Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00686-9 SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE Sense of place in social-ecological systems: From theory to empirical exploration Integrating sense of place in planning and management of multifunctional river landscapes: experiences from five European case studies Laura Verbrugge1 · Matthias Buchecker2 · Xavier Garcia3 · Sarah Gottwald4 · Stefanie Müller2 · Søren Præstholm5 · Anton Stahl Olafsson6 Received: 15 September 2018 / Accepted: 13 March 2019 / Published online: 23 March 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract River landscapes are complex social-ecological systems with many benefits for people. A common challenge is to integrate social values in river planning and management. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the meaning and significance of place in river recreation and how people feel emotionally and spiritually connected to river landscapes. Based on five European case studies, this study compares different methods and approaches for mapping sense of place in river landscapes and subsequently addresses the question of how these studies can inform participatory processes. The case studies are set in diverse geographical, institutional and policy contexts, including the planning and evaluation of river restoration projects in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Spain and the monitoring of the effects of newly constructed river dams in the Neth- erlands. This comparative study is a first step in understanding the breadth of analytical and spatial approaches that can be used to assess sense of place in river landscapes and their implications for resilient river landscape planning and management. Keywords Place attachment · Place meanings · PPGIS · Public participation · River restoration · Social-ecological system Introduction Rivers are important for sustaining people’s quality of life not only by providing services such as food, water, transpor- tation and recreation, but also through less tangible assets, Handled by: Johan P. Enqvist, University of Cape Town such as aesthetic, spiritual or other place based values Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, South Africa. (Everard and Moggridge 2012; Yeakley et al. 2016). River landscapes in Europe are cultural landscapes evolving from Electronic supplementary material The online version of this a long history of human–nature interactions. They can act article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00686​-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. 4 * Laura Verbrugge Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University lauraverbrugge1@gmail.com Hannover, Herrenhäuserstr. 2, 30419 Hannover, Germany 5 1 Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Department of Water Engineering and Management, Management, Forest and Landscape College, University University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, of Copenhagen, Nødebovej 77A, 3480 Fredensborg, The Netherlands Denmark 2 Research Unit Economics and Social Sciences, Swiss Federal 6 Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Research Institute WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 3 Institute of Regional and Metropolitan 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Studies of Barcelona, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Plaça del Coneixement, edifici MRA, 08193 Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 670 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 as connectors or dividers of people and places, and their such as sense of place, are, therefore, difficult to incorporate role and appearance change over time due to the reciprocal in existing procedural frameworks. It is generally assumed exercises of power by both humans (e.g. damming, chan- that people ‘automatically’ benefit from implemented river nelization) and natural forces (e.g. floods) (Schönach 2017). measures due to enhanced recreational opportunities and As such, they can be considered as “agents of cultural power more attractive residential areas; however, monitoring meas- by which social and subjective identities evolve” (Brunck- ures to ensure that this is in fact the case are seldom imple- horst 2000, p. 31). Climate change, urbanization and increas- mented (Junker et al. 2007). ing competition for different land and water uses represent Outdoor recreation is tied to places, and hence, there significant challenges for river and floodplain management seems to be a need for assessment and monitoring programs (Rojas et al. 2013). The recognition that past, current and that focus on sense of place and are contextually relevant future developments are a result of complex societal and under the newer resilience-based approaches to river man- natural interactions has led to the conceptualization of riv- agement (Parsons et al. 2016). River management is con- ers as social-ecological systems (e.g. Parsons et al. 2016; cerned with creating socially desirable conditions, such as Dunham et al. 2018; Sendzimir et al. 2018). flood safe areas, areas of high ecological value or attractive Understanding social-ecological systems requires new recreational areas. A resilient social-ecological system is not approaches and indicators that not only consider the current by definition one that is socially desirable, but this requires and future biophysical state but also the continued provision a normative judgment of what are ‘desirable systems states’ of benefits for people (Walker and Salt 2006; Ives and Ken- (Carpenter et al. 2001; Stedman 2016). This leads to the dal 2014). Such insights are needed to develop resilience- question of which river attributes are important to whom, based river management strategies that sustain or enhance how they enable or enhance the creation of meanings and the capacity of an ecosystem (including people) to maintain attachment and what system states enable or support these its basic functions and structures at times of disturbances values. Developing integrated methods and indicators for (Walker and Salt 2006). Several authors have argued that the measuring sense of place will enable the exchange of values sense of place concept offers a way to study the subjective, and knowledge between the different actors involved (e.g. cultural and relational dimensions of benefits (or services) citizens and planners) (Masterson et al. 2017b). that people receive from nature and that they may help to The overall aim of this study was to provide insights into explain people’s positions in decision-making processes the underlying assumptions of and motivations for measur- (Cantrill and Senecah 2001; Hausmann et al. 2016; Master- ing sense of place in river landscapes and to explore the son et al. 2017a, b; Stedman 2016). potential of sense of place research for supporting planning As yet, this new social-ecological systems approach is and management of multifunctional river landscapes. Here, only to some degree reflected in practice, and rivers and we understand river planning and management as a broad floodplains are often seen primarily as physical resources term including river restoration, river maintenance and adap- to be managed, controlled, allocated and conserved (Hill- tation to flood risk. Based on five European cases, we com- man2009) rather than places of social and cultural values. pare different methods and approaches for mapping sense Despite a trend towards integrated and adaptive approaches of place of residents and other users of river landscapes and in river restoration and management (Pahl-Wostl 2015; discuss their benefits and limitations. Two