sustainability

Article
Influence of Environmental Perception on Place Attachment in
Romanian Rural Areas
Dragos Darabaneanu * , Daniela Maci and Ionut Mihai Oprea

Department of Sociology and Social Work, Faculty of Social-Humanistic Sciences, University of Oradea, Str.
Universitatii, No. 6, Campus II, 410087 Oradea, Romania; [email protected] (D.M.); [email protected] (I.M.O.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: This study analyzes aspects of place attachment in rural areas, as an element of social
stability that determines attitudinal and behavioral patterns within a harmonious relationship be-
tween human beings and the environment. A higher level of place attachment generates efficient
behavior patterns for the improvement of the problems caused by pollution and the degradation of
natural environments. In the second section, we set out to measure the forms of manifestation of
place attachment in rural areas and to identify effective strategies that can contribute to increasing the
intensity of this phenomenon. We set out a study of the causality between environmental perception
and place attachment. We carried out an investigation based on a questionnaire to determine the
forms of manifestation of place attachment and environmental perception. We tested a statistical
model to confirm or not the determining relationship between the two social phenomena. Our study
also offers an original interpretation of environmental perception and explains the degree of intensity
with which this phenomenon is felt at the individual level. The practical importance of this study lies
in the fact that it offers a strategy proven by sociological analysis, which can be applied to stimulate
an increase in intensity of the manifestation of feelings of place attachment, which ultimately leads to
the spread of pro-environmental attitudinal and behavioral patterns.

Keywords: pro-environment behavior; place attachment; rural communities; collective attitudes;

social inclusion; behavioral education; ecosystems conservation

Citation: Darabaneanu, D.; Maci, D.;

Oprea, I.M. Influence of 1. Introduction
Environmental Perception on Place
In this study, we set out to investigate the relationship between place attachment and
Attachment in Romanian Rural Areas.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106. https://
environmental perception in the Romanian countryside, taking into account visibility and
doi.org/10.3390/su16031106
concerns about the home and the environment defined from a plurality of perspectives,
and also the historical development of interest in this topic. The literature review reveals,
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen on the one hand, the abundance of types of relationships between the two phrases, and, on
Received: 22 December 2023 the other hand, the need to understand, establish, and formulate the meaning of the terms
Revised: 25 January 2024 for the investigation of any type of relationship [1–23]. A brief history of the semantics of
Accepted: 26 January 2024 the terms and how they have been delimited and (re)signified becomes necessary. This
Published: 28 January 2024 can only be achieved philosophically, because all these terms existed and were explored
in this field before the emergence of other fields such as sociology, psychology, urbanism,
etc. [2–5,7,8,11,24–34]. In the second part of the study, we apply the research methodology to
measure the intensity with which environmental perceptions are manifested at the level of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. the rural population [35,36]. The general premise is that people’s interest in the environment
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. is a necessary condition in the context of place attachment and pro-environmental behavior.
This article is an open access article
The secondary premise is that there is a semantic impoverishment of how people relate to
distributed under the terms and
place and environment as the world becomes more technical and urbanized. However, this
conditions of the Creative Commons
terminological technicality renames the same content with other names.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
After the literature review, there follows an archeology of vocabulary (analysis, oper-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
ationalization, and hermeneutics of terms) and we discuss the multiplicity of meanings.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031106 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 2 of 18

The use of these methods stems from the problematization and history of terms that belong
primarily to philosophy. Philosophy is the field that first formulated, delineated, and
problematized these terms before the emergence of the social sciences and their interest
in these issues. For the association between the first two terms, place and attachment, the
interdependent relationship between place as home or community and self as self-identity
is taken into account [1–5]. For the association between the environment and perception,
the intentionality that shifts the focus from one term to another is taken into account [6].
The instrument used for the research methodology was a questionnaire model with
closed questions that contained a set of Likert scales for measuring attachment to the
residential environment and the degree of satisfaction related to the surrounding envi-
ronment. This was applied to rural subjects. The variables used were landscapes of the
home area, agriculture, the place of residence, one’s own household, neighbors, and the
street, and also relationships with the health system, public institutions, the village hall,
school, relatives, and colleagues. The use of certain items in developing the place attach-
ment measurement scale is based on the model by Scannell and Gifford, who proposed
a three-dimensional framework of place attachment (personal, psychological, and place
dimensions) after analyzing a diversity of studies [8].
The relevance of our study lies in an original interpretation of environmental percep-
tion and the relationship between it and place attachment and how we try to show and
explain the level of intensity that each individual feels at the level of the phenomenon of
environmental perception. Last but not least, the practical relevance of this study is that the
influence of the elements that describe environmental perception must start from environ-
mental elements with which people are in permanent contact, because these elements are
more accessible and have the highest degree of repeatability in daily behavior, as proven
by the methodology used. Therefore, the possibility of applying the strategy proposed in
this study can open up further research that involves sharing models of pro-environmental
attitudes and behavior.

