What is Sense of Place?

Abstract

As noted in the call for this year's papers, " Sense of place has become a buzzword used to justify everything from a warm fuzzy appreciation of a natural landscape to the selling of homesites in urban sprawl. The truth is we probably have no single " sense of place; " instead, we bring to the places we live a whole set of cultural preconceptions that shape the way we respond to the place, and in some measure reshape the place to fit those preconceptions…. " This lack of a common definition or understanding of sense of place, results both from the fact that it has become a buzzword used to suit various purposes, and from the interdisciplinary nature of the concept. To provide a little background for the use of the term, I will review some of the definitions used by various social scientists, and then review my own contribution to that literature by summarizing and expanding on a few of the ideas presented at last year's Headwaters Conference.

Full text

What is Sense of Place?
by Jennifer E. Cross
Department of Sociology
Colorado State University
Prepared for the 12th Headwaters Conference,
Western State College, November 2-4, 2001.
As noted in the call for this year’s papers, “Sense of place has become a buzzword used
to justify everything from a warm fuzzy appreciation of a natural landscape to the selling of
homesites in urban sprawl. The truth is we probably have no single “sense of place;” instead, we
bring to the places we live a whole set of cultural preconceptions that shape the way we respond
to the place, and in some measure reshape the place to fit those preconceptions….” This lack of
a common definition or understanding of sense of place, results both from the fact that it has
become a buzzword used to suit various purposes, and from the interdisciplinary nature of the
concept. To provide a little background for the use of the term, I will review some of the
definitions used by various social scientists, and then review my own contribution to that
literature by summarizing and expanding on a few of the ideas presented at last year’s
Headwaters Conference.
What the Social Scientists Say
Let’s begin with some definitions. Following is a list of five definitions from five
different fields. These examples are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all the definitions used
by various disciplines, rather they are a sample of the diversity and commonalities among
definitions. Hopefully, as a group, they address most of the aspects commonly associated with
the concept sense of place, also referred to as place attachment, topopilia, insidedness, and
community sentiment (1).
Anthropology: Setha Low, “Symbolic Ties that Bind: Place Attachments in the Plaza” (2)
“Place attachment is the symbolic relationship formed by people giving culturally shared
emotional/affective meanings to a particular space of piece of land that provides the basis for the
individual’s and group’s understanding of and relation to the environment.... Thus, place
attachment is more than an emotional and cognitive experience, and includes cultural beliefs and
practices that link people to place.”
Environmental Psychology: Fritz Steele, The Sense of Place (3)
“Sense of Place: the particular experience of a person in a particular setting (feeling stimulated,
excited, joyous, expansive, and so forth).”
“Spirit of Place: the combination of characteristics that gives some locations a special ‘feel’ or
personality (such as a spirit of mystery or of identity with a person or group).”
“Setting: a person’s immediate surroundings, including both physical and social elements.”

Geography: Yi-Fu Tuan, Topophilia (4)
“Topophilia is the affective bond between people and place or setting.” Such ties vary in
intensity, subtlety, and mode of expression. Responses to the environment may be aesthetic,
tactile, or emotional.
Landscape Architecture/History: John Brinckerhoff Jackson, A Sense of Place, a Sense of
Time (5)
“A sense of place is something that we ourselves create in the course of time. It is the result of
habit or custom.... A sense of place is reinforced by what might be called a sense of recurring
events.”
Sociology: David Hummon, “Community Attachment: Local Sentiment and Sense of Place” (6)
“By sense of place, I mean people’s subjective perceptions of their environments ant their more
or less conscious feelings about those environments. Sense of place is inevitably dual in nature,
involving both an interpretive perspective on the environment and an emotional reaction to the
environment.... Sense of place involves a personal orientation toward place, in which ones’
understanding of place and one’s feelings about place become fused in the context of
environmental meaning.”
Breaking Apart the Concept Sense of Place
Between the years of 1995 and 1999, I interviewed a variety of residents in Nevada
County, California about their community attachments (7). In the course of analyzing these
interviews and trying to understand their senses of place, or community attachments, I was
frustrated with the concept sense of place. It was easy for me to understand sense of place for a
person who had a strong bond with one place. I had a much harder time trying to characterize a
sense of place for a person who described strong bonds with one place and very weak ones with
another.
To resolve this dilemma, I examined the different aspects of the concept sense of place.
It seemed to me that sense of place was actually composed of two quite different aspects. The
first aspect, relationship to place, consists of the ways that people relate to places, or the types of
bonds we have with places. The second aspect, community attachment, consists of the depth and
types of attachments to one particular place. Rather than try to describe senses of place that
encompass both of these aspects, I argue that we can create a more meaningful understanding of
people’s attachments to places by thinking about relationships to place and community
attachments as two separate but related aspects of sense of place.
Relationships to Place
Residents of Nevada County described different types of connections with place, which I
have categorized into six types of relationships: biographical, spiritual, ideological, narrative,
commodified, and dependent. This typology should be seen as ideal types, or analytic categories
developed to facilitate understanding. The five types characterize what the people I interviewed
describe as fundamental ways they relate to places. They should not be seen as descriptions of
individual people. Many people are likely to have more than one relationship with a single place,
and those relationships are likely to change over time. Regarding the level of analysis, people