questions will Angelopoulos et al. 2017), difficulties often remain with guide the cases’ study analyses: embedding local community perspectives in decision mak- ing processes (Fliervoet et al. 2015; Henze et al. 2018). R1: How is sense of place conceptualized and measured Moreover, legal requirements (e.g. the Water Framework in each study? Directive and Flood Risk Management Directive in Europe) R2: What is the potential of these studies to support par- are often limited to two dimensions, i.e. biodiversity and ticipatory planning and management of river landscapes? flood reduction (Straatsma et al. 2017), thereby excluding other pertinent issues such as social justice and place disrup- tion that are attributed to place change (Burley et al. 2007; Background Begg 2018). Chan et al. (2012) outline three main challenges for The extensive literature on sense of place stretches many the integration of social values in ecosystem assessments, disciplines. Stedman (Stedman 2002, p. 561; based on including the difficulty to quantify non-material values, the Tuan 1977) provides a useful definition of the concept difficulty in linking them to specific system or landscape that includes the “meanings of and attachment to a set- changes, and the fact that benefits may be associated to any ting held by an individual or group”. Place meanings are service provided, not just cultural ones. Non-material values, often elicited through qualitative research focusing on 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 671 people’s descriptions of places and the importance for decision-making processes addressing environmental change their identity and livelihoods (e.g. Kianicka et al. 2006). (Agyeman et al. 2009; Adger et al. 2011). Environmental Some examples of place meanings in a river context are decisions are embedded in broader social dynamics that the following: link personal appraisals of place with structural processes of conflict, inequality and exclusion (Di Masso et al. 2017). • For floodplain residents, the river landscape may be seen While decisions on flood risk management can have a major as their home and may remind them of many individual impact on local communities, they are not necessarily much and collective stories (Junker et al. 2007). involved in policy processes, thereby limiting their opportu- • For recreationists, the river can foremost be a scenic or nities to influence such decisions (Junker et al. 2007). More- tranquil landscape (e.g. the river as ‘tonic’) (Davenport over, people may be less inclined to share their emotional and Anderson 2005). ties to a place in traditional public involvement frameworks, • For environmentalists, rivers may primarily represent an suggesting the need for other approaches (Brandenburg and ecosystem for natural species and an expression of eco- Carroll 1995). logical values (Menzel and Buchecker 2013). A third reason lies in the importance of sense of place • For elderly locals or nearby farmers, it may also be a for understanding people’s environmental concerns, pro- symbol of the community’s achievement to control the environmental behaviour and well-being. Recent research river (e.g. with dikes) (Buijs 2009). has shown that variables measuring people–place bonds are better at predicting environmental concern than socio- This comparative study understands sense of place in demographic variables (Brehm et al. 2013; Armstrong and the context of such qualitative place meanings, but also in Stedman 2018). A study among 212 inhabitants of Reunion the context of place attachment, i.e. place as an attitude Island highlights the need for environmental managers to object (Williams 2008). Place attachment (Altman and consider place meanings and place dependence, especially Low 1992) is often measured using psychometric scales when they wish to improve human quality of life and pro- distinguishing between different dimensions such as place mote pro-environmental behavior (Junot et al. 2018). A pre- identity and place dependence (Williams and Vaske 2003). vious qualitative study conducted in the Caldes region in Place identity refers to a deep symbolic attachment (the Spain found that those residents who reported a stronger place becomes a part of your self-identity) (Proshansky attachment to the stream landscape were more committed et al. 1983, see also Ingalls and Stedman (2017) for a to its conservation and rehabilitation (Benages-Albert et al. discussion of self-identity in social-ecological systems), 2015). whereas place dependence is a more functional attachment Finally, sense of place research can be a good starting which highlights how the place supports certain activi- point for communication about complex environmental ties (e.g. boating, fishing) (e.g. Kyle et al. 2005, Stedman issues and public engagement initiatives (Nicolosi and 2003). Such quantitative measures can bring insights into Corbett 2018). For example, one of the recommenda- the strength of connections between people and places in tions from an explorative study among local watershed river landscapes. residents in Wisconsin was to develop different outreach There are several important reasons for river manag- strategies for segments of the population that shared simi- ers in particular to consider people–place bonds. A first lar place meanings (Simoni and Floress 2015). reason is related to the consequences of large-scale river While sense of place research has the potential to bridge adaptation measures for local communities. Quinn et al. the current gap between river management and the relation- (2018) surveyed residents of two towns in France who ships that people develop with river landscapes, there is still employed different strategies to cope with flood risk: one a paucity of research on this topic and a limited understand- village adopted a ‘living with the flood’ strategy while the ing of the contribution of such local knowledge and values other opted for elimination of risk through dike reinforce- for planning and decision-making (Hillman 2009; Floress ment (‘command and control’ strategy). While residents et al. 2015). of the first village remained to see the river as a dynamic system and had collective memory of floods, inhabitants of the other village lost not only the view of the river, but Methods also their connection to the river (Quinn et al. 2018). A challenge thus lies in keeping or re-establishing a connec- Case study selection tion to the river so that local communities can continue to form people–place bonds. We compared five case studies set in different geo- A second point is that considerations of place attach- graphical, institutional and policy contexts, including ment and place meanings are currently underrepresented in the planning and evaluation of river restoration projects 13 672 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 Fig. 1  Location and main characteristics of the case study areas in Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Spain and the Framework for assessing rivers as social‑ecological monitoring of the effects of newly constructed river dams systems in the Netherlands (Fig. 1). The overall criterion for selec- tion of the case studies was that in each case research- The choice for using certain concepts and indicators in assess- ers had collected and analysed (spatial) data on sense of ments are not always consciously made, or may be understood place in river floodplains in Europe. In addition, all case differently by researchers and stakeholders involved. Moreo- studies are embedded in a multi-actor setting involving ver, social valuation methods can be employed in different governments, researchers