16
AR 2016.2 Ljubljana
zAvedAnJe prOstOrA v Arhitekturni krAJini
the nOtiOn OF plAce in ArchitecturAl lAndscApes 
UKD 71:303.094.4
COBISS 1.03
Prejeto 20.09.2016
prostor; identiteta; navezanost; 
arhitekturna krajina
place; identity; attachment; architectural 
landscape
Marta Bujanda Miguel
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za arhitekturo
Zoisova cesta 12, 1000 Ljubljana
martabujanda@gmail.com
This paper reviews the definitions 
and concepts of  place to establish a 
conceptual framework for understanding 
architectural landscapes in light of  
environmental psychology. A place-based 
approach highlights the importance of  
place attachment and its implications: 
place dependence, place identity and 
rootedness. A comparison between 
space-place and landscape-setting 
proceeds, leading to a reflexion on how 
an architectural landscape is a place. 
A discussion on factors to take into 
account when assessing or preserving 
architectural landscapes is presented, 
in order to protect this psychological 
dimension of  place for the well-being of  
inhabitants emotionally invested in them. 
As a conclusion, this paper advocates 
for the necessity of  understanding the 
psychological dimension an architectural 
landscape as a place, and not only a 
physical tangible landscape. 
V prispevku obravnavamo definicije 
in koncepte prostora, ki omogoča 
vzpostavitev raziskovalnega okvira in 
razumevanje termina arhitekturne krajine 
v luči okoljske psihologije. Pristop – 
prostora, izpostavlja navezanost na 
lokacijo in sorodne odvode: sovisnost 
prostora, prostorska identiteta in 
ukoreninjenja. Primerjava med prostorom 
– krajem in krajino – postavitvijo 
(udomačitev prostora) vodi k premisleku 
kaj je arhitekturna krajina in mar ni to prav 
kraj. Razprava o dejavnikih, ki določajo 
krajino, kraj in prostor, odpira mesto 
razmisleka o arhitekturni krajini in zaščiti 
le-te. Zaščito v tem primeru razumemo 
kot: zaščito njene psihološke dimenzije 
(kraju) dobrega počutja prebivalcev, ki 
so v to krajino vložili delo in bivajo z 
njo.Zaključki kratke razprave so strnjeni 
v premiso, da je psihološka dimenzija 
razumevanja krajine kot kraj nuja in ne le 
kot nefizični pojem krajine.
Key wordsKljučne besede
Izvleček Abstract
AR 2016.2The notion of place in architectural landscapes
17
1. Introduction
Places and settings hold a strong 
influence in our common mental 
imagery of  spaces and landscapes. The 
importance of  these psychological 
and affective bond goes beyond the 
physical form they present and activities 
held in or around them. They have a 
psychological impact in individuals and 
groups of  a certain region or area which 
creates a psychological connection and 
an emotional attachment. Cultural, social 
and historical aspects unique to the area 
are reflected in them and as settings 
become architectural landscapes, it 
is vital to address the influence this 
psychological dimension has in their 
conservation.
By understanding how spaces transform 
into places and to what extend 
architectural landscapes constitute a 
place, it is possible to assess the level 
of  dependence and attachment to it, as 
well as the identity reflected in it from 
individuals and groups and originated 
from it. Physical tangible aspects of  
architectural landscapes have been long 
analysed, however a discussion on which 
factors should be taken into account 
when assessing architectural landscapes 
from an intangible dimension is also 
needed.
2. Definition of  place
The terms ‘space’ and ‘place’ are often 
used as synonyms in the architectural 
discourse despite their own distinctive 
connotations, consequently bringing 
with it numerous interdisciplinary 
discussions. This has led to many 
researches to research and question their 
true nature as well as what implications 
derive from having either a space or a 
place in an urban or rural environment, 
not only from an architectural point of  
view but also from a sociological and 
psychological approach.