2. Literature Review
The extent of development of place attachment in the past 40 years on the one hand,
and, especially in the 1980s, definitions of place attachment related to relation with neigh-
borhoods, affective aspects between people and the environment, and human behavior,
on the other hand, have led to a diversity of definitions of place attachment [7]. Scannell
and Gifford synthesized the multidimensionality of this term in which meanings are “syn-
thesized into a three-dimensional, person–process–place organizing framework” given
the semantic multiplicity of place attachment [8]. This tripartite model was often used in
further studies because the three dimensions (personal, psychological, and place) cover
the definition of place attachment. When considering the personal dimension of place
attachment, it is necessary to consider the multitude of individual and collective meanings
related to places. The connection between the person and sense of place, cognition, and
behavior is focused on the psychological process [8,9]. The importance of this dimension
derives from the inclusion of human beings and the way they relate to the place. The
understanding of how individuals and the groups to which they belong relate to a place
takes into account the importance of the nature of psychological interactions in environ-
ments that mean something important for people, such as “the psychological dimension
includes the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of attachment” [8]. Therefore,
place attachment cannot be defined apart from social interactions and the psychological
components that occur at the level of these interactions. In this context, therefore, “spatial
level, specificity, and the prominence of social or physical elements” are the characteristics
of place attachment that provide place dimension, namely the social, symbolic, and physical
aspects of place [9].
On the other hand, from investigation of the term “place attachment” derives concepts
such as dwelling identity, community identity, and regional identity, in whose conceptual
delimitations social or environmental factors are considered as demographic qualities of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 3 of 18

residents and interpretive residential affiliations, social participation in the local community,
and patterns of intercommunity spatial activity [1]. In the relationship between place and
attachment, the way in which the person relates to the place and to the symbolism and
affectivity of the place such as a house, home, residence, location, etc., matters. Therefore,
the way in which “self is situated in the social-spatial environment” is important for place
identity [1]. In this relationship between place and attachment, both the houses and the
term of dwelling that opens towards the environment are important. The dwelling means
both the way the person relates to their own house and the relationship between person and
the exterior of the house, namely with the environment and nature. However, while there
are numerous studies “that have attempted to assess the restorative properties of nature
and/or urban green space”, only a few of those studies have considered the inclusion of
humans in the natural environment [10]. This horizontal spatial openness is problematic
when people need to delineate a place in a natural environment, because they can only do
so by limiting or delimiting a place. This delimitation takes into account visual boundaries
(“a portion of land which the eye can comprehend at a glance” [11] (p. 2) that are in an
interdependent relationship with “three-dimensional perception of the landscape and,
therefore, visibility” [2]. The visibility of place depends on the eye that looks at the place
and how the place becomes symbolized either by feelings or by pragmatic functions, etc.
The place becomes visible (visible in a certain way) through the way people perceive
it. Place perception opens towards attachment. The look discovers three spatial ranges
(house, neighborhood, and city) which measure the social and physical levels of place
attachment, taking into account the physical and social dimensions [12]. Dang and Weiss
started from a diversity of meanings, perspectives, and indicators of place attachment and
conducted research in which they quantified all studies investigating place attachment
between 2010 and 2021; the studies are indexed in Web of Science and ProQuest. One of
the authors’ conclusions is that there are different results within the subdimensions used.
They synthesized these subdimensions that measuring place attachment into dependence,
place identity, place affect, and place bonding [7].
The indicators used and the referential field depend on the perspective approach from
which term “place attachment” is viewed. The psychological perspective mainly uses the
terminology of behavioral intention to explain “the development of place attachment with
a particular behavioral intention”. Most of the relevant psychological studies consider
the relationship between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior intentions,
also providing empirical evidence [7]. There is a sociological point of view according to
which place becomes a location for social interactions or is valued as a symbol for a social
group. Social relationships are included in attachment formation, and place attachment
“is a significant positive predictor of social norms” [7,9]. The ways in which sociological
indicators are classified, categorized, and used lead to the investigation of the diversity of
relationships. For example, Fried conducted a study that shows that even though place
attachment is a characteristic feature of life in many poor, ethnic, or immigrant communities,
the development of sense of spatial identity for members of these communities is a critical
component [9]. Therefore, the diversity of the reports and relationships between place and
attachment or between place attachment and other indicators may be better understood
depending on the definition of groups and communities as well as the indicators for
measuring place attachment.
Place attachment has been considered from the point of view of how people relate
to their own identity and to the identity of communities/societies, because people are
attached to a certain place where they (re)find their own identity in an environment. When
the environment is considered as landscape, landscape identity becomes possible because
there is an interrelationship between people’s own identity and the environment. Defining
landscape identity is achieved through several activities such as landscape protection,
management, and planning. Also, the definition is achieved by evaluation of landscape
character from three aspects—the physical, the visual, and the image, and last but not least,
through “the unique psycho-sociological perception of a place defined in a spatial-cultural
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 4 of 18