have relationships to places as small as a favorite rock next to the river, or as large as a
geographical region.
TABLE 1 Relationships to Place
Relationship Type of Bond Process
Biographical (9) historical and familial
being born in and living in a
place, develops over time
Spiritual emotional, intangible feeling a sense of
belonging, simply felt rather
than created
Ideological moral and ethical living according moral
guidelines for human
responsibility to place,
guidelines may be religious
or secular
Narrative (9) mythical learning about a place
through stories, including:
creation myths, family
histories, political accounts,
and fictional accounts
Commodified cognitive
(based on choice and
desirability)
choosing a place based a list
of desirable traits and
lifestyle preferences,
comparison of actual places
with ideal
Dependent (9) material constrained by lack of
choice, dependency on
another person or economic
opportunity
Biographical Relationships. The strongest and most enduring relationships described by
the men and women I interviewed are attachments based on personal history with a place. I have
named these biographical relationships. They are characterized by a strong sense of identification
with place and a relatively long residence. In these relationships, place is an integral part of
personal history. As such, biographical relationships require time to develop, and are strongest in
communities in which one has spent more time. People describe their relationships in terms of
cognitive, physical, and emotional connections.
Susie: My house has a history. My fiancée can’t understand why I will have a
hard time selling our house. My dad built the house. He built the rock walls. I
loved being a kid when we lived in that house. We had social family time in that
living room. All my brothers and sisters were older. My dad was very intellectual.

We discussed everything sitting around our dinner table. It was a wonderful time
of day sitting around the table.
Now I live there with my mom, she is 85 and my two little boys.
I have always been really attached to my house. I have planted all those
Christmas trees in the yard. We have a tradition. We buy a living tree right before
Christmas. Two have died, but we have about 12 there. We have a big Sequoia. I
like that I look out my yard and I remember Christmases past.
I feel like I’m a part of this place. I’m a part of the history. When I go into the
supermarket, I know so many people. I’m just really happy living here. My kids
are 6th generation.
Newcomers, also develop strong ties over time:
Natalie: I built two houses there and bought my third. I have basically lived there
half of my life, and you know, it is home. This place is just home, more than LA
ever was. Although I am comfortable in big cities, this is just home. . .The San
Juan Ridge is so much a part of my identity. We have mythology here. We have
two celebrations, community wide celebrations. We all get together. It is the
same ceremony and games and food. There is a real culture here. This place and
the people are infused on my psyche.
Whether one is a long-time resident or a newcomer, spending time in a place creates memories
and experiences, which become part of a person’s individual and community identity.
Spiritual Relationships. The second type of relationships is a spiritual connection. In
contrast to biographical relationships, the men and women I interviewed also described having
significant relationships to places based on something much less tangible than personal history.
They describe relating to place in a profound way, of having a deep sense of belonging or
resonance that is difficult to describe and is often unexpected. I have named these spiritual
relationships because they seem to be more of a intuitive connection than an emotional,
cognitive, or material connection. Although interviewees don’t necessarily use the word
spiritual, they do describe their relationship as a profound sense of belonging, sometimes
mystical, and often intangible.
Cathy: I think it is beyond kind of an intellectual understanding, my attachment
to this place. And it is not even emotional. You know, like when you close your
eyes and you see this. When you go to sleep at night, you know in your dreams. It
is beyond the kind of intelligent, cognitive working mind. This is the place that I
belong. This is where I feel at home. When I am not here, I am always enjoying
other places, but part of me is always ready to be back here. Or feels safest here.
That is why I say psychically, it’s just like there is not a differentiation of myself
and place, in a way. I could not say this is where Cathy ends and her place