and societal stakeholders and ways as to serve different purposes, for example to quantify have the intent to use the information for planning or existing services or to elicit new stakeholder perspectives or management purposes. In such transdisciplinary research stories (Tadaki et al. 2017). Parsons et al. (2016) developed a environments, a contextual inquiry using case studies is framework for the inclusion of social and ecological aspects of a preferred approach in order to capture answers to ques- river ecosystems in river management, using principles from tions as to how something did (or did not) work out (Yin resilience thinking and adaptive management. This framework 1994). All studies were carried out in mixed rural/urban consists of three tiers, focusing on motivations and drivers areas and encompassed an 8–140 km stretch of the river. (why), specific attributes (what), and models, metrics, tools Among the five cases, there is sufficient diversity in and procedures (how). Here, we apply it to investigate sense scope, management phase and stakeholder interaction to of place as an indicator for monitoring river landscapes as ensure that many lessons can be learned by (future) river social-ecological systems (Fig. 2). In addition to the why, what managers. Each case study is represented by at least one and how questions, we also report relevant research outcomes co-author who was involved in the study design and data and their implications for river management and facilitating collection, ensuring that we can document the necessary participatory processes. Not all case studies will have clear- information, as well as additional insights and experi- cut results as some are still in progress, but these can report ences in navigating the science–policy interface. In addi- on intended outcomes instead. In the next section, we focus tion, available reports and other publications were used on the findings from the comparison of the five case studies as data sources. rather than each case individually. These insights are based on 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 673 Fig. 2  Framework for evaluating sense of place (SoP) assessments in the five case studies (Adapted from Parsons et al. 2016) detailed case study descriptions in the Supplementary Mate- preferences and values, i.e. public participation GIS (PPGIS) rial (ESM1 and ESM2). A summarized overview of the main (e.g. Brown and Reed 2009). All projects were initiated by a findings is available in Table 1. governmental organization or a partnership of stakeholders (including a governmental organization), with the exception of the Caldes study where researchers took the initiative. Results The projects were funded either by a governmental organiza- tion, national or European research funding or a combination Motivations and drivers for measuring sense thereof. of place Conceptualization and operationalization of sense Broadly speaking, all case studies aim to integrate sense of of place place in an assessment of the impact of human interventions in river landscapes. However, there are some important dif- In the case studies, sense of place was either seen as part ferences to note. Two case studies highlight the potential of a set of landscape values or framed in a recreational of sense of place research to define desirable and locally context. These different points of departures in the inves- meaningful characteristics for preservation as well as sites tigation greatly influenced study outcomes, as can be seen that need improvement (Caldes and Lahn) or sites where from a comparison of the Skjern and Lahn cases. In the landscape values may be in conflict (Caldes). The three other Danish Skjern study, researchers asked people to map studies are mainly interested in potential changes in sense of places for outdoor recreation and then measured attach- place because of (planned) interventions in the river land- ment to these places. In the German Lahn study, people scape, either because of flood risk measures (Waal), river were asked to map meaningful places and were subse- restoration (Wigger) or a combination of land consolidation quently asked how often they visit this particular place. and restoration (Skjern). The latter three studies are designed Hence, for interpretation of the maps it is important to as longitudinal studies with at least two moments of data know what exactly is mapped first. In the Wigger and collection (before and after). Four of the five projects used Lahn study, sense of place and recreational use were spatially explicit methods to elicit information on people’s measured in parallel, i.e. survey participants were asked 13 674 13 Table 1  Summarized case study results, including (1) motivations and drivers for studying sense of place (SoP), (2) conceptualization and attributes of SoP considered, and (3) methods and tools for measuring SoP. More detailed descriptions of the case studies are available in the Supplementary Material (ESM1) Caldes Lahn Skjern Waal Wigger Why—motivations and drivers for measuring SoP Rationale Eliciting positive and negative Mapping of meaningful places Mapping of places for nature- Role of place attachment in Role of residents’ relationship to landscape values in relation to to support river landscape based recreation public support for river inter- place in public support of differ- improvement preferences planning vention ent river scenarios Initiator Researchers State/government Partnershipa Partnershipa Cantonal administration Funding source Foundation State/government Foundation National research funding Cantonal administration What—conceptualization of SoP Scope Landscape values Meaningful places Recreational value Landscape values Recreational value Main concepts Place attachment and place Place attachment and place Place attachment (collective Place attachment Place attachment and place mean- meanings meanings sense of place) ings Attributes Special places that foster sense Place identity Place identity Place identity Attachment to the whole river of attachment or identity Place dependence Place dependence Place dependence Attachment to municipality Place affect Most visited places Social bonding Meaning of river section Nature bonding Recreation places Narrative bonding Favorite locations Favorite recreation routes Attachment to/ Mapped locations Mapped locations Mapped locations River section Whole river meaning of River section (unit) Municipality How–methods and tools for measuring SoP Type of research Qualitative Quantitativeb Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Method PPGIS interviews Web based PPGIS surveys Web based PPGIS surveys Postal surveys Postal PPGIS surveys Web based surveys Class room PPGIS surveys Surveyed groups Residents and stakeholders Residents Residents (n = 299) Residents (n = 1102 and 880) Residents (n = 507 for long ver- (n = 53) (n = 480) Recreational anglers and boaters sion and 272 for short version) (n = 75 and 158) Adolescents (n = 128) Response rates 78% 10% 20% 22% (2014; residents only) 21% (long version, residents) 17% (2016; residents only) 27% (short version, residents) 55% (adolescents) a Here the state initiated the intervention but monitoring of recreational places/landscape values was decided upon collectively by a partnership with representatives from main organizational stakeholders (including for example the agricultural sector, nature NGOs, recreation NGOs, and public authorities) b The questionnaire included one open question: why is this place meaningful to you? Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 675 to map places for recreation and their favorite places attachment to and meanings of river sections and the separately. In addition, the Wigger study asked separate potential of sense of place information to support partici- questions regarding people’s attachment to the river and patory processes. Given the different forms of outputs of the municipality and the different (pre-defined) mean- PPGIS studies compared to general surveys, we will group ings they associate with the river sections. Yet another our findings according to the type of study. approach could be seen in the Waal study, where differ- ent user groups were defined beforehand (i.e. recreational Attachment to and meanings of river landscapes anglers, recreational boaters and residents). This created a trade-off between targeting the groups by adapting the PPGIS studies provided information about locations that sense of place questions to their specific context and jeop- people value, use often or that need improvement. In the ardizing the comparability of the survey results between study along the Skjern, 386 respondents mapped approxi- groups. The Caldes study, focusing primarily on special mately 1000 places used for outdoor recreation. Places were places, revealed that qualitative research provides more mapped over a large area, hotspots being local woodlands, tangible results about residents’ attachment to specific beaches, summerhouse areas and recreational harbours and places, as the respondents can express themselves ver- the restored Skjern river valley (Figure S3 in ESM2). With bally and this might disclose more insights into the nature about 25% of all mapped places, the river valley was the of the attachment. Including an open survey question on most popular single landscape element in the survey area place meanings (such as in the Lahn study) may serve among the respondents. This is remarkable considering that a similar purpose. The other case studies employed a the river valley has only been accessible since the finalizing quantitative approach limiting the possibilities for elic- of the restoration project in 2002. A total of 780 mapped iting bottom-up information, but providing possibilities places included information on place dependence and for measuring the strength of place attachment by use of place identity; however, there was no significant difference psychometric scales (see ESM2). between these scores in the river valley compared to the The extent to which different forms or dimensions other mapped hotspots (Table S4 in ESM2). But along the of sense of place were taken into account also differed river, attachment scores were higher for sections of the river between the research projects. This varied from essen- that were restored. Hence, the restored river valley consti- tially one variable (i.e. special places that foster a sense tutes an important collective sense of place hotspot adding of attachment or identity; Caldes), a set of statements to to local peoples’ identities and dependences, which supports measure different dimensions of place attachment (Waal a wide range of outdoor activities and outdoor recreation and Skjern), to a combined range of questions and state- motives. ments to elicit information about place meanings and place Results from the Lahn study (based on 1022 meaningful attachment (Lahn and Wigger). Place identity and place places located by 480 respondents) showed that meaning- dependence were included either as a two-dimensional ful places cluster around urban areas, rural areas, recrea- scale (Skjern and Lahn) or as part of multi-dimensional tion areas as well as natural areas. The density of meaningful scale, also including social bonding, nature bonding and places was higher at rivers and lakes and in urban (green) narrative bonding (Waal). The latter dimension emerged areas when compared to agricultural areas and forests as a separate attribute of attachment for local residents, (Table S3 in ESM2). The frequency of meaningful places reflecting their connection via storytelling and knowledge decreased with increasing distance from the river and its of the past (Verbrugge and van den Born 2018). lakes (Gottwald and Albert 2018). The most often cited rea- Finally, there was a notable difference in the units used son to mark a place as meaningful was that it enabled people to measure sense of place. The approach taken in the Waal to do a certain type of activity, such as biking, walking and and Wigger cases was to measure people’s attachment to canoeing. Other frequently mentioned reasons fall into the (a part of) the river in general, or to the community or ‘relational’ category of Stephenson (2008) classifications municipality. The Caldes, Lahn and Skjern studies, how- (as opposed to ‘forms’ and ‘practices’). Amongst these rela- ever, measured attachment to the specific locations people tionship-related meanings, aesthetics was mentioned most mapped. often, followed by well-being, friends and family, and mem- ories. Mean scores for agreement with items within the place identity and place dependence dimensions showed that both Relevant outcomes for river planning are important but place identity had higher levels of agree- and management ment (3.75) than place dependence (3.50) (Table S2 in ESM2). For more than three-quarters of the mapped places Here we report the relevant outcomes of the studies for (76.8%) respondents reported a willingness to take action to river planning and management, including findings on preserve this place (Table S2 in ESM2). 13 676 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 The Caldes study used positive and negative landscape differ between user groups. For water-based recreationists, values to better understand collective meanings embedded in place identity and dependence were negatively correlated specific places within this urban stream corridor. The most with expected benefits of the dam (especially for recreational often mapped positive landscape values were recreational/ opportunities), signaling a resistance to change (Ganzevoort tourism (n = 269), cultural heritage (n = 267) and aesthetic/ and van den Born 2018). For local residents, social bond- scenic (n = 233). Special places (defined as places that foster ing positively correlated with support for the intervention, a sense of attachment or identity) were mapped 130 times possibly because of a dominant framing of the intervention by 49 participants and ranked fifth on the list of 14 posi- as a protective flood risk measure (Verbrugge and van den tive landscape values (Table S1 and Figure S1 in ESM2). Born 2018). A factor analysis including both negative and positive land- scape values grouped the ‘special places’ item together with Using outputs for facilitating participatory other positive landscape values, representing sites that are processes not only appreciated for their scenic beauty, cultural her- itage and tourism opportunities, but also are regarded as Mapping sense of place using a PPGIS approach made it having a high ecological, natural and ecosystem regulating possible to produce detailed spatial maps, which act as a value (Garcia et al. 2017). These combined ‘attachment and useful tool for communicating the results in a multi-actor amenity sites’ often corresponded to agroforestry areas and setting. Visual outputs of the Caldes study included maps urban river parks. Agroforestry areas are common in this with landscape values and improvement preferences, as well stream corridor, but not all of them conveyed the same val- as maps showing potential conflicting values. These maps ues. Urban river parks are highly valued settings but few in supported the development of a participatory process called numbers. “Viu la