space” [2–4,14]. All of these can help with the conceptual delineations of this term, as there
are issues with boundaries and how they can be determined [2]. Residential environment
derives from landscape identity. One of Scannell and Gifford’s hypotheses is that those who
are place-attached have an identity relationship with the environment and those whose
relationships are not based on an identity principle do not have an intense sense of place
attachment. The two authors show that the principles that emerge from identity related
to residential attachment are continuity, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and distinctiveness [8].
Given the relationship between place attachment and the environment, it appears that place
attachment “was primarily coined in the context of environmental psychology” [7], but we
have already seen that this kind of relationship is more nuanced, at least in philosophy. On
the other hand, in this relationship between place attachment and environment there is the
concept of sense of place defined as “beliefs about the relationship between self and place”
and “feelings toward the place; and the behavioral exclusivity of the place in relation to
alternatives” [15].
From the point of view of human geography, the relationship with the natural envi-
ronment predominates, in which the relationship between the person and the physical
environment opens up to place attachment as a universal phenomenon [9]. Edward Relph,
professor of geography at the University of Toronto, developed a measurement scale that
relates the physical characteristics of place to the connection between people and social
environment, on the one hand, and to subjective perceptions of place of origin, on the other
hand [16]. The notion of environment is a general perspective of the physical spaces devel-
oped by geography. Scientists quickly understood that the environment has consistency
only as an observed reality, so a dual perspective was formed in studies in this field. Thus,
phenomena and concepts from the sciences of nature were combined with phenomena
and notions from the social sciences [17,18]. The stake of research activities about the
environment is rendered by human actions, including the way in which human activities
have influenced nature. This stake is all the greater as it has revealed the emergence of
global phenomena due to human activities which endanger the quality of the environment.
People’s perceptions differ about the importance of aspects that explain the envi-
ronment [19]. In their study conducted in Australia, Brown and Raymond divided the
population into two, residents and visitors, and the authors obtained different results about
environmental perception for the two groups. Therefore, the functionality of daily activities
and individual perspectives on place are criteria for personal reporting relating to the
environment. The quality of jobs and their numbers depend on the economic performance
of an area [19].
The implications of the phenomena of place attachment and environmental perception
go beyond issues of environmental quality. These phenomena significantly determine
people’s well-being and quality of life [20]. In 1963, a study was carried out that showed
that even if residents had good or reasonable reasons to move to another place, when they
had to move, they experienced major problems because they had strong place attachment.
Persistence of regret or nostalgia exist long after people are relocated [21]. These emotional
states have a strong influence on quality of life and feelings of well-being. Individuals’
subjective perceptions of their own lifestyle will be disturbed, even if many other daily
demands and needs are met, because there is a satisfaction related to the sense of place
attachment. Rollero and Piccoli conducted a study based on a sample of 443 subjects.
These subjects were first-year students and were chosen because they had changed their
home and expressed feelings and emotional states generated by changes and uncertainties
related to place attachment [22]. A significant correlation between place attachment and
social well-being resulted, and the dimension was operationalized using a social well-being
scale. This was composed of five items measuring five dimensions: social integration,
social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization, and social coherence [22,23].
Perception of well-being and quality of life are the mandatory attributes for ensuring an
individual’s emotional balance. These characteristics are highlighted by measuring the
different types of relationships subjects have with the social networks and social institutions
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 5 of 18

they interact with every day. Therefore, desirable characteristics have a strong sociological
component, as can be seen from the mentioned studies.