Space is an empirical physical entity that 
can be described objectively through 
abstract geometries such as distance, 
direction, size, or volume. It can be 
measured, weighed and assess. ″It 
is detached from material form and 
cultural interpretation″ [Gieryn, 2000; 
Hillier and Handson, 1984]. Thus it can 
be objectively described always in an 
exact manner regardless of  the observer, 
providing a constant perception of  
itself  independent of  cultural or social 
background. Applying Byrne [2001: 
10] definition of  a system, we can 
also understand space a system from a 
mechanical perspective, and state that it 
can be reduced to the parts it is made of, 
and explain it in terms of  the properties 
of  the parts, tangible parts it contains.
However, individuals, groups or 
societies never remain impassive to 
their environment. From a sociological 
approach, humans have a strong tendency 
to turn spaces into places, impregnating 
the space with meaning and relevance, 
and getting invested in it. In the context 
of  environmental psychology, ‘place’ 
is predominantly defined by a physical 
environment constructed based on its 
interrelationship with individual’s internal 
psychological and social processes and 
attributes and activities done at the 
place [Smaldone, 2005]. Consequently a 
place presents a double nature, physical 
and psychological, intertwined with 
the activities developed in that space 
and making it impossible to separate 
from people invested emotionally in 
it. Places are not only described, but 
also felt, understood, remembered, 
interpreted, produced and passed on. A 
place may be understood also through 
its fabric. Fabric means all the physical 
material of  a place [Burra Charter, 
2013] and includes its components, 
contents, and objects, denoting a sense 
of  interweaving elements. It provides 
a place with a unique depth of  its 
physical form and, indirectly, a specific 
depth in meaning as places carry a 
psychological perception attached. It 
behaves like a thermo-dynamic system 
like Byrne [2001: 10] explains. It cannot 
be described by simple aggregation of  
properties of  its discrete components. 
It has emergent properties not derived 
from components’ properties. 
Therefore, while a space is generic, 
objective and standard, a place is 
characterized by the uniqueness provided 
by its given meaning and interpretation 
derived from an emotional investment 
of  the observer or inhabitant in it. A 
complex intertwining relation between 
tangible components of  the space, 
and emergent characteristics from the 
interaction of  elements in the space and 
the observer/inhabitant, is inherent to 
places. It can always be found, although 
it is fragile and not easy to assess or 
measure in many cases. The significance 
of  individual’s psychological connection 
with places must be addressed and 
safeguard if  their qualitative value wants 
to be determined or assessed in an 
adequate way for further conservation.
Slika 1: Sestavine prostor kraj, povzeto po 
Smaldone, 2005. [Slika: Marta Bujanda].
Figure 1: Components of  place according to 
Smaldone, 2005. [Drawing: Marta Bujanda].
AR 2016.2 Marta Bujanda Miguel
18
3. Place attachment and its 
implications
Place attachment – a strong bond 
developed by individuals towards a 
place for its psychological meaning 
and/or socio-cultural imagery – is 
embedded in the feeling, emotion 
and behaviour of  locals, reflecting 
on people responses towards 
the environment. Hidalgo and 
Hernández (2001) described the main 
characteristic of  place attachment as 
“the desire to maintain closeness to 
the object of  attachment which also 
describes the special feeling towards a 
particular place”. It is a psychological 
and affective factor that influences 
directly a place and its outcome in 
time, making it significant and well-
identified to individuals. Besides, it 
provides with support for activities 
and behaviours specific to those 
individuals attached to that particular 
place, connecting and closing the 
circle of  components comprising 
a place: physical form, activity and 
psychological attributes.
From a practical point of  view, 
″the sense of  belonging, degree of  
attraction, frequency of  visits and 
level of  familiarity are indicators 
of  place attachment″ [Ujang and 
Zakariya, 2015: 712], which makes 
this concept a relevant aspect in place 
making and preservation of  place.
