Contributing to the cultural ecosystem services literature, this paper draws on the in-depth place narratives of two coastal case-study sites in Wales (UK) to explore how people experience and understand landscape change in relation to their sense of place, and what this means for their wellbeing. Our place narratives reveal that participants understand coastal/intertidal landscapes as complex socio-ecological systems filled with competing legitimate claims that are difficult to manage. Such insights suggest that a focus on diachronic integrity (Holland and O'Neill 1996) within place narratives might offer a route to more socially and culturally acceptable environmental management strategies.
Arias-ArévaloP., Martín-LópezB. and Gómez-BaggethunE.. 2017. ‘Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems’. Ecology and Society22 (4): 43. Crossref.
2.
AtkinsonS.2013. ‘Beyond components of wellbeing: The effects of relational and situated assemblage’. Topoi32: 137–44. Crossref.
3.
BatesV.2019. ‘Sensing space and making place: The hospital as therapeutic landscape in two cancer narratives’. Medical Humanities45 (1): 10–20. Crossref.
4.
BelhassenY., RousseauM., TynyakovJ. and ShasharN.. 2017. ‘Evaluating the attractiveness and effectiveness of artificial coral reefs as a recreational ecosystem service’. Journal of Environmental Management203 (1): 448–56. Crossref.
5.
BellS., PhoenixC., LovellR. and WheelerB.. 2015. ‘Seeking everyday wellbeing: The coast as a therapeutic landscape’. Social Science and Medicine142: 56–67. Crossref.
6.
BielingC.2014. ‘Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany)’. Ecosystem Services8: 207–15. Crossref.
7.
BradyE.2019. ‘Aesthetic character and aesthetic integrity in environmental conservation’. In LamarqueP. and OlsenS.H. (eds), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition, pp. 684–94. New Jersey: Wiley–Blackwell.
8.
BrookI.2018. ‘Restoring or re-storying the Lake District: Applying responsive cohesion to a current problem situation’. Environmental Values27 (4): 427–45. Crossref.
9.
ChanK., BalvaneraP., BenessaiahK.. 2016. ‘Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113 (6): 1462–5. Crossref.
10.
ChanK., SatterfieldT. and GoldsteinJ.. 2012. ‘Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values’. Ecological Economics74: 8–18. Crossref.
11.
FishR., ChurchA. and WinterM.. 2016a. ‘Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement’. Ecosystem Services21: 208–17. Crossref.
12.
FishR., ChurchA., WillisC.. 2016b. ‘Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative’. Ecosystem Services21: 329–43. Crossref.
13.
GouldR., KlainS., ArdoinN.. 2015. ‘A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame’. Conservation Biology29 (2): 575–6. Crossref.
HenwoodK., and PidgeonN.. 1992. ‘Qualitative research and psychological theorizing’. British Journal of Psychology83 (1): 97–111. Crossref.
18.
HenwoodK., and PidgeonN.. 2001. ‘Talk about woods and trees: Threat of urbanization, stability, and biodiversity’. Journal of Environmental Psychology21 (2): 125–47. Crossref.
19.
HenwoodK., ShiraniF. and GrovesC.. 2017. ‘Using photographs in interviews: When we lack the words to say what practice means’. In FlickU., (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, pp. 599–614. London: SAGE Publications. Crossref.
20.
HollandA., and O'NeillJ.. 1996. ‘The integrity of nature over time’. The Thingmount Working Paper Series on the Philosophy of Conservation. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
21.
JonesO.2010. “‘The breath of the moon”: The rhythmic and affective time-spaces of UK tides’. In EdensorT., (ed.) Geographies of Rhythm: Nature, Place, Mobilities and Bodies, pp. 189–204. Farnham: Ashgate. Crossref.
22.
KenterJ., RaymondC., van RiperC.. 2019. ‘Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability’. Sustainability Science14: 1439–61. Crossref.
23.
KlainS., OlmstedP., ChanK. and SatterfieldT.. 2017. ‘Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm’. PLoS ONE12 (8): e0183962. Crossref.
24.
LengenC.2015. ‘The effects of colours, shapes and boundaries of landscapes on perception, emotion and mentalising processes promoting health and well-being’. Health and Place35: 166–77. Crossref.
25.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington DC: Island Press.
O'NeillJ., HollandA. and LightA. (eds). 2008. Environmental Values. London: Routledge.
29.
PascualU., BalvaneraP., DíazS.. 2017. ‘Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability26–7: 7–16.
30.
PlieningerT., DijksS., Oteros-RozasE. and BielingC.. 2013. ‘Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level’. Land Use Policy33: 118–29. Crossref.
31.
PoeM., DonatutoJ. and SatterfieldT.. 2016. “‘Sense of place”: Human wellbeing considerations for ecological restoration in Puget Sound’. Coastal Management44 (5): 409–26. Crossref.
32.
RatterB., and GeeK.. 2012. ‘Heimat – A German concept of regional perception and identity as a basis for coastal management in the Wadden Sea’. Ocean and Coastal Management68, 127–37. Crossref.
33.
RobinsonK.W., and ElliottK.C.. 2011. ‘Environmental aesthetics and public environmental policy’. Ethics, Policy and Environment14 (2): 175–91. Crossref.
34.
RydenK.C.1993. Mapping the Invisible Landscape: Folklore, Writing, and the Sense of Place. Ames: University of Iowa Press. Crossref.
35.
RyfieldF., CabanaD., BranniganJ. and CroweT.. 2019. ‘Conceptualizing “sense of place” in cultural ecosystem services: A framework for interdisciplinary research’. Ecosystem Services36: 100907. Crossref.
36.
SchaichH., BielingC. and PlieningerT.. 2010. ‘Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research’. Gaia–Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society19 (4): 269–77. Crossref.
SørensenE., MarlinA. and NiewöhnerJ.. 2018. ‘From scholastic to emic comparison: Generating comparability and handling difference in ethnographic research’. In FlickU., (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, pp. 148–63. London: SAGE. Crossref.
39.
StedmanR.2003. ‘Is it really just a social construction?: Contribution of the physical environment to sense of place’. Society and Natural Resources16 (8): 671–86. Crossref.
40.
StensekeM.2018. ‘Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability35: 82–8. Crossref.
41.
TaçonP., and BakerS.2019. ‘New and emerging challenges to heritage and well-being: A critical review’. Heritage2 (2): 1300–15. Crossref.
42.
TadakiM., SinnerJ. and ChanK.. 2017. ‘Making sense of environmental values: Atypology of concepts’. Ecology and Society22 (1): 7. Crossref.
43.
ThomasM., RobertsE., PidgeonN. and HenwoodK.. unpublished paper. “'This funny place”: Using affordances to explore the value of saltmarshes for human wellbeing’.
44.
ThomasM., RobertsE., PidgeonN. and HenwoodK.. In Press. ‘Using photographs in coastal research and communication: Reflections from two case studies’. In GustavssonM., WhiteC., PhillipsonJ. and OunanianK. (eds), Researching People and the Sea: Methodologies and Traditions. London: Palgrave.
45.
Van NoyR.2003. Surveying the Interior: Literary Cartographers and the Sense of Place. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
46.
WestlingE., SurridgeB., SharpL. and LernerD.. 2014. ‘Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration’. Journal of Hydrology519: 2613–23. Crossref.
47.
Wynne-JonesS., StroutsG. and HolmesG.. 2018. ‘Abandoning or reimagining a cultural heartland? Understanding and responding to rewilding conflicts in Wales – the case of the Cambrian Wildwood’. Environmental Values27 (4): 377–403. Crossref.