3. Methodology
The general premise of this study is that people’s interest in the environment is a
prerequisite in the context of place attachment. Hence the implicit premise that as the world
becomes more technical and, implicitly, urbanized, there is a semantic impoverishment of
the way human beings relate to home and place, and their perception of the environment
is. However, this terminological technicalization only renames the same content by other
names. Therefore, the section dedicated to philosophy becomes necessary to show, on the
one hand, the pre-existence of the terms used by sociology, and on the other hand, that the
variables used in this study are included in the semantic richness of philosophy.
Therefore, for the association between the first two terms, place and attachment, the
interdependent relationship between place as home or community and self as self-identity
is taken into account [1–5]. For the association between the environment and perception,
the intentionality that shifts the focus from one term to another is taken into account [6].
In second part of this study, we apply the research methodology to measure the
intensity with which environmental perceptions are manifested at the level of the rural pop-
ulation [35,36]. The use of certain items in developing the place attachment measurement
scale is based on the model proposed by Scannell and Gifford. Those authors proposed
a three-dimensional framework of place attachment (person, psychological, and place di-
mensions), after analyzing a diversity of studies [8]. The phenomenon of place attachment
has an individual and a group dimension at the same time. The group perspective has a
strong incidence on the personal level because people need social integration. Any form
of adherence to social values and norms is a confirmation of social integration. People,
consciously or not, tend to adhere to currents of opinion specific to the social environment
they belong to, because social integration allows access to available forms of social support.
Social support is a phenomenon that is strongly linked to quality of life.
The measurement scales for place attachment and environment perceptions were
constructed according to the Likert model. In the case of place attachment we used
12 variables with scores from 1 to 10, and in the case of environment perception we used
10 variables measured with scales of four degrees of intensity. The development of the scales
was based on the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), which is a measure of
collective action developed from a meta-analysis of over 180 studies investigating predictors
of collective actions [35].
The instrument used for the research methodology was a questionnaire model with
closed questions that contained a set of Likert scales for measuring attachment to the resi-
dential environment and the degree of satisfaction related to the surrounding environment.
This was applied to rural subjects. The survey operators administered 1576 questionnaires
to as many subjects aged over 18, who were familiar with the reality of rural areas in
north-western Romania. The variables used were landscape of the home area, agriculture,
place of residence, one’s own household, neighbors, the street, and also relationships with
the health system, public institutions, the village hall, school, relatives, and colleagues.

4. Philosophical Meanings Used in Place Attachment Definitions

Dang and Weiss confirm that place attachment has been studied in a diversity of
scientific disciplines such as environmental psychology, human geography, and sociology,
but also in other research area as business and management, risk and crisis, urban planning,
leisure, hospitality, and tourism. Terms such as community attachment, sense of community,
place identity, place dependence, and sense of place are used in descriptions of place
attachment. However, the authors observe that the meanings “are not easy to differentiate
and the concepts partly overlap” [7]. Our observation is that all these meanings were
already defined and had been used by philosophy since Greek antiquity. So, it is important
to take a glance at the philosophical vocabulary to understand, on one hand, the conceptual
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 6 of 18