Linked to the attachment to a place 
is the concept of  place dependence, 
which ″indicates the importance of  
a place in providing features and 
conditions that support specific goals 
or desired activities″ [Shumaker and 
Taylor, 1983; Ujang and Zakariya, 
2015: 712]. Successfully achieving 
goals or developing activities in a 
place, will induce positive feelings 
in individuals, and will encourage 
maintaining a place attachment 
towards it. It is a two sided aspect that 
first creates excitement for reaching a 
goal or completing in a satisfactory 
manner a specific activity, and leads 
to an induced desire of  continuing 
using that place for the same purpose. 
In time, the activity is specialized for 
that place and a psychological and 
physical dependence is created from 
the individual towards the physical 
form and psychological attributes 
offered by that place.
″Place dependence comes from a 
person’s consideration of  two things: 
(a) quality of  the current place and 
(b) the quality of  other substitute 
places that are comparable to the 
current place″ [Smaldone, 2005; 
Ujang and Zakariya, 2015]. This 
aspect comprises utilitarian and 
functional aspects, connecting the 
quality of  a physical space, with 
the activities developed under an 
affective and psychological link.
On the other hand, a place is to 
be experimented and through this 
experimental process a sense of  
identity is formed. ″Places play a vital 
role in developing and maintaining 
self-identity and group identity of  
people″[Davenport and Anderson, 
20005; Ujang and Zakariya, 2015]. It can 
be understood as a collective identity 
held by individuals that share specific 
characteristics such as language, a 
common history or a particular culture, 
bounding them together around this 
components in a specific setting, in a 
place. ″Identity can be defined as the 
sense that people make of  themselves 
through their subjective feelings based 
on their everyday experiences and 
wider social relations″[Knox, 2004: 
508]. Moreover, identity can also be 
seen as an individual phenomenon: 
a mechanism of  social classification 
providing a person a sense of  
belonging to something bigger than 
him, a community to relate to, a place 
to relate to.
In both cases, four key aspects are 
identified when talking about identity: 
psychological, cultural, territorial 
and historical aspects. It is obvious 
the correlation between the sense 
of  identity and place identity. Taking 
the territorial aspect as the physical 
form of  a place, the psychological 
characteristics correspond to the 
attributes given to a place and place 
attachment. Thus, it is clear the 
activities held in a space conforming 
it as a place directly correspond to the 
cultural aspects as activities held today 
and historical aspects as activities and 
events held in the past.
In other words, place identity reflects 
the importance of  a place as an 
archive of  emotions and experiences 
lived in that space, which reminds the 
collective or individual mind its past 
and its need for a sense of  belonging. 
Humans are, after all, social beings 
and crave for rootedness. Places 
naturally offer a sense of  identity and 
belonging. 
4. Architectural landscape as place
4.1 The notion of  cultural landscape
Defined as ″all the visible features 
of  an area of  land, often considered 
in terms of  their aesthetic appeal″ 
[Oxford Dictionary, 2014], the 
term landscape comprises a more 
complex meaning which includes 
scientific, anthropologic and 
historical references. Pitte states 
that “the landscape is the expression 
observable through the senses, of  
the earth’s surface, resulting from 
the combination between nature, 
technology and human culture. It 
is continuously changing, and it 
cannot be perceived otherwise but 
in its dynamics, the history being 
the fourth dimension″ [Pitte, 1992]. 
Therefore the landscape is composed 
of  a physical part – tangible, visible 
volumes and shapes with morphology 
and spatial structure – and also an 
invisible active part composed by the 
processes carried out in that space 
that alter it by usage or consumption.
In the same way space and place 
refer to different things, landscape 
and setting convey a different 
understanding of  the environment. 
‘Landscape’ presents a generic nature 
and does not need a specific element 
to exist, it simply is regardless of  the 
typology, number, nature or quality 
of  elements it contains. On the other 
hand, ‘setting’ is the immediate and 
extended environment of  a place 
that is part of, or contributes to its 
cultural significance and distinctive 
character [ICOMOS, 2013: art. 