riera” (Live the stream) in which citizens, local The Wigger case study compared place meanings and organisations, experts and public authorities committed to place attachment scores between different river sections. the rehabilitation of the stream landscapes participated and It found that residents of all river sections were attached, shared opinions, knowledge, decisions and resources (www. irrespective of the ecological state of the river section. Resi- viula​riera​.org). Meaningful places were introduced to Liv- dents of the municipality of Brittnau (one of the two sections ing Lahn actors during a participatory planning workshop. where restoration has already taken place), reported slightly The concept of meaningful places was new to most of the higher place attachment scores, in particular for the behav- participants; however, in general the information was evalu- ioural item (i.e. visiting frequency) (Table S6 in ESM2). In ated as relevant and most participants stated interest in using terms of place meanings, all sections were associated with a it in their own work. For example, using a touch table with multitude of meanings. For two meanings significant varia- a map to show or assess meaningful places at stakeholder tions could be determined, i.e. ‘economic uses’ and ‘my life or local citizen meetings. Visual maps of the recreational space’. The latter received higher scores for both restored use patterns have been used in local stakeholder discussions river sections (Table S6 in ESM2). Respondents also about land consolidation in parts of the Skjern river valley. reported to visit the restored sections more often, which was Further analysis and map outputs will later be provided to confirmed with the PPGIS findings (the preferred routes and the authorities in the river catchment area (municipalities in particular the favourite places) (Müller et al. 2017), while and state) in order to support discussions with the general other popular places emerged along channeled river sections public about the future management (e.g. a possible designa- with historical industrial buildings. The large majority of tion of River Skjern as National Park). residents along the Wigger supported restored scenarios and Data gathered via ‘traditional’ surveys also provided rele- considered the status quo scenarios as deficient (Müller et al. vant outcomes for participatory processes. Findings from the 2017). Residents furthermore consistently perceived positive Waal study informed the design of a participatory monitor- effects of the already realized restorations of the Wigger in ing project by identifying stakeholder groups who had high terms of social benefits; however, the scores for perceived levels of concern in combination with high levels of attach- benefits decreased with increasing distance of the restored ment (Verbrugge et al. 2017). Moreover, data were shared in section to the respondents’ place of residence, indicating a stakeholder meetings to support adaptive management and limited spatial reach (Table S6 in ESM2). communication activities. One difficulty researchers experi- The Waal case study also found intermediate to strong enced was to communicate the concept of place attachment attachment of residents and recreationists to the river, in to other stakeholders participating in the project, as it is dif- particular in terms of place identity and nature bonding ficult to grasp by non-experts. The quantitative approach, (Table S5 in ESM2). This study also investigated the role of however, made it possible to compare between user groups place attachment in public support for a planned river inter- (i.e. residents, recreational anglers and recreational boaters) vention. These findings indicated that such relationships may which was useful to highlight their different needs. 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 677 The combined approach using survey questions and intervention. There are several reasons to assert that these mapping provided a solid informational basis for the higher attachment scores can (at least) be partly attributed Wigger restoration project. Residents’ strong support for to river restoration. First, ecological restoration projects future river restoration projects legitimated the cantonal often depart from ecological and flood risk objectives, i.e. agencies to push forward a participatory planning of river river sections are selected and restored independently of restoration activities in the region and informed their people’s attitudes. This was also the case for the projects communication strategy. The diversity in place meanings included in this study. Second, restored river sections, associated with the different river sections highlighted the such as fluvial parks, often see an increase in visitors importance of accounting for this heterogeneity in plan- and public use of the area (e.g. Polizzi et al. 2015; and ning and designing the river sections, i.e. with reference the Skjern and Wigger cases). New infrastructures, such to typical place characteristics (Müller et al. 2017). In this as visitor facilities and cycle or walking paths, provide case, small-scale participatory events might be preferable access and enable people to maintain or renew people to enable interested citizens to be involved in discussing, place bonds, which may also explain why the frequency planning and/or implementing their restoration of ‘their’ of meaningful places decreased with increasing distance part of the river. from the Lahn river and its lakes. Finally, other place making activities, such as the communication and dis- semination of the multiple benefits of large-scale restora- Discussion tion projects, are likely to contribute to higher visitation rates and sense of place. This study addressed two main questions: (1) how can Public involvement and adaptive learning among stake- sense of place be conceptualized and measured in river holders are two important conditions for resilience-based studies, and (2) how can the outcomes support partici- management of social-ecological systems as they increase patory planning and management of river landscapes? local knowledge use and the capacity to respond (Walker Here, we discuss the benefits and challenges of different and Salt 2006). In line with Tadaki et al. (2017), we found approaches and their potential contribution to resilient river that the assessment of sense of place is helpful to struc- management. ture participation of different actors in decision-making. The motivations for studying sense of place were much Our case studies illustrated the benefits of survey data and in line with what Masterson et al. (2017b) listed as the maps, either bottom-up through stimulating citizen initia- assessment of ecosystem management, in particular for tives or instigating public discussion on tangible issues, the assessment of preferences in planning or as an indica- or top down to guide practitioners in involving citizens in tor of landscape values in general. Despite this common planning and monitoring (see also Buchecker et al. 2010; rationale, the conceptualizations of sense of place were Christensen and Burchfield 2013). A critical note, how- quite diverse, ranging from special, meaningful and most ever, is that the study of sense of place in itself will not visited places to attachment to the river itself. We illus- facilitate this dialogue between science, policy and soci- trated that each approach has trade-offs and that they are ety; it requires additional efforts to facilitate gatherings of in fact complementary. For example, a qualitative approach citizens, researchers, planners and practitioners and enable