begins. Or this is not just her sense of place. This is HER. This is me, this place
is me.
Another woman describes her spiritual connection to Nevada County as something difficult to
understand without experiencing it firsthand.
Natalie: I feel very fortunate that I landed here. I could have ended up in Oregon,
or some other part of the world. I am happy here. It is a very spiritual place, a
very gracious place. You try to explain that to someone who doesn’t live here, it
is very difficult. They don’t believe it is here. It is probably too good to be true.
I was telling you about that sense of belonging, and I’ve found it.
Most people who describe feeling a spiritual connection speak of something they “just
feel” rather than something they looked for or chose. They do not seem to require time to
develop, nor do people describe them as a conscious choice. Spiritual relationship may be
formed with a community or region in which a person was raised, or they may be formed with a
place encountered later in life.
Ideological Relationships. The third type of relationships is ideological. In contrast to
spiritual relationships, which “just happen” and are not chosen, ideological relationships are
founded on conscious values and beliefs about how humans should relate to physical places.
The defining characteristic of ideological relationships is a well-articulated ideology about how
to live in a place. For some this comes in the form of religious or spiritual teachings. For others,
it is secular ethic of responsibility. It should be noted that all relationships to place are based on
ideology, but most Americans are not self-conscious of their beliefs that provide guidelines for
how to live in a place.
Among those people who have a clearly defined ideological relationship to place are
members of spiritual communities. In Nevada County, the largest of those is Ananda Village, an
intentional community devoted to the teachings of a renowned yoga master, Paramhansa
Yogananda. People are drawn to Ananda and it’s sister communities because they want to live
with like-minded people.
Scott: It is a place where you are living with like-minded folks from a spiritual
standpoint. The environment supports that. It is a very very supportive
environment that supports the teachings. To me that is what is most important in
the community. For me it is about a spiritual community. The social relationships
are an outgrowth of the shared spirituality. We share a common spiritual bond, in
some cases we share work, we are all involved in areas of service. That is central
to our spirituality.
In addition to those living in spiritual communities, many residents of the San Juan Ridge
(8) describe it as a spiritual community. Many residents of “The Ridge” share a bioregionalist
ethic with their neighbor Gary Snyder:

Cathy: What I didn’t know is that there was a really large, tight self-aware
community. It is not an intentional community, but it is what we call a self-aware
community. It was much more than I ever expected.
I think part of the ridge culture is a more archetypal inter-species, inter-
disciplinary. It’s a better perspective. We are the newest intruders, “Thank you for
letting us be here.” We recognize that we are all guests here. We are all here in
very tenuous ways. So it is all very tenuous. We have to remain grateful and hope
we don’t get wiped out by a fire.
Residents of the San Juan Ridge are not the only people in Nevada County who have
developed ideological connections to their community. Some people have chosen to be
conscious of their relationship to place without living in a community of like-minded people:
Hannah: My husband and I talked a lot about this idea of, we talk a lot about
these things. About the idea of not moving anywhere temporarily. We feel like,
especially when we lived in San Jose, but all the time prior to that. You know you
are young, you're kind of a rolling stone, you don't own much and you are just
kind of, whatever happens to you, you follow your job.
Well, we made a conscious decision a couple of years ago, right before we bought
a house, that we can no longer be prostitutes to our jobs. And, and what that
meant to us was that the first thing we were going to do was to BE where we
were. And being a part of our community, and living there regardless. And the
most important thing would be how we'd figure out how to do that. I know, a lot
of people don't think about things that way, we think its ridiculous. We are really
comfortable with it. If his job dried up and blew away, the first line of defense in
that situation is certainly not going to be to move. So that's how much rooted we
feel. We kind of think of it as living deliberately.
Although there are big differences between those people living in a spiritual community and
people who have created their own ethic of relationship to place, their self-conscious relationship
to place is an important similarity which is absent from mainstream American culture.
Narrative Relationships. The fourth type of relationships is narrative relationships. We
all grow up with stories of places that teach us both about the history of that place and of our
relationship to it. Gary Snyder, a Nevada County resident, describes stories as an important
aspect of how children learn about their place or home:
You grow up speaking a home language, a local vernacular….You hear histories
of the people who are your neighbors and tales involving rocks, streams,
mountains, and trees that are all within your sight. They myths of world creation
tell you how that mountain was created and how that peninsula came to be there
(11).