1.12]. It includes interaction with the 
natural environment – land, water, 
sky, views – sensory aspects – smells, 
sounds – and historical and/or social 
relationships. In other words, a 
setting goes beyond the physical and 
visual aspects of  a landscape, and 
contains an intangible value.
Places and settings may present 
themselves as unique to certain 
groups or societies and location due 
its direct relation with cultural and 
environmental factors. This creates 
cultural landscapes which reflect 
specific techniques of  sustainable land-
use, considering the characteristics 
and limits of  the natural environment 
they are established in, and a specific 
emotional relation to nature″ 
[UNESCO, 1996: paragraph 38].
AR 2016.2The notion of place in architectural landscapes
19
The Coffee Cultural Landscape of  
Colombia, with a sustainable use of  
the land involving several generations 
exemplifies this concept. Coffee 
is a worldwide recognized symbol 
of  the country and it has tangible 
and intangible manifestations in the 
territory, influencing not only the 
production process, but also the 
natural resources management, urban 
settlements, cultural patterns and 
economy. The landscape provides 
resources to develop a specific culture 
around it, and this cultural practices 
support the landscape, creating an 
identity and reciprocity that binds 
them together in a recognizable 
cultural landscape. 
4.2 Architectural landscape and 
place
Specific structures or extraordinary 
constructions provide a special 
quality value to the landscape where 
they are set, becoming a dominant 
recognizable feature. These objects 
gather outstanding universal values 
and recognizable significance which 
make them crucial in providing key 
characteristics in the identity of  a 
landscape or a setting.
These focal points can be from 
renowned authors as it happens 
in urban environments in the late 
20th century. Sydney stepped into 
the international architectural scene 
in 1973 when Jorn Utzon’s Opera 
House was inaugurated not only 
with economic consequences, but 
also socio-cultural. Also Bilbao was 
internationally recognized in 1997 
thanks to Frank O. Gehry and his 
Guggenheim museum. 
However these focal points can be 
instead anonymous – vernacular 
– architecture with distinctive 
characteristics in a whole region. 
While the previous ones remain in 
a strongly delimited area – often a 
metropolitan area or neighbourhood 
- these spread throughout a territory 
creating a general and harmonious 
landscape that share common features, 
are recognizable by individuals, and 
have a place attachment despite the 
particular differences each structure 
presents. As described by Fister, 
this phenomenon turns a specific 
architecture into general criteria 
and defines ″an environmental 
identity and typological features 
of  all constructions in individual 
architectural landscapes″ [Fister, P., 
1993: 229].
Thus, while a cultural landscape 
embodies the evolution of  a society 
and a settlement over time and 
under the influence of  the physical 
constrains and opportunities 
its environment provides, an 
architectural landscape revolves 
around a common architectural 
criteria for all types of  construction 
present in a landscape creating a 
common identity and sense of  
belonging.
An architectural landscape extends 
its effect to any object built in that 
territory due to specific geographical, 
socio-cultural, historical and economic 
factors. It constitutes an environment 
unit on its own unlike cultural 
landscapes, and can be linked into 
larger recognisable units as they share 
general particularities.  Without this 
common architectural denominator, a 
setting would be dramatically different 
as it loses its imagery and emotional 
and social attachment.
For instance, kozolec – Slovene 
vernacular drying sheds – create an 
architectural landscape where cultural 
and historic aspects are recognisable 
by individuals. 
They present similar physical 
characteristics that make them 
recognisable despite their local 
differences. These constructions 
present pierced pillars where 
horizontal battens rest to dry fodder 
and a roof. 
Larger typologies include a second 
level with wooden grids to filter 
ventilation and control sunlight. 
These common characteristics 
make them recognisable despite 
local differences, creating a single 
recognizable architectural landscape 
with inner particular smaller units, 
answering to each individual 
architectural structure feature. 
