulrud, E. Plaganyi, R. Prellezo, E. I. Putten, M. Quaas, L. Ravn-Jonsen, S. Sanchez, S. Simons, O. Thébaud, M. T. Tomczak, C. Ulrich, D. Dijk, Y. Vermard, R. Voss, and S. Waldo. 2017. Integrated ecological-economic fisheries models: evaluation, review and challenges for implementation. Fish and Fisheries 19(1):1-29.

Österblom, H., A. Merrie, M. Metian, W. J. Boonstra, T. Blenckner, J. R. Watson, R. R. Rykaczewski, Y. Ota, J. L. Sarmiento, V. Christensen, M. Schlüter, S. Birnbaum, B. G. Gustafsson, C. Humborg, C.-M. Mörth, B. Müller-Karulis, M. T. Tomczak, M. Troell, and C. Folke. 2013. Modeling social-ecological scenarios in marine systems. BioScience 63(9):735-744.

Pascoe, S., R. Tobin, J. Windle, T. Cannard, N. Marshall, Z. Kabir, and N. Flint. 2016. Developing a social, cultural and economic report card for a regional industrial harbour. PLoS ONE 11(2):e0148271.

Pascoe, S. D., É. E. Plagányi, and C. M. Dichmont. 2017. Modelling multiple management objectives in fisheries: Australian experiences. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74(2):464-474.

Pecl, G. T., M. B. Araújo, J. D. Bell, J. Blanchard, T. C. Bonebrake, I.-C. Chen, T. D. Clark, R. K. Colwell, F. Danielsen, B. Evengård, L. Falconi, S. Ferrier, S. Frusher, R. A. Garcia, R. B. Griffis, A. J. Hobday, C. Janion-Scheepers, M. A. Jarzyna, S. Jennings, J. Lenoir, H. I. Linnetved, V. Y. Martin, P. C. McCormack, J. McDonald, N. J. Mitchell, T. Mustonen, J. M. Pandolfi, N. Pettorelli, E. Popova, S. A. Robinson, B. R. Scheffers, J. D. Shaw, C. J. B. Sorte, J. M. Strugnell, J. M. Sunday, M.-N. Tuanmu, A. Vergés, C. Villanueva, T. Wernberg, E. Wapstra, and S. E. Williams. 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355(6332).

Pitt, H. 2018. Muddying the waters: what urban waterways reveal about bluespaces and wellbeing. Geoforum 92:161-170.

Plagányi, É. E., A. E. Punt, R. Hillary, E. B. Morello, O. Thébaud, T. Hutton, R. D. Pillans, J. T. Thorson, E. A. Fulton, A. D. M. Smith, F. Smith, P. Bayliss, M. Haywood, V. Lyne, and P. C. Rothlisberg. 2014. Multispecies fisheries management and conservation: tactical applications using models of intermediate complexity. Fish and Fisheries 15(1):1-22.

Plagányi, É. E., I. van Putten, T. Hutton, R. A. Deng, D. Dennis, S. Pascoe, T. Skewes, and R. A. Campbell. 2013. Integrating indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in managing a natural resource. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(9):3639-3644.

Poe, M. R., J. Donatuto, and T. Satterfield. 2016. “Sense of place”: human wellbeing considerations for ecological restoration in Puget Sound. Coastal Management 44(5):409-426.

Punt, A. E., D. S. Butterworth, C. L. de Moor, J. A. A. De Oliveira, and M. Haddon. 2016. Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries 17(2):303-334.

Punt, A. E., A. D. M. Smith, and G. Cui. 2001. Review of progress in the introduction of management strategy evaluation (MSE) approaches in Australia’s south east fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 52(4):719-726.

Raymond, C. M., G. Brown, and D. Weber. 2010. The measurement of place attachment: personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(4):422-434.

Rice, J. C., and M.-J. Rochet. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(3):516-527.

Rochet, M.-J., and J. C. Rice. 2005. Do explicit criteria help in selecting indicators for ecosystem-based fisheries management? ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(3):528-539.

Ryden, K. C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape: folklore, writing, and the sense of place. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

Sainsbury, K. J., A. E. Punt, and A. D. M. Smith. 2000. Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(3):731-741.

Sawitri, D. R., H. Hadiyanto, and S. P. Hadi. 2015. Pro-environmental behavior from a socialcognitive theory perspective. Procedia Environmental Sciences 23:27-33.

Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2010a. Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(1):1-10.

Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2010b. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):289-297.

Shamai, S. 1991. Sense of place: an empirical measurement. Geoforum 22(3):347-358.

Shin, Y.-J., A. Bundy, L. J. Shannon, J. L. Blanchard, R. Chuenpagdee, M. Coll, B. Knight, C. Lynam, G. Piet, A. J. Richardson, and the IndiSeas Working Group. 2012. Global in scope and regionally rich: an IndiSeas workshop helps shape the future of marine ecosystem indicators. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22(3):835-845.

Smith, A. C., P. A. Harrison, M. Pérez Soba, F. Archaux, M. Blicharska, B. N. Egoh, T. Erős, N. F. Domenech, Á. I. György, R. Haines-Young, S. Li, E. Lommelen, L. Meiresonne, L. M. Ayala, L. Mononen, G. Simpson, E. Stange, F. Turkelboom, M. Uiterwijk, C. J. Veerkamp, and V. Wyllie de Echeverria. 2017. How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: a typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services 26(Part A):111-126.

Stedman, R. C. 2002. Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34(5):561-581.

Stedman, R. C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources 16(8):671-685.

Steele, F. 1981. The sense of place. CBI Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Thompson, B. 2016. Sense of place among hunter-gatherers. Cross-Cultural Research 50(4):283-324.

Tonge, J., S. A. Moore, M. M. Ryan, and L. E. Beckley. 2013. A photo-elicitation approach to exploring the place meanings ascribed by campers to the Ningaloo coastline, north-western Australia. Australian Geographer 44(2):143-160.

Tonge, J., M. M. Ryan, S. A. Moore, and L. E. Beckley. 2014. The effect of place attachment on pro-environment behavioral intentions of visitors to coastal natural area tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research 54(6):730-743.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1976. Geopiety: a theme in man’s attachment to nature and place. Pages 11-39 in M. Bowden, editor. Geographies of the mind: essays in historical in honor of John Kirkland Wright. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

van Putten, I., R. Deng, D. Dennis, T. Hutton, S. Pascoe, E. Plagányi, and T. Skewes. 2013. The quandary of quota management in the Torres Strait rock lobster fishery. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20(4):326-337.

van Putten, I. E., S. Kulmala, O. Thebaud, N. Dowling, K. G. Hamon, T. Hutton, and S. Pascoe. 2012. Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models. Fish and Fisheries 13(2):216-235.

Vaske, J. J., and K. C. Kobrin. 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 32(4):16-21.

Williams, D. R., and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society & Natural Resources 9(5):507-521.

Williams, D. R., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1989. Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results. National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Williams, D. R., and J. J. Vaske. 2003. The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49(6):830-840.

Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Wynveen, C. J., G. T. Kyle, and S. G. Sutton. 2010. Place meanings ascribed to marine settings: the case of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Leisure Sciences 32(3):270-287.

Yi-Fu, T. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environment perception, attitudes and values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Chiffs, New Jersey, USA.

Zia, A., B. G. Norton, S. S. Metcalf, P. D. Hirsch, and B. M. Hannon. 2014. Spatial discounting, place attachment, and environmental concern: toward an ambit-based theory of sense of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40:283-295.

Address of Correspondent:
Ingrid E. van Putten
Castray Esplanade
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
Jump to top
Table1  | Figure1  | Appendix1