The stories that inform us about places include: creation myths, family histories, fictional
accounts, local lore, moral tales, national myths, and political accounts. The role of each type of
story or narrative plays a different role in different cultural contexts. Keith Basso, documents the
role of moral tales among the Western Apache (12). American school children become familiar
with national myths and political accounts as they learn about Thanksgiving and early American
history. Native American children learn about their region through creation myths. Some of us
learn connection to particular places through family histories rooted in one place for several
generations while others learn connection to the larger world through family histories rooted in
migration. Whatever our own personal and family history, we also learn about places and
regions through fictional accounts in books, movies, and television. As Americans, we have
been inundated with national myths about the history of the West. Those images in films and
novels shape our perceptions and expectations about places and teach us how to relate to those
places.
Commodified Relationships. The fifth type of relationship to place is a commodified
relationship. The defining characteristic of the commodified relationship is choice, the ability to
choose a place with the best possible combination of desirable features. In regards to personal
history, commodified relationships have little or nothing to do with personal history. Because
they are founded on choice and a list of desirable traits, commodified relationships typically
result from dissatisfaction with one community and the quest to find a more desirable place. This
relationship is based on the match between the attributes of a place and what a person thinks is
an ideal place.
Bob: The gates weren’t the draw; it was the whole package that drew us, the lake,
golf course, tennis. It is a good elevation. The gates did offer prestige and
security. But it was the total package. My wife would like to be more part of a
town. We like Pacific Grove and might have a home there. The only thing my
wife misses is being part of a real town. It is a trade-off.
I think what we have is more of what we want than other places. It’s not like we
haven’t looked around. We lived in the North East, there is nothing there, and
there is nothing in Southern California. The only other place I’ve considered is
Carmel/Pacific Grove. It is an upscale feel but not high rises. But I don’t want it
twelve months of the year, for the fog. The summers are lousy. That might be a
place to go for the winter if we wanted to get away.
Commodified relationships are based on the comparison of person’s image of the ideal
community with the physical attributes of a community. Not surprisingly a person’s image of the
ideal community changes across the life-course:
Bob: In my 20s and 30s New York was ideal, in my 40s San Francisco was ideal,
and in my 50s and beyond Lake Wildwood is ideal. There is a real sense of
community and you can’t drive down the road without folks waving at you. It is
almost like a resort because people are just reaching out for each other. You don’t
see that in cities and suburbs where folks are transient.

These relationships are more cognitive and physical than emotional. In this relationship to place
the most significant emotional connections are to things or commodities like upscale restaurants
and boutiques, and the natural environment, rather than to the larger community or relationships
with other people.
Amenity migrants are the stereotypical example of people with a commodified
relationship to place. In this relationship place is a commodity to be consumed, rather than a part
of a person’s identity and history or a sacred place. Although many newcomers arrive in Nevada
County as amenity migrants, their relationship to place may be transformed over time into a
biographical or ideological relationship. If, however, they continue to relate to the place as
something to be consumed, newcomers are likely to move to another place if they find a place
with a better list of amenities or if Nevada County changes too much and loses the qualities that
attracted them to begin with.
Dependent Relationships The last type of relationships is the dependent relationship.
The defining characteristic of dependent relationships is the aspect of choice. Typically these
relationships are the result of having either no choice or severe limitations on choice. Some
examples are: children who are dependent on their parents and don’t have a choice about where
they live; elderly who have moved to be near caretakers either in their own home or in some kind
of retirement facility; and people who have moved for a job or to be with a romantic partner.
People who have a dependent relationship to the place, may have made a conscious choice to
move, but it is typically not their first choice. This is the least prevalent type of relationship
amongst my interviewees.
A woman in her forties, moved to Nevada County three years ago because of her
husband:
Helen: I came here because of him. And he did select this area based on a
geographical search of an area that had the things that he was looking for. For
where he was going to live and selected this area and then found employment here
after the fact. So, I mean, he physically selected this area, and he dragged me here
kicking and screaming. (laughs) I said, you know, "Don't you think San
Francisco would be a better place to live dear?" He said, "NO."
Dependent relationships are primarily physical relationships. The relationship with place is
typically based on the need to be near a job or another person. These relationships are noticeable
lacking a positive emotional or mental connection. People in dependent relationships are often
highly conscious of the differences between communities in which they have lived in the past
and their current community.
Community Attachment
A person’s community attachment consists of their experience in a particular setting as
well as their feelings about that place (13). David Hummon describes five types of sense of place
or community attachment: ideological rootedness, taken for granted rootedness, place relativity,
place alienation, and placelessness (14). Based on my interviews with residents of Nevada
County, I have revised his typology to include: cohesive rootedness, divided rootedness, place
alienation, relativity, and placelessness. Each type can be described by a person’s level of