However, it is not only about the 
structure aspects but also about 
the relation with surrounding 
buildings and natural elements 
regarding size, position and stylistic 
adherence. Position and location 
with regard to physical environment 
and communications influences 
the perception of  the architectural 
landscape created by residents 
and outsiders. Their arrangement, 
number, and size determine the 
level of  importance transmitted. 
Coherence among the individual 
structures and in reference to 
architectural complexes they belong 
to is also crucial.
Slika 2: Sestavine krajine, povzeto po Pitte, 1992.
[Source: Marta Bujanda]
Figure 2: Components of  the landscape according 
to Pitte, 1992 [Source: Marta Bujanda]
20
AR 2016.2 Ljubljana
5. Preserving architectural 
landscape as a place
As exposed, the concepts of  place, 
setting and identity are tightly 
interconnected among each other 
and constitute crucial aspects of  
architectural landscapes. These are 
places with a physical form where 
social events are held and socio-
cultural aspects presented. Their 
meaning and psychological attributes 
provide them with individuals’ 
emotional attachment. Place 
dependence exists among a group 
or society where they develop from 
a social, historical, cultural, and 
sentimental approach.
Architectural landscapes contain not 
only the history of  a place, but also 
information which has determined 
the appearance of  surrounding 
settlements and has been expressed 
through local specificity. A ‘cultural 
brand’ lies underneath it, making it 
possible to promote this architectural 
landscape and introduce such 
recognizable unique setting in 
a global scale. In the same way 
Dutch windmills and tulip fields are 
presented as a specific landscape 
with its own identity, other traditional 
constructions may be a tool to 
brand a territory without losing its 
uniqueness in a global society but 
reinforcing its identity.
An architectural landscape can lose 
its quality of  place by loss, decay, 
or damage of  one of  these three 
aspects: physical form, activities 
originally developed in/around it 
and socio-cultural meaning given to 
the object. Neglecting one of  these 
aspects may also irreversibly diminish 
the attachment of  locals towards the 
place they embody.
Preservation of  architectural 
landscapes often involves the 
process of  remaking places in order 
to improve physical conditions, 
to increase sustainability in time 
and often to bring back an activity 
attached to or around the space. 
Steadman (2003) advocates the 
importance of  the physical features 
and conditions in the construction 
of  a place and place meanings based 
on its environmental attributes. 
Physical features influence the 
symbolic meanings of  the landscape. 
Therefore, when preserving 
architectural landscapes, researching, 
analysing and respecting their physical 
features is important not to break 
apart from the connection established 
with the setting and jeopardise the 
individual’s or group’s attachment to 
that place and its authenticity. The 
sense of  belonging and rootedness 
must be taken into account not to 
alter the place identity and emotional 
investment of  individuals.
Nowadays the process of  urbanization 
has gone beyond the city, generating 
impersonality and lack of  identity in 
many areas. Architectural landscapes 
are a source of  identity for society 
and should be used to develop and 
protect the rootedness to that place 
from individuals and groups. They 
are a key element as they combine 
natural and anthropogenic aspects 
in balance with cultural and historic 
features, investing the territory with a 
unique identity.
6. Conclusion
Man does not adapt to his environment, 
but he adapts the environment to his 
needs leaving a visible trace of  his 
path by changing the landscape he is 
surrounded by. Consequently, there 
is a link between evolution of  human 
society and settlements over time 
that brings a specific recognizable 
character to it. The influence of  the 
physical conditions and opportunities 
presented by the surrounding 
environment irreversibly affects the 
successive economic and cultural 
forces that shape a particular society. 
In the same way, a society modifies 
the landscape with its activities as it 
exploits the available local resources 
closing the circle of  continuous 
feedback between human settlement 
and setting. Thus, landscape becomes 
something more than what we see as 
a result of  these combined works of  
man and environment: a setting.