boundaries and clarification of meanings and, on the other hand, which meanings of place
have been used by the other sciences. Last but not least, it is necessary to understand
the transition that affected the technicalities of this vocabulary. Similar to the observation
“common to all definitions is that place attachments refer to the relationship between
individuals and their environment” [7], there is a philosophical presence because there
is a vocabulary that describes and explains the relationships between people, place, and
environment. If we take into account the etymologies and primary meanings of the ancient
Greek terms including such verbs as oiken, naiein, and demein, and such nouns as domos
or doma, ethos, hestia, horos, peras, etc. [24], five primary meanings of place attachment
can be separated:
(a) The first meaning is that all the essential things of a human being’s life are carried
on under the order of the oikos and ensure the creation of memory as a durable link
to the place where human life unfolded. The focus is on memory—a memory of
affectivity—that opens towards the transcendent because the place of the human
being (a place where the ancestors lived and where the descendants will live) is also a
place of the gods. If it does not take into account the transcendent, the oikos meaning
overlaps with that of place attachment [8].
(b) The second meaning derives from the first; there is a divine meaning of dwelling (the
gods protect the house), and the link between human beings and gods is accomplished
by ancestors and the dwelling of gods (naos—temple). Attachment is accomplished
through a horizontal relationship of forming memory and identity as an individual, as
family, and as community, and through a vertical relationship sacralizing of the place
where we live. Inside of these appear environment and behavior. Human behavior is
regulated by the relationship with gods, and the place—home and temple—means
the environment as a world [24].
(c) The third meaning of place attachment states that the link with place is ensured
through the imprint on the place by dwelling, because the primary meaning of ethos
was the habits of the house. This could be a meaning of place identity [2–4,14].
(d) The fourth meaning of place attachment and environmental behavior has a unifying
role, in which a central place is symbolized as center that finally attracts, gathers,
and unifies the family and the household gods (Hestia, the protective goddess of
the home).
(e) The fifth meaning of place attachment and environmental behavior implies that if we
live within the border/limit (peras as limit crossing, horos as the visible territorial
limit and hyper-oria as the territory located beyond the border), then we keep place
attachment within that environment [24], but if we transgress this limit, the loss of
the oikos, hestia, and naos occurs, that is, the loss of all previous meanings. If we
go beyond the borders, we lose the attachment. In this case, environment influences
place attachment. From these three meanings of limit, we can identify that the visible
limit that we perceive with eye shows us the place as territory [2,11].
If for the Romans the meanings remain almost unchanged (each place has its own
god—genius loci), in Christianity the primary sense of the naos (temple/the God’s house)
has been reconfigured. The church becomes a place outside the place where we live daily
(house), but retains its centrality within the community. On the other hand, a major change
is that the only real place becomes that of the divine presence, that is, the soul in a personal
sense, especially in the first centuries of Christianity. Place matters only as a place where
contemplation of the created world and of the creator is accomplished or possible. If
geography is not symbolically invested, it loses its meaning [25]. On the other hand, the
place of the church as place to find yourself, or to return to yourself, or to leave yourself in
the care of God, etc., is the axis mundi of any rural community (and up to a point, urban
communities as well). Practically, Greco–Roman and Christian semantic diversity is found
in almost all areas until modernity. In a certain sense, Heidegger can be considered both
the last thinker who named, thought about, and formulated the problem of the meaning of
place through a relationship with the semantics of the ancient Greek language, as well as
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 7 of 18

the first opener of new ways of thinking about place and dwelling, not only in philosophy
but also in other fields. For Heidegger, there are boundaries that separate the dwelling
place from the rest of the space and that have impregnated/permeated the interiority
qualitatively, both horizontally and vertically [5].
Perhaps it is precisely here that an ontological mutation (the limitation that delimits
the domestic space and the limitation that delimits the public space) takes place that will
later be taken over by sociologists. However, perception has a central place in the careful
description of lived experience. We can change the elements of our visual field so that
stable things appear [6]. From this moment, technicality of terms emerges depending on
the autonomy of the diversity of fields and the perspective that each field has on the terms.
The Heideggerian phenomenological approach is re-signified by Schultz, who explains
how space is converted into place. Place has only the meaning of house/public building,
which is understood through the relationship between context (putting the place in a
context) and dwelling. Schultz aims to slide towards utility and efficiency and explains
the transition from space to house referring to aspects such as infrastructure, facilities,
etc. [26]. Thus, Schultz’s theory only applies to the urban. However, for Harvey, the home
is that place where we live accidentally/by chance (a building that protects us from bad
weather) and is a private space that ensures privacy and a retreat from the intrusive gaze of
others. The habitation is related to location because there is an importance of emplacement,
infrastructure, etc. that reflects the social status of the inhabitants [27].
The indicators that measure wellness and the quality of individual life appear once
the habitation begins to be defined and problematized according to several criteria such as
emplacement, thermal efficiency, pollution level, public institutions in the vicinity of house,
etc. The ontological mutation was achieved when the standard of living and individual
prosperity was measured/quantified by means of indicators that apply to the way the
inhabitants live and not to the way the human beings themselves live. New terms such as
housing quality index appeared. For example, Ranci consider quality of living to be a key
element of quality of life, and for Trudel quality of living is the basic dimension of quality
of life [28] (p. 46). The importance of a classification in relation to the indicators used as
statistical variables eliminated human beings and gods from the topic of place. The house
can become home only after a period that is long enough to ensure the emergence of the
sense of belonging, the sense of identity that is the place attachment [29]. On the other
hand, other terms appear, such as sustainable development, which in 1991 became the
main concept in the U.N.O. document entitled Caring for the Earth in 1991. Since 1992, the
Sustainable Development Commission of Rio de Janeiro has analyzed, informed, and set
strategy. Authors such as Backer, who introduced the term behavior setting (any behavior
is formed according to the spatial setting in which it manifests) [30], and participants at
the Stockholm Conference in 1970 prepared the ground for the debates that take place
today. On the other hand, Braud observes that the environmental problem that has been
regulated by the whole community becomes a political problem when those who hold the
power take over the regulations and the criteria of these regulations [31] (p. 11). So, in
this relationship between place attachment and environmental behavior, new indicators
established by experts in fields such as ecology, sociology, urbanism, etc., are added.
In premodernity, both the village (rural) and the city (urban) used the same vocabulary
to define the boundaries of place or the world as intramuros or extramuros. Vernant shows
that the way the ancient Greeks conceived nature/world and religion influenced the way
people organized both the interior space of the house and the exterior space, the space of
the polis. The ancient Greeks introduced the term agora as a public space (debating), public
square, and city center [32]. The symbolism of the center (axis mundi) as a common place
that connects and unifies exists from antiquity until today, especially in countryside. The
agora, the church, and the public square become places where the whole community meets,
communicates, and participates together, in communion with God. Rural residents have
a sense of belonging to the place. This place is delimited as the center (the hearth of the
village), as a horizontal limit (boundary/frontier), and by a verticality mediated by the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 8 of 18