attachment, identification and involvement with the community, past experiences and future
expectations, and their assessment of the place.
TABLE 2 Revised Sense of Place Typology (15)
SENSE OF Home as Local
Type of Future
PLACE Satisfaction Insidedness Identity Attachment Desires
Rootedness
Cohesive
high here (physical,
spiritual,
emotional)
strong biographical
spiritual
ideological
continued
residence
Rootedness
Divided
variable here and
there
(physical,
spiritual,
emotional)
split
biographical
spiritual
dependent
variable
Place Alienation
low there
(physical,
spiritual,
emotional)
weak
dependent
desire to
leave, but
unable
Relativity
variable anywhere
moderate commodified
(biographical)
(dependent)
to live in ideal
place,
wherever that
may be
Uncommitted
Placelessness (moderate) anywhere/
nowhere weak none no specific
expectations
of place
Rootedness. The strongest type of community attachment is rootedness. I have divided
this category into two types cohesive and divided rootedness. I have chosen this distinction
because my interviews suggest that some people have a strong attachment, identification and
involvement with one community and others with two distinct communities. People with a sense
of cohesive rootedness have a strong sense of attachment, identification, and involvement in one
community. They generally have a positive assessment of the place and expect to continue
living there. Mary has lived in Nevada County her whole life, strongly identifies with Grass
Valley and Nevada City and expects hopes to live there until she dies:
Betsy: I grew up in Grass Valley, but now I live in Nevada City. There was
always this rivalry between the two towns. It cracks me up. It is part of me also.
Nevada City is the one that got cutesy first and has the artist colonies. As kids you
could go to Nevada City to see hippies. Grass Valley has always been more
proletariat; it is where the workers are from. There is a part of me that always
identifies with that because I am from a working class family.
I feel really at home here. Well the thing that, you know I never really thought or
understood and that Gary Snyder said—Do you know who Gary Snyder is? He’s
a Pulitzer poet, prize-winning poet that lives up on the San Juan Ridge. One of
the things he writes, and it made so much sense to me when I read it, was that
human beings become, on their cellular level, they become simpatico with their
environment after a certain amount of time. It takes five to eight years of living in
an environment before your body really kind of connects with it.