When a setting revolves around a 
common architectural criteria for 
all types of  construction present 
in it, an architectural landscape is 
created, comprising a common sense 
of  identity and sense of  belonging. 
Individuals are invested emotionally 
in it, providing this type of  landscape 
with psychological attributes that 
differentiate it from others and makes 
it unique. Place identity is present in 
architectural landscapes, as well as 
place dependence.
Architectural landscapes comprise 
historical, economic, social and 
cultural characteristics, apart 
from physical volumes and spatial 
structures. But they are also a 
complex systems that cannot be 
described by simple aggregation of  
properties of  its components as it 
always has emergent properties. As a 
result, when preserving architectural 
landscapes it is vital to assess, 
comprehend and address properties 
derived from the interaction of  all 
their elements, especially the place 
attachment and its implications.
The loss of  physical character and 
meaning of  a place affects people’s 
perception and attachment to 
places. Emphasizing local character 
and using its identity and specific 
architectural elements to brand 
a territory is a way of  protecting 
heritage without compromising the 
uniqueness of  a place. It promotes its 
history and culture while developing 
strategies for spatial continuity of  
these architectural landscapes. 
AR 2016.2The notion of place in architectural landscapes
21
Byrne, D. (2001): Understanding the urban. 
Palgrave, Hampshire. 
Enache, C., Craciun, C. (2013): The 
Role of  the Landscape in the 
Identity Generation Process. Lumen 
International Conference Logos 
Universality Mentality Education 
Novelty. Elsevier. www.sciencedirect.
com
Fister, P. (1993): Arhitekturne Krajine in 
Regije Slovenije. TDS, Ljubljana.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000): A space for place in 
sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 463-
496. 
Guštin, M., Nypan, T., et al. (2010): Cultural 
heritage and legal aspects in Europe. 
Institute for Mediterranean Heritage, 
Institute for Corporationa and Public 
Law, Science and Research Centre, 
University of  Primorska. Zalozba 
Annales, Koper.  
ICOMOS (2005): Xi’an declaration on the 
conservation of  the setting of  heritage 
structures, sites and areas. http://www.
icomos.org/charters/xian-declaration.
pdf
Knox, P., Marston S. (2004): Human 
Geograph. Pearson Education, Inc., 
Upper Saddle River NJ. 
Mitchel, N. et al. (2009): World Heritage 
Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook 
for conservation and management. 
UNESCO, Fontenoy.
Oliver, P. (2006): Built to meet needs. 
Cultural issues in vernacular architecture. 
Architectural Press, Burlington.
Oxford Dictionary (2014): Advanced 
learner’s dictionary. Oxford University 
Press. Oxford.
Pitte, J. R. (1992):  Histoire du paysage 
francais, ed. Taillandier
Smaldone, D., Harris, C., Sanyal, N. (2005): 
An exploration of  place as a process: The 
case of  Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of  
Environmental psychology, 25, 397-414. 
Stedman, C. R. (2003): Is it reality just a 
social construction? The contribution 
of  the physical environment to sense of  
place. Society of  Natural Resources, 16, 
671-685.
Ujang, N., Zakariya, K. (2015): The notion 
of  place, place meaning and identity 
in urban regeneration. Procedia, social 
behavioural sciences, 170, 709-717.
UNESCO: Defintions. http://whc.unesco.
org/en/culturallandscape/#1. Accessed 
on 09.12.2014.
UNESCO World Heritage List: Sydney 
Opera House. http://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/166. Accessed on 31.03.2016
Schultz, A.C. (2000): Carlo Scarpa, built 
memories, pp. 47-62. “Landscapes 
of  memory and experience”, ed. Jan 
Birksted. Spon Press, London.
Walker, P. (2000): A new monument in a new 
land, pp. 31-46. “Landscapes of  memory 
and experience”, ed. Jan Birksted. Spon 
Press, London.
Bibliography