church. All these give people a sense of belonging to the world as a whole (God’s world).
The preservation of one’s own identity can only be achieved in the place where people are
themselves (home) and to which they belong (home, village, community, church, world).
In the countryside, limits are very important, in the sense of the old terms horos,
hyper-oria, and peras. Preserving one’s own identity can only be achieved in the place
where one is oneself (the house with all the elements such as family, environment, etc.)
and to which one belongs (the village, the community, the church with all the elements
such as neighbors, agriculture, landscape, relationships with others and institutions, etc.).
With the migration of the peasant to the city, some of these meanings are lost. Oiko-nomia
(economics) became the simple accounting of household goods before becoming the science
of today [24]. Basically, the essential meanings of the terms nostos and oikos have been lost.
Are these meanings still preserved in the countryside? Stahl shows that there is a
wide variety of worldviews from village to village and from person to person. There is
a diversity of elements as a result of previous generations, and the humanization of the
landscape where people are born is a tradition, namely, a part of contemporary history is
kept alive. Fields such as demography, sociology, anthropology, history of mentalities, etc.,
show us a past that lives in current forms [33] (pp. 118, 257–258), namely, the classifications
and categories that the social sciences use and which have gradually changed from the
discovery of the peasant’s point of view as different from that of the city dweller [34] to
the current re-signification of the peasant as a human being who lives harmoniously in the
environment and respects nature. We aim to discover which of the meanings that place
attachment once had still exist today in the rural environment and what is the influence of
environmental perception.