as employed in the Caldes study (see also Arias-Arévalo joint knowledge co-creation processes. et al. 2017; Plieninger et al. 2018) is useful for eliciting place meanings and people’s perceptions of change (see also Stedman 2016). Quantitative approaches measuring Limitations and recommendations for further place attachment on psychometric scales provide a good research reference for longitudinal or monitoring studies. Both approaches can be applied on different scales and with Case study research is restricted and the limitations of our or without collecting spatially explicit information. One study give rise to some further discussions. A first chal- important recommendation for river managers is to be lenge relates to the low response rates for the surveys in aware of, and combine, different approaches (depending residential areas (Table 1) and potential bias in samples, on the context and main purposes) in order to yield rel- in particular when using online PPGIS. There are several evant sense of place outcomes for assessing and monitoring (technical) issues that could prevent people from com- rivers. pleting a PPGIS survey or to skip questions, for example The Wigger and Skjern studies found higher attach- because there is no convenient internet access or because ment scores for sections of the river that were restored. (older) people have difficulty in understanding the survey The question arises as to whether people were already or using a computer (Brown and Reed 2009; Gottwald attached to the area or whether this is an effect of the et al. 2016). Potential hurdles that arose in our case studies 13 678 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 included difficulties in using personal web links, difficulties Conclusions in targeting specific audiences (e.g. visitors to a particular area) and surveys being too demanding when high num- Resilience-based river management requires new indicators for bers of pop-up questions appear for each mapped point. assessing and monitoring rivers as social-ecological systems. The Wigger case study had sufficient data to assess non- This will require a shift in thinking, particularly for river man- response bias by comparing the results from a long survey agers who are not naturally concerned with concepts such as with a lower response rate with the results from a short sense of place. Our case study comparison showed that sense survey with a higher response rate. The results showed that of place is conceptualized and measured in diverse ways and respondents of the longer questionnaire scored higher on can be linked to different evaluative frameworks, i.e. places of sense of place items than respondents of the short question- recreational value, meaningful places or in relation to different naire, indicating that less attached people were less willing scenarios. The choice in concepts and methods thus depends to fill in the long questionnaire. strongly on the purpose of the study and needs to be consciously Second, none of the studies succeeds (yet) in explic- made. A qualitative approach investigating place meanings may itly examining the temporal dimension of sense of place. provide a wealth of information for planning, whereas a quanti- Often a lack of effort or resources for systematic assess- tative approach may be optimal to provide a baseline for evalu- ments of sense of place and the absence of baseline data ating psycho-social effects of river interventions. While both render it difficult to evaluate the social impact of river approaches can support participatory processes, collecting spa- projects (but see Åberg and Tapsell 2013). In the Waal tially explicit information on sense of place has the additional case, the period of 2 years between the surveys was benefit of creating maps for communicating the often intangible experienced as too short and large differences in samples sense of place findings to practitioners, policy makers and a sizes in 2014 and 2016 further limited opportunities for general audience. Remaining challenges include finding ways comparison (Table 1). The planned follow-up studies for to measure and evaluate sense of place in changing river land- the Skjern and Wigger cases may address this issue, as scapes (i.e. to capture the time element) as well as pushing the they allow for the assessment regarding change of place boundaries of institutional settings to reach a greater mutual use, attraction or initiation to stay at a place. In addition understanding of the concept and its importance in river man- to longitudinal research design, future studies may also agement and planning. adjust their methodological approaches, for example by mapping places that people miss or consider as destroyed Acknowledgements The lead author is part of the research program or by rephrasing survey items to capture the past and RiverCare and is financed by NWO-TTW and the Ministry of Eco- future (Di Masso et al. 2019). Other fruitful avenues to nomic Affairs under grant number P12-14. The Caldes study received the support of RecerCaixa, a programme of Obra Social “la Caixa” in explore within our case studies is whether newcomers collaboration with the ACUP (2015ACUP 00184). The Skjern PPGIS select different favorite places than long-term residents survey was funded as part of the Danish Collective Impact initia- and whether supporters and opponents of planned res- tive “The countryside as a double resource”. The Wigger study was toration projects have different place preferences. New funded by the Department of Landscape and Water (Canton Aargau, Switzerland). The Lahn study was funded by the German Ministry for methods are being developed and combined to measure Education and Research (BMBF) through the Junior Research Group social place values, such as GPS tracking and linguis- PlanSmart (01UU1601A) and received additional funding from the tic approaches (Gosal et al. 2018; Wartmann and Purves Graduate Academy of the Leibniz University Hannover. 2018) as well as social media volunteered geographic information (e.g. analyses of shared images and tags from Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​ social media activities) (Jenkins et al. 2016; Guerrero mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- et al. 2016). Such applications, in spite of their specific tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate methodological limitations (e.g. high self-selection bias), credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the may provide additional insights into the complementarity Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. of different methods as well as their ability to elicit sense of place. Finally, the comparative approach in this study was References biased towards a researcher’s perspective, excluding experiences from participants or practitioners. This may Åberg EU, Tapsell S (2013) Revisiting the River Skerne: the long- have been especially relevant in determining the motiva- term social benefits of river rehabilitation. Landsc Urban Plan tions and drivers for doing this type of research. Further 113:94–103. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu​rbpla​n.2013.01.009 Adger WN, Barnett J, Chapin FS, Ellemor H (2011) This must be research is needed to elicit those other perspectives as the place: underrepresentation of identity and meaning in climate well as to shed light on the different roles a researcher can change decision-making. Glob Environ Polit 11:1–25. https​://doi. take in monitoring and spurring practitioners into action. org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00051​ 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 679 Agyeman J, Devine-Wright P, Prange J (2009) Close to the edge, down Di Masso A, Dixon J, Hernández B (2017) Place attachment, sense of by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place attachment in belonging and the micro-politics of place satisfaction. In: Fleury- a climate changed world. Environ Plan A 41:509–513. https:​ //doi. Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O (eds) Handbook of environmental psy- org/10.1068/a4130​1 chology and quality of life research. Springer, Cham, pp 85–104 Altman I, Low SL (1992) Place attachment. Springer, Boston Di Masso A, Williams DR, Raymond CM et al (2019) Between fixities Angelopoulos NV, Cowx IG, Buijse AD (2017) Integrated planning and flows: navigating place attachments in an increasingly mobile framework for successful river restoration projects: upscaling world. J Environ Psychol 61:125–133. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. lessons learnt from European case studies. Environ Sci Policy jenvp​.2019.01.006 76:12–22. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSC​I.2017.06.005 Dunham JB, Angermeier PL, Crausbay SD et al (2018) Rivers are Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Explor- social–ecological systems: time to integrate human dimensions ing intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable into riverscape ecology and management. Wiley Interdiscip Rev management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 22:art43. Water 5:e1291. https​://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1291 https​://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812​-22044​3 Everard M, Moggridge HL (2012) Rediscovering the value of urban Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2018) Understanding local environmen- rivers. Urban Ecosyst 15:293–314. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1125​ tal concern: the importance of place. Rural Sociol. https​://doi. 2-011-0174-7 org/10.1111/ruso.12215​ Fliervoet JM, Geerling GW, Mostert E, Smits AJM (2015) Ana- Begg C (2018) Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local lyzing collaborative governance through social network anal- stakeholder participation in European flood risk management. ysis: a case study of river management along the Waal river Local Environ 23:383–397. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/13549​ in The Netherlands. Environ Manag 57:355–367. https​://doi. 839.2017.14221​19 org/10.1007/s0026​7-015-0606-x Benages-Albert M, Di Masso A, Porcel S et al (2015) Revisit- Floress K, Akamani K, Halvorsen KE et al (2015) The role of social ing the appropriation of space in metropolitan river corridors. science in successfully implementing watershed management J EnvironPsychol 42:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP​ strategies. J Contemp Water Res Educ 154:85–105. https​://doi. .2015.01.002 org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03189​.x Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine? The effect Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG (2018) Exploring place attach- of place creation on environmental values and landscape mean- ment and visions of nature of water-based recreationists: ings. Soc Nat Resour 8:381–398. https​://doi.org/10.1080/08941​ the case of the longitudinal dams. Landsc Res. https​: //doi. 92950​93809​31 org/10.1080/01426​397.2017.14153​16 Brehm JM, Eisenhauer BW, Stedman RC (2013) Environmental con- Garcia X, Benages-Albert M, Pavón D et al (2017) Public partici- cern: examining the role of place meaning and place attachment. pation GIS for assessing landscape values and improvement Soc Nat Resour 26:522–538. https​: //doi.org/10.1080/08941​ preferences in urban stream corridors. Appl Geogr 87:184–196. 920.2012.71572​6 https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEO​G.2017.08.009 Brown G, Reed P (2009) Public Participation GIS: a new method for Gosal AS, Newton AC, Gillingham PK (2018) Comparison of meth- use in national forest planning. Forest Sci 55:166–182. https:​ //doi. ods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem org/10.1093/fores​tscie​nce/55.2.166 services associated with different habitats. Int J Biodivers Sci Brunckhorst DJ (2000) Bioregional planning. Harwood Academic Ecosyst Serv Manag 14:91–104.https​://doi.org/10.1080/21513​ Publ, Australia 732.2018.14470​16 Buchecker M, Meier C, Hunziker M (2010) Measuring the effect Gottwald S, Albert C (2018) Assessing sense of place to support of consensus building processes with methods of intervention river landscape planning. In: Huismans Y, Berends KD, Niesten research. Regional Planning Studies 18:259–280 I, Mosselman E (eds) The future river—NCR DAYS 2018 pro- Buijs AE (2009) Public support for river restoration. A mixed method ceedings. NCR-publication 42-2018, pp 60–61 study into local residents’ support for and framing of river man- Gottwald S, Laatikainen TE, Kyttä M (2016) Exploring the usability agement and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J of PPGIS among older adults: challenges and opportunities. Int Environ Manag 90:2680–2689. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​ J Geogr Inf Sci 30:2321–2338. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13658​ an.2009.02.006 816.2016.11708​37 Burley D, Jenkins P, Laska S, Davis T (2007) Place attachment and Guerrero P, Møller MS, Olafsson AS, Snizek B (2016) Revealing environmental change in coastal Louisiana. Organ Environ cultural ecosystem services through Instagram images: the 20:347–366. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10860​26607​30573​9 potential of social media volunteered geographic information Cantrill JG, Senecah SL (2001) Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ for urban green infrastructure planning and governance. Urban construct in the context of environmental policy-making and Plan 1:1–17. https​://doi.org/10.17645​/up.v1i2.609 landscape planning. Environ Sci Policy 4:185–203. https​://doi. Hausmann A, Slotow R, Burns JK, Di Minin E (2016) The ecosystem org/10.1016/S1462​-9011(01)00023​-5 service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor biodiversity conservation. Environ Conserv 43:117–127. https​ to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosyst 4:765–781. ://doi.org/10.1017/S0376​89291​50003​14 https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1002​1-001-0045-9 Henze J, Schröter B, Albert C (2018) Knowing me, knowing you - Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural Capturing different knowledge systems for river landscape plan- and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive ning and governance. Water 10:934. https​://doi.org/10.3390/ engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756. https​://doi.org/10.1525/ w1007​0934 bio.2012.62.8.7 Hillman M (2009) Integrating knowledge: the key challenge for a Christensen N, Burchfield J (2013) Place attachment for wildland rec- new paradigm in river management. Geogr Compass 3:1988– reation planning. In: Stewart WP, Williams DR, Kruger LE (eds) 2010. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00278​.x Place-Based Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 223–233 Ingalls M, Stedman R (2017) Engaging with human identity in Davenport MA, Anderson DH (2005) Getting from sense of place to social-ecological systems: a dialectical approach. Human Ecol- place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place ogy Review 23:45–64 meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Soc Nat Resour 18:625–641. https​://doi.org/10.1080/08941​92059​09596​13 13 680 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:669–680 Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the manage- Schönach P (2017) River histories: a thematic review. Water Hist ment of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72. https​ 9:233–257. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1268​5-016-0188-4 ://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVM​AN.2014.05.013 Sendzimir J, Magnuszewski P, Gunderson L (2018) Adaptive man- Jenkins A, Croitoru A, Crooks AT, Stefanidis A (2016) Crowdsourc- agement of riverine socio-ecological systems. In: Schmutz S, ing a collective sense of place. PLoS ONE 11(4):e0152932. Sendzimir J (eds) Riverine ecosystem management: Science for https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01529​32 governing towards a sustainable future. Springer International Junker B, Buchecker M, Müller-Böker U (2007) Objectives of public Publishing, Cham, pp 301–324 participation: which actors should be involved in the decision Simoni J, Floress K (2015) An exploration of place meanings among making for river restorations? Water Resour Res 43:W10438. residents in central Wisconsin. Lake Reserv Manag 31:1–10. https​ https​://doi.org/10.1029/2006w​r0055​84 ://doi.org/10.1080/10402​381.2014.96375​5 Junot A, Paquet Y, Fenouillet F (2018) Place attachment influence Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place: predict- on human well-being and general pro-environmental behaviors. ing behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. J Theor Soc Psychol 2:49–57. https​://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.18 Environ Behav 34:561–581. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00139​16502​ Kianicka S, Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Müller-Böker U (2006) 03400​5001 Locals’ and tourists’ sense of place. Mt Res Dev 26:55–63. Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribu- https​://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741 tion of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Res Kyle G, Graefe A, Manning R (2005) Testing the dimensionality 16:671–685. https​://doi.org/10.1080/08941​92030​9189 of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ Behav Stedman RC (2016) Subjectivity and social-ecological systems: a rigid- 37:153–177. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00139​16504​26965​4 ity trap (and sense of place as a way out). Sustain Sci 11:891–901. Masterson V, Tengö M, Spierenburg M (2017a) Competing place https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-016-0388-y meanings in complex landscapes: a social–ecological approach Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated approach to unpacking community conservation outcomes on the Wild to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 84:127–139. https​:// Coast, South Africa. Soc Nat Resour 30:1442–1457. https​://doi. doi.org/10.1016/j.landu​rbpla​n.2007.07.003 org/10.1080/08941​920.2017.13479​75 Straatsma MW, Bloecker AM, Lenders HJR et al (2017) Biodiversity Masterson VA, Stedman RC, Enqvist J et al (2017b) The contribution recovery following delta-wide measures for flood risk reduction. of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review Sci Adv 3:e1602762.https​://doi.org/10.1126/sciad​v.16027​62 and research agenda. Ecol Soc 22:art49. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KMA (2017) Making sense of environmental ES-08872​-22014​9 values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ Menzel S, Buchecker M (2013) Does participatory planning foster the ES-08999​-22010​7 transformation toward more adaptive socio-ecological systems? Tuan YF (1977) Space and place: the perspective of experience. Uni- Ecol Soc 18:1–13. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05154​-18011​3 versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Müller S, Buchecker M, Gaus R et al (2017) Wie soll die Wigger in Verbrugge LNH, van den Born RJG (2018) The role of place attach- der Region Zofingen in Zukunft gestaltet werden? Wasser Energie ment in public perceptions of a re-landscaping intervention in the Luft 109(3):181–189 river Waal (The Netherlands). Landsc Urban Plan 177:241–250. Nicolosi E, Corbett JB (2018) Engagement with climate change and the https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDU​RBPLA​N.2018.05.011 environment: a review of the role of relationships to place. Local Verbrugge LNH, Ganzevoort W, Fliervoet JM et al (2017) Imple- Environ 23:77–99. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/135498​ 39.2017.13850​ menting participatory monitoring in river management: the role 02 of stakeholders’ perspectives and incentives. J Environ Manag Pahl-Wostl C (2015) Water governance in the face of global change: 195:62–69. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2016.11.035 From understanding to transformation. Springer, Cham Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems Parsons M, Thoms MC, Flotemersch J, Reid M (2016) Monitoring and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington the resilience of rivers as social–ecological systems: a paradigm Wartmann FM, Purves RS (2018) Investigating sense of place as a shift for river assessment in the twenty-first century. In: Gilvear cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the DA, Greenwood MW, Thoms MC, Wood PA (eds) River science: lens of language. Landsc Urban Plan 175:169–183. https​://doi. research and management for the 21st century. Wiley-Blackwell, org/10.1016/J.LANDU​RBPLA​N.2018.03.021 Chichester, pp 197–220 Williams DR (2008) Pluralities of place: A user’s guide to place con- Plieninger T, Rana HÁA, Fagerholm N et al (2018) Identifying cepts, theories, and philosophies in natural resource management. and assessing the potential for conflict between landscape val- In: Kruger LE, Hall TE, Stiefel MC (eds) Understanding concepts ues and development preferences on the Faroe Islands. Glob of place in recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. Environ Change 52:162–180. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen​ PNW-GTR-744, US Department of Agriculture, Portland (OR), vcha.2018.07.006 pp 7–30 Polizzi C, Simonetto M, Barausse A et al (2015) Is ecosystem restora- Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment: tion worth the effort? The rehabilitation of a Finnish river affects validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For Sci recreational ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 14:158–169. 49:830–840 https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2015.01.001 Yeakley AJ, Ervin D, Chang H et al (2016) Ecosystem services of Proshansky HM, Fabian AK, Kaminoff R (1983) Place-identity: physi- streams and rivers. In: Gilvear D, Greenwood M, Thoms M, Wood cal world socialization of the self. J Environ Psychol 3:57–83. P (eds) River science: research and management for the 21st cen- https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0272​-4944(83)80021​-8 tury. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 335–352 Quinn T, Bousquet F, Guerbois C et al (2018) The dynamic relation- Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, New- ship between sense of place and risk perception in landscapes bury Park of mobility. Ecol Soc. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10004​-23023​9 Rojas R, Feyen L, Watkiss P (2013) Climate change and river floods in Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to the European Union: socio-economic consequences and the costs jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. and benefits of adaptation. Glob Environ Change 23:1737–1751. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOEN​VCHA.2013.08.006 13