Place and Place-Based Practice in Natural Resource Management
Program Description and Publication List
Daniel R. Williams
January 2013
The social-geographic analysis of place is the central organizing concept of Dr. Williams‟ research
program. Social and geographic concepts of place are receiving increasing attention in natural resource
management, with place-related terms featured more prominently in the technical vocabulary of natural
resource management. Place concepts can be found in textbooks on ecosystem management and are
finding their way into technical documents including the Forest Service's Handbook for Scenery
Management and the Environmental Protection Agency's recently published Community Culture and the
Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. Managers increasingly talk about managing
for sense of place and special places, measuring place attachment among recreation visitors and
community residents, and instituting collaborative place-based planning processes. Professional interest
in these ideas is growing because they shed light on important issues related to public involvement in the
management of wildlands, multi-scale governance of natural resource systems, regional tourism planning,
and community issues of sprawl and open space preservation. Research on these issues are described in
four intertwined research efforts: measuring place attachment, assessing place meanings and sense of
place, enhancing place-based collaborative practices, and the global influences shaping places. Place
issues are also implicated in the other three areas of Dr. Williams‟ research program: Outdoor Recreation
Management, Collaborative Planning, and the Practice of Science.
Measuring Place Attachment
Concepts such as home and community imply an enduring and deeply emotional relationship to a place
and people often form similar bonds with specific sites on public forests and wildlands. These bonds may
grow simply from frequent use of a particular place on a forest or because some place has come to
symbolize something important about a person's identity. With increasing public interest and involvement
in natural resource decision making, land managing agencies need to develop measures and assessments
of these emotional and symbolic meanings and attachments. Such assessments are particularly relevant in
situations where there is a wide divergence of values and perspectives among stakeholders regarding the
appropriate management. Research on social-symbolic meanings is advancing our understanding of how
recreation activity participation contributes to psychological well-being; how attachments to places
contribute to a sense of meaning, identity, and community; how attachments vary across culture and
affect local management regimes; and how place meanings and attachments affect natural resource
conflicts. A key outcome of this work has been the development of standardized questionnaire
instruments designed to measure place attachment among recreation site visitors and community
residents. These scales allow investigators to describe and quantify the nature and depth of meanings and
attachments people have for any place or landscape at a range of geographic scales from campsite to
community, and identify stakeholder groups with differing degrees and forms of attachment that may
form the underlying basis of conflict between competing groups over natural resource management
decisions. Place attachment is being used by land mangers to enhance scenic quality assessments, assist
recreation managers with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydropower re-licensing process,
and map public values in fuel treatment planning. For a discussion of the differences between place
attachment and other place concepts, see papers listed under the topic heading Sense of Place: Mapping
Place Meanings.
Measuring Place Attachment: Notes and Sample Questions
Notes on Measuring Recreational Place Attachment Measurement (1.8 MB PDF file)
Cohutta Wilderness Survey (292 KB PDF file)
Hayward Lakes Area Seasonal Homeowner Survey (270 KB PDF file)
Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area Survey (283 KB)
Mt. Rogers Region Survey of Community Residents (337 KB PDF file)
Shenendoah National Park Visitor Survey (345 KB PDF file)
Related Publications
Williams, D. R. (forthcoming). „Beyond the commodity metaphor‟ revisited: Some
methodological reflections on place attachment research. In Manzo, L. M., & Devine-Wright, P.
Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods, and research (pp. xxx-xxx). London, Routledge.
Backlund, E., & Williams, D. R. (2004). A quantitative synthesis of place attachment
research: Investigating past experience and place attachment. In J. Murdy (Comp.),
Proceedings of the 2003 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium (GTR-NE-314, pp. 320325). Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeast Research Station.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and
generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830-840.
Kaltenborn, B. P., & Williams, D. R. (2002). The meaning of place: Tourists' versus locals'
attachment to Femundsmarka National Park. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 56(3), 189198.
Williams, D. R., Riden, C., McDonald, C., & Uysal, M. (1995). Community Attachment,
regional identity, and resident attitudes towards tourism. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual
Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research Association (Acapulco, Mexico, June 10-13, pp.
424-431). Wheat Ridge, CO: Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the
commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure
Sciences, 14, 29-46.
Williams, D. R., Anderson, B. S., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson, M. E. (1995). Measuring place
attachment: Some more preliminary results. In Abstracts of the 1995 Leisure Research
Symposium. October 5-8, San Antonio, TX.
Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some
preliminary results. In Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium. October 20-24, San
Antonio, TX.