5. Materials and Methods

The research instrument used for this study was a closed-question questionnaire
design, which included a set of Likert scales to measure attachment to the residential
environment and satisfaction with the environment. The questionnaire was administered
to rural subjects and are constructed in accordance with the perceptual sensitivities and
everyday concerns theoretically attributed to residents of the target area. The survey opera-
tors administered 1576 questionnaires to as many subjects aged over 18, who were familiar
with the reality of rural areas in north-western Romania. The selection of respondents
involved multi-stage sampling, the study being based on three stages. In the first stage, a
random sample of localities was taken. The second stage involved applying the random
step method in the field for the selection of households, and in the last stage, the selection
of subjects who responded to the questionnaires, according to age and gender category.
The sampling error was approximated to +/−2.7% with a probability of 95%.
The measurement scales for place attachment and environmental perceptions were con-
structed according to the Likert model. In the case of place attachment we used 12 variables
with scores from 1 to 10, and in the case of environmental perception we used 10 variables
measured with scales of 4 degrees of intensity. The development of the scales was based on
the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), which is a measure of collective
action developed from a meta-analysis of over 180 studies investigating predictors of col-
lective actions [35]. This methodological model is based on three key variables: emotional
reactions to injustice, efficacy, and identification. Studies show that emotional appraisals
can heighten people’s willingness to engage in collective action [36]. In this respect, it
should be noted that the model for interpreting forms of place attachment in rural areas
has the ultimate aim of determining pro-environmental behavior, which is materialized in
everyday life as a form of manifestation of collective action. Place attachment is a multi-
dimensional concept with person, psychological process, and place dimensions [8]. This
study focuses on aspects related to place dimensions. Of the three dimensions, this is the
most accessible in terms of the possibility of intervention and influence, with the objective
of generating pro-environmental behaviors. Place attachment is a phenomenon strongly
correlated with feelings of well-being and, therefore, the measurement scale we used in
 in rural areas has the ultimate aim of determining pro-environmental behavior, which is
materialized in everyday life as a form of manifestation of collective action. Place attach-
ment is a multidimensional concept with person, psychological process, and place dimen-
sions [8]. This study focuses on aspects related to place dimensions. Of the three dimen-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 sions, this is the most accessible in terms of the possibility of intervention and influence, 9 of 18
with the objective of generating pro-environmental behaviors. Place attachment is a phe-
nomenon strongly correlated with feelings of well-being and, therefore, the measurement
our study
scale took into
we used in ouraccount
study the
tooksocial
into well-being
account thescale
social[37]. Thus, thescale
well-being variables describing
[37]. Thus, the
the intensity
variables of placethe
describing attachment
intensity ofcan beattachment
place grouped into can three categories:
be grouped city categories:
into three attachment,
city attachment,
neighborhood neighborhood
attachment, and attachment,
attachment and attachment
to public to public institutions.
institutions.
Weattempted
We attemptedtotoidentify
identifyenvironmental
environmentalperceptions
perceptionsasas predictors
predictors of of place
place attach-
attachment
ment through
through a modela model that combines
that combines the variables
the variables considered
considered in the
in the literature.
literature. WeWe based
based our
our hypotheses
hypotheses on theonresults
the results of previous
of previous studies: studies: Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Subjects
1: Subjects with a intensity
with a higher higher
intensity
of of environmental
environmental perception perception
propose apropose a more image
more positive positiveofimage of the
the place placethey
where wherelive,
they live,place
because because place attachment
attachment represents
represents the emotional
the emotional connection
connection to a to a physical
physical areaarea
[38].
[38]. Hypothesis
Hypothesis 2: Representations
2: Representations of environment
of the the environment are are
based based on social
on social experiences
experiences and
and acquire
acquire different
different values,
values, andare
and they they
alsoarea deep
also aexpression
deep expression of the person’s
of the person’s subjec-
subjectivity [39].
tivity [39]. Hypothesis
Hypothesis 3: There is 3: There is
a causal a causal relationship
relationship between environmental
between environmental perceptionperception
and place
and place attachment
attachment that itself
that manifests manifests itself as aproportional
as a directly directly proportional relationship.
relationship.

6.6.Results
Results
Based
Based onon factor
factor analysis, we aimed
analysis, we aimed to to reduce
reducethe
the1212variables
variablesused
usedtotodescribe
describethe
the
phenomenon
phenomenon of place placeattachment.
attachment.WeWe generated
generated a factor
a factor characterized
characterized by a common
by a common var-
variance
iance (at (at
thethe level
level of the
of the 12 initial
12 initial factors)
factors) of 44.7%
of 44.7% of theofsample,
the sample,
whichwhich represents
represents ap-
approximately
proximately 700 700 respondents
respondents (Figure
(Figure 1). 1).

Initial Eigenvalues Component Matrix a 1

Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative % The landscape of the home area 0.776
1 5.374 44.780 44.780 Agricultural landscape 0.751
2 1.538 12.817 57.597 The landscape of the place of residence 0.735
3 0.952 7.937 65.534 Relationship with the health system 0.709
4 0.737 6.139 71.673 The landscape of your own household 0.670
5 0.687 5.723 77.396 Neighborhood landscape, street landscape 0.664
6 0.561 4.673 82.068 Relationship with the school 0.663
7 0.462 3.853 85.921 Relations with relatives 0.652
8 0.423 3.521 89.443 Relations with colleagues 0.619
9 0.378 3.146 92.589 Relations with other public institutions 0.607
10 0.359 2.991 95.580 Relationships with friends 0.597
11 0.295 2.461 98.041 Relationship with the town hall 0.548
12 0.235 1.959 100.000 Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Extraction method: principal component analysis. a. 1 component extracted.