But that there is just something about the Sierra Foothills, and the western Sierra,
and when I get up into the high country into the granite, that it just feels really
comfortable to me. I love to go visit the desert and I love to visit the ocean, but it
does, it feels foreign to me. It just feels foreign.
In contrast, those people with a divided rootedness think of themselves in terms of two
communities. They have strong attachments to two places and often have distinct identities
associated with each place. Typically these people have a strong attachment to the community in
which they were raised and to the community they have lived in as an adult. Tyler was born and
raised in San Francisco. He has lived in Nevada County for a decade and feels strongly rooted in
both places. When asked whether he feels at home in Nevada County, he replied:
Gary: That's a very interesting question. I was asked that recently by my wife.
She says, “yes,” and I say, “not yet.” And I think it has a lot to do with the roots
of San Francisco. She loves it here. She just loves it here, but I'm not there at
home yet, saying, "this is home."
Well I think it has a lot to do also, I mean my wife lost her mother a few years
ago. So I think, Beth has, and her father passed away when she was young, so
Beth has lost that semblance of her nest, her original nest. So my mother is still
alive at 82, and we go down and see her in San Francisco, so I would say that my
home still is San Francisco, and I think it has a lot to do with my mother still
being alive. I think that when she passes on, I would think that there would be
some type of letting go myself of San Francisco. And, even though my brothers
are still there I would probably say this is home, because I have lost that.
In addition to having strong family ties to San Francisco, Gary also thinks of himself as a city
person and could see living in either Nevada County or San Francisco in the future. His
attachment to two communities is typical of people with a sense of divided rootedness. The
other group of people who fits this category is commuters. If they have commuted for a number
of years, they often have two distinct sets of social ties and identities in their home and work
communities.
Place Alienation. David Hummon’s typology includes a category he calls place
alienation. People who are alienated often have a negative assessment of the place, do not
identify with the place and are not highly satisfied with the place. After listening to my
interviews, it seemed to me that this category actually has several different types of people in it.
Some people are alienated from a place because they have been forced to move from a place in
which they were rooted to a place in which they are not, such as: children whose parents move;
elderly who move to be near caretakers; and adults who move for a job or to be with a significant
other. Other people may be dissatisfied because the place they love and feel rooted in has
changed around them. Although I think the word displaced better describes the experiences of
these people, I have chosen to use Hummon’s label place alienation for theoretical consistency.
Kathryn is an example of a person who is displaced because she left a place in which she
was rooted and has had difficulty establishing new attachments in Nevada County. She was born

in Massachusetts and lived in Florida for much of her adult life. She moved to Nevada County
to be near her daughter so that when she is too old to care for herself she won’t have to be
dislocated then. Although a is very happy to be near her children and grandchildren, she does
not really understand the appeal of Lake Wildwood:
Kathryn: I really don’t feel at home here in Lake Wildwood, or in California.
You know people here just love it because of the four seasons, but they are not
really four seasons like you get on the East Coast. Some places up in the hills it
seems like it, but it really doesn’t compare to places that snow in the winter. I
realize that this is a California perspective. If you lived in the Bay Area all your
life this does seem like four seasons.
I consider myself a member of Lake Wildwood, but I really don’t feel at home. I
don’t identify with it. If you ask me where home is, it is Concord, where I raised
my kids. That is where my heart is home. Not in Florida, and certainly not here.
I would have preferred to stay in Florida. If Helen weren’t here, I would have
been happy to live there for the rest of my life. I really had family there and
thought it was a beautiful place to live. I developed an extended family with my
friends and I really miss them.
Like Kathryn, there are residents of Nevada County who have similar feelings of displacement
not because they have moved, but because so many people have moved in around them. This
category is characterized by the loss of a deep sense of rootedness.
Relativity. The fourth type of community attachment is relativity. Many people who fit
into this category have lived in so many places in their life that they are not strongly rooted to
any particular community. They are more likely to identify their sense of home with either their
house or the world more generally than any particular community. They are also likely to
identify with more than one place, such as people who are bi-coastal. They differ from people
with a sense of rootedness in two ways. They feel “at home” anywhere instead of in a specific
place, and their identity is not strongly tied to their community of residence. Helen feels at home
in her current residence, but she could just as easily feel at home in a big city or different region
of the country.
Helen: I have to say, that I never really selected a place to live. You know in
other words, it was more where a job was, where school was, or where my parents
were. You know, in others words there was never "let's see, where do I want to
live? What am I looking for as far as a place to live?" None of that, you know.
So, just sort of dragged along by fate, coincidences, or whatever.
I lived in New England as a child and in college. My husband got a job in Florida
and we moved there. And then after Florida, my husband and I did make a
decision, you know of leaving an area, and we moved to San Francisco. And, um,
and then, so my-my most part of my adult life I lived in San Francisco. Then, I