Sense of place: Mapping Place Meanings
A key part of developing place-based practice involves the assessment (or mapping) of social and
symbolic meanings and values and understanding of how these meanings and values are shaped by and, in
turn, shape social and ecological changes across the landscape. Understanding how place meanings are
created and transmitted through society (as discursive practices) is valuable to public natural resource
agencies as they attempt to extend traditional management systems based on expert knowledge to
emerging management systems based on collaborative planning (in which resource managers become
participants and facilitators in a process of negotiating the meaning and use of specific landscapes). This
research has addressed sense of place as an integrative concept for the human dimensions of ecosystem
management and has been incorporated into regional ecosystems assessments such as the Interior
Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Assessment Project and other place-based social assessments in forest
planning. More recent works have sought to distinguish various concepts and approaches often conflated
under the common label sense of place.
Related Publications
Van Patten, S. R., & Williams, D. R. (2008). Problems in place: Using discursive social
psychology to investigate the meanings of seasonal homes. Leisure Sciences, 30, 448-464.
Williams, D. R. (2008). Pluralities of place: A user's guide to place concepts, theories, and
philosophies in natural resource management. In L. Kruger, T. Hall, & M. Stiefel (Tech. Eds.),
Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management (USDA Forest Service,
Tech. Report PNW-GTR-744, pp. 7-30). Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (2007). Snapshots of what, exactly? A comment on
methodological experimentation and conceptual foundations in place research. Society and
Natural Resources, 20, 931-937.
Brooks, J. J., Wallace, G. N., & Williams, D. R. (2007). Is this a one-night stand or the start of
something meaningful? Developing relationships to place in national park backcountry. In
A. Watson, J, Sproull, & L. Dean (Eds.), Science and stewardship to protect and sustain
wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium (Anchorage, AK, September
30-October 6, USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-49, pp. 451-459). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky
Mountain Research Station.
Brooks, J. J., Wallace, G. N., & Williams, D. R. (2006). Place as relationship partner: An
alternative metaphor for understanding the quality of visitor experiences in a backcountry
setting. Leisure Sciences, 28, 331-349.
Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place:
Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 361380.
Snyder, R., Williams, D., & Peterson, G. (2003). Culture loss and sense of place in resource
valuation: Economics, anthropology, and indigenous cultures. In S. Jentoft, H. Minde, & R.
Nilsen (Eds.), Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights (pp. 107-123). Delft,
Netherlands: Eburon.
Williams, D. R. (2002). The social construction of Arctic wilderness: Place meanings, value
pluralism, and globalization. In A. Watson, L. Alessa, & J. Sproull (Comps.), Wilderness in the
Circumpolar North: Searching for compatibility in traditional, ecotourism and ecological values
(Proc. RMRS-P-26, pp. 120-132). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, D. R. (2000). Personal and social meanings of wilderness: Constructing and
contesting place in a global village. In: A. E. Watson, G. Aplet, & J. C. Hendee (Eds.),
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress
Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation (Vol. II. Proc. RMRS-P-14, pp. 77-82).
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (1999). Environmental psychology: Mapping landscape
meanings for ecosystem management. In H. K. Cordell & J. C. Bergstrom (Eds.), Integrating
Social Sciences and Ecosystem Management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy and
management (pp. 141-160). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Press.
Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a
home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 66(5), 18-23.
Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem
management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society
and Natural Resources, 9, 507-521.
Williams, D. R. (1995). Mapping place meanings for ecosystem management (Contract Science
Report, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project). Walla Walla, WA: Icon
Printing. 35p.
Williams, D. R., & Carr, D. S. (1993). The sociocultural meaning of outdoor recreation
places. In A. Ewert, D. Chavez, & A. Magill (Eds.), Culture, conflict and communication in the
wildland-urban interface, (pp. 209-219). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
See also publications list under Place, Recreation Experience and Identity
Place, Globalization, and Landscape Change
This work examines how place or landscape meanings and values change in response to modernization of
lifestyles and globalization of social and economic systems. Critical to understanding natural resource
management conflicts is understanding the social and economic forces causing change in lifestyles and
values and the social processes by which society works through value conflict. One product of this effort
was a special issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism on “International differences in public rights
(and responsibilities) to nature.” In addition the framework of globalization has been applied to
international wilderness and protected area management and amenity migration and recreational homes.
Related Publications
Williams, D. R., & McIntyre, N. (2012). Place affinities, lifestyle mobilities and quality of life.
In Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, J. J. (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality of life (QOL)
research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 209-231).
Springer Publications.
McIntyre, N., Williams, D. R & McHugh, K. E. (Eds.). (2006). Multiple dwelling and tourism:
Negotiating place, home, and identity. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. 373p.
Williams, D. R., and Van Patten, S. R. (2006). Home and away? Creating identities and
sustaining places in a multi-centred world. In N. McIntyre, D. R. Williams & K. E. McHugh
(Eds.), Multiple dwelling and tourism: Negotiating place, home, and identity (pp. 32-50).
Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
Snyder, R., Williams, D., & Peterson, G. (2003). Culture loss and sense of place in resource
valuation: Economics, anthropology, and indigenous cultures. In S. Jentoft, H. Minde, & R.
Nilsen (Eds.), Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights (pp. 107-123). Delft,
Netherlands: Eburon.
Williams, D. R. (2002). Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place. Journal of
Leisure Research, 34, 351-367.
Williams, D. R. (2002). The social construction of Arctic wilderness: Place meanings, value
pluralism, and globalization. In A. Watson, L. Alessa, & J. Sproull (Comps.), Wilderness in the
Circumpolar North: Searching for compatibility in traditional, ecotourism and ecological values
(Proc. RMRS-P-26, pp. 120-132). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, D. R. (2001). Sustainability and public access to nature: Contesting the right to
roam. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 361-371.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M., Williams, D., &. Yonkers, S., (2001). Demographic influences on
environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management.
Society and Natural Resources, 14(9), 761-776.
Williams, D. R. (2000). Personal and social meanings of wilderness: Constructing and
contesting place in a global village. In: A. E. Watson, G. Aplet, & J. C. Hendee (Eds.),
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress
Proceedings on Research, Management, and Allocation (Vol. II. Proc. RMRS-P-14, pp. 77-82).
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, D. R., & Van Patten, S. (1998). Back to the future? Tourism, place, and
sustainability. In L. Andersson & T. Bloom (Eds.), Sustainability and Development: The Future
of Small Society in a Dynamic Economy (Proceedings of the Karlstad International Seminar, May
12-14, 1997, pp. 359-370). Karlstad, Sweden: University of Karlstad, Regional Science Research
Unit.
Place, Valuation and Collaborative Practice
The place concept is integral to the development and application of collaborative planning practices in
natural resource decision making. For many people, outdoor recreation serves as an important context
within which meanings and values for nature are formed and expressed and constitutes a key source of
diverse and conflicted public meanings and values that managers must try to address in resource decision
making. In addition, managers need help understanding how these meanings and values are connected to
social processes and institutional practices for making valuations and decisions. From a social science
perspective multi-stakeholder collaboration, like economic valuation, is a social process for organizing,
ordering, and/or choosing among goods. Emerging theories of planning recognize that these ordering
processes are carried out through a multitude of institutions including markets, science, and various
democratic and legal institutions. Embedded in these institutions are myriad social practices, including
various forms of education, communication, and collaboration. The goal of this research is to help
managers understand the role of these practices and institutions in shaping and ordering public values in
natural resource planning and decision-making. The work below examines the conceptual development of
place-based collaboration and its relationship natural resource valuation. See also the Program
Description on Adaptive Capacity, Collaborative Governance and Landscape Change for case studies in
collaboration.
Related Publications
Williams, D. R. (2013). Science, practice and place. In Stewart, W.P., Williams, D. R., & Kruger,
L. E. (eds.), Place-based conservation: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. xx-xx).
Springer Publications.
Watson, A., Roan, M., Knotek, K., Williams, D. R., & Yung, L. (2011). Traditional wisdom:
Protecting relationships with wilderness as a cultural landscape. Ecology and Society, 16(1),
36 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art36/
Williams, D. R., & Watson, A. E. (2007). Wilderness values: Perspectives from non-economic
social science. In A. Watson, J, Sproull, & L. Dean (eds.), Science and stewardship to protect
and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium (Anchorage, AK,
September 30-October 6, USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-49, pp. 123-133). Fort Collins, CO:
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Kruger, L. E., & Williams, D. R. (2007). Place and place-based planning. In L. Kruger, R.
Mazza, & K. Lawrence (Eds.), Proceedings: National workshop on recreation research and
management (USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-698, pp. 83-88). Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest
Research Station. 230p.
Snyder, R., Williams, D., & Peterson, G. (2003). Culture loss and sense of place in resource
valuation: Economics, anthropology, and indigenous cultures. In S. Jentoft, H. Minde, & R.
Nilsen (Eds.), Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights (pp. 107-123). Delft,
Netherlands: Eburon.
Williams, D. R. (2002). The social construction of Arctic wilderness: Place meanings, value
pluralism, and globalization. In A. Watson, L. Alessa, & J. Sproull (Comps.), Wilderness in the
Circumpolar North: Searching for compatibility in traditional, ecotourism and ecological values
(Proc. RMRS-P-26, pp. 120-132). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, D. R. (2002). Post-utilitarian forestry: What's place got to do with it? In
Proceedings of the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources in the West Conference (Alta, WY,
October 18-21, pp. 114-123). Fort Collins, CO: Human Dimensions Unit, College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State University.
Williams, D. R. (2000). Values discourse and discursive democracy in natural resource
planning. Paper presented at the 8th International Symposium for Society and Natural Resources,
Bellingham, WA, June 17-20.