started dating my current husband and he lived up here and that's how. . . I moved
here because of him.
You know I don't have any place that I've already lived that I'm longing to go
back to. You know, I don't feel--This is home right now. There is no place else
that I feel closer. I think of myself as a Californian even though I was born on the
East Coast.
In this category, people are likely to think of their house and community as home, but
their sense of home is highly mobile and lacks the biographical and emotional depth of
those with a sense of rootedness. The ability of individuals to feel at home anywhere and
in many places is likely the result of having learned to cultivate a sense of home in a
variety of different communities.
Placelessness. The final category of community attachment is placelessness.
Placelessness is characterized by a lack of place-based identification and a lack of
emotional attachments to particular places. The main difference between relativity and
placelessness is that in relativity people have a mobile sense of “home” and can cultivate
a sense of home wherever they are, in placelessness people do not have an articulated or
place-based sense of home. Michelle moved to Nevada County in 1998 and does not
identify Nevada County or any other place as home.
Michelle: I don’t have a place that is home. Maybe I just feel at home within
myself. I am not a small-town kind of person, like you would think of meeting in
the park and knowing everyone. I left Nashville [where she was raised] and I
don’t want to go back there. I just like, I feel, I like, I feel comfortable. My
partner and I, we are our own little home. We are at home where we are. I
thought, “oh gosh maybe there is something wrong with me that I don’t feel some
place is home.”
Aside from Michelle and one other woman in her forties, the only other people I interviewed
who expressed little identification or emotional attachment to places were people in their late
teens and twenties. Although I think this category is distinct from relativists, my interviews
suggest that developing attachments to particular places is closely connected to the lifecourse. It
seems to me that many young adults have yet to become attached to or develop identifications
with particular places.
Bringing It All Together
I hope that this discussion has helped to clarify your own understanding of your sense of
place, including the relationships you have to various places as well as your attachment to the
place you call home. In separating the ideas of relationships to place and community
attachments, my intention was to highlight the complexity of our sense of place. Although every
place has its own influence on how we relate to it, I think it is also important to remember how
our relationships with and attachments to places are necessarily relational. How I feel in one

place is influenced by the positive and negative feelings I have for other places. Fritz Steele
offers an excellent summary of the relational nature of senses of place (16):
Relationships between people and places are transactional:
• The relationship between people and environment is transactional: people take
something (positive or negative) from and give or do things to the environment;
these acts may alter the environment’s influence on the people.
• I now believe the concept of place should actually be psychological or
interactional, not just physical. The environment is made up of a combination of
physical and social features; the sense of place is an experience created by the
setting combined with what a person brings to it. In other words, to some degree
we create our own place, the do not exist independent of us.
• There are, however, certain settings that have such a strong “spirit of place” that
they will tend to have a similar impact on many different people. The Grand
Canyon and the left bank of the Seine in Paris are excellent examples.
• Settings obviously have an impact on people, both short-term and long-term, and
there are some patterns to this impact.
People have an impact through how they care for, create new social forces, and
design new physical features for settings. This can be positive or negative, short-term
or long-term.
NOTES
1. Low, Setha and Irwin Altman. 1992. "Introduction." Pp. 1-12 in Place Attachment, edited by Irwin
Altman and Setha Low. New York: Plenum Press.
2. Low, Setha M. 1992. "Symbolic Ties that Bind: Place Attachment in the Plaza." Pp. 165-186 in Place
Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman and Setha Low. New York: Plenum Press.
3. Steele, Fritz. 1981. The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI Publishing Company, Inc.
4. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. New
York: Columbia University Press.
5. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. 1994. A sense of place, a sense of time. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
6. Hummon, David. 1992. "Community Attachment: Local Sentiment and Sense of Place." Pp. 253-278 in
Place Attachment, edited by Irwin Altman and Setha Low. New York: Plenum.
7. Cross, Jennifer. 2001. Protecting Our Place: Establishing and Maintaining Place Attachments In the
Face of Population Growth and Change. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Davis.
8. Setha Low, 1992.
9. These categories have been revised from categories described by Setha Low, 1992.
10. The San Juan Ridge, is located across the South Fork of the Yuba River, from Nevada City, the
county seat. Historically inhabited by miners, loggers and ranchers, it was settled in the 1970s by a
number of hippies and back-to-the-landers, most notably, the well-known poet Gary Snyder.
11. Snyder, Gary. 1995. The Practice of the Wild. New York: North Point Press.
12. Basso, Keith H. 1996. "Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Landscape." Pp. 53-90 in
Senses of Place, edited by Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research
Press.
13. Steele, Fritz. 1981. The Sense of Place. Boston: CBI Publishing Company, Inc.
14. David Hummon, 1992.
15. ibid.

16. Fritz Steele, 1981.