Figure 1. Total variance explained.

Figure 1. Total variance explained.

The questions referred to the quality perceived by the subjects regarding the different
aspects that characterize place attachment. The minimum score is 1 and represents the
greatest distance from the ideal situation, and 10 is the maximum value and represents the
ideal situation that the subject perceives in relation to the different characteristics by which
we defined place attachment.
Table 1 highlights the scores resulting from respondents’ ratings of the characteristics
that define place attachment. We also set out to measure the intensity of environmental
perceptions in the rural population, based on the idea that people’s interest in the environ-
ment is a prerequisite in the context of place attachment and pro-environmental behavior.
Indeed, it can be expected that there are people who do not show sufficient interest in
environmental issues, who do not understand, do not appreciate, and do not emphasize
the characteristics of the environment as an important part in determining the quality
of daily existence. This category may develop a place attachment based mainly on the
phenomenon of socialization, but it will be difficult to manifest pro-environmental attitudes
and behavior if their relationship with the environment is characterized by indifference
rather than active involvement. Environmental perceptions are therefore the foundation of
pro-environmental behavior, and we aim to describe how this phenomenon manifests itself
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 10 of 18

in rural areas. On the other hand, we think that it is significant to construct an explanatory
scheme about the influence of environmental perceptions on place attachment, since these
two phenomena are mutually conditional.

Table 1. Place attachment variables.

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Relations with colleagues 1550 1 10 8.74
Relationships with friends 1551 1 10 8.68
The landscape of your own household 1555 1 10 8.39
The relationship with the town hall 1473 1 10 7.81
Agricultural landscape 1546 1 10 7.74
The landscape of the home area 1547 1 10 7.42
Relations with relatives 1551 1 10 7.35
Neighborhood landscape, street landscape 1551 1 10 7.09
Relationship with the health system 1551 1 10 7.04
Relationship with the school 1549 1 10 6.97
Relations with other public institutions 1477 1 10 6.93
Relationship with other aspects of daily life 1531 1 10 6.81
The landscape of the place of residence 1555 1 10 6.75

Using factor analysis again, the 10 variables measuring environmental perception

were synthesized into three factors (Table 2). Here we can see that the variables clustered
around the third factor represent close everyday visual and interactional aspects with an
almost permanent and constant presence in everyday experiences. The first factor refers to
environmental elements with which the individual interacts frequently. The second factor
is made up of variables that characterize things that the individual interacts with rarely
that are contextually more removed from everyday experience, and the third factor is made
up of environmental elements with which man is in permanent contact. We can therefore
say that environmental perception is a social phenomenon described by three factors that
describe the frequency of the individual’s interaction with environmental elements: factor
1—contextual level of interaction with environmental elements; factor 2—everyday level of
interaction; and factor 3—permanent level of contact with environmental elements.

Table 2. Environmental perception component.

Component
Rotated Component Matrix a
1 2 3
things from the house 0.220 0.216 0.665
the yard of the household 0.592 0.072 0.525
the street you live on 0.108 0.331 0.712
own garden 0.006 0.475 0.655
the center of the village 0.641 0.055 0.302
hay or pasture 0.759 0.333 0.044
stables and places for animals 0.843 0.204 0.011
meadow/hill/mountain/lake/river/swamp/forest 0.278 0.697 0.050
shop/factory/wind farm/hydroelectric dam 0.035 0.696 0.173
exploitation of raw materials 0.164 0.757 0.036
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. a Rota-
tion converged in eight iterations.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 11 of 18

Furthermore, in Table 2, through factor analysis, we show that the variables measuring
environmental perception are grouped into three categories according to the significance of
how they correlate with each other. The first category consists of four variables: things from
the house; the yard of the household; the street you live on; the center of the village. The
second factor consists of the variables: own garden; hay or pasture; stables and places for an-
imals. The third factor contains the variables meadow/hill/mountain/lake/river/swamp/
forest, shop/factory/wind farm/hydroelectric dam, and exploitation of raw materials.
Analyzing this situation, we found that the homogenizing element of the factors is the
intensity of interaction of the subjects with the elements of the environment. Thus, if we
look at the composition of factor 3 (Table 3), it includes the variables things from the house,
the yard of the household, the street you live on, and the center of the village, which refer
to elements of the environment with a high level of accessibility. Subjects come into contact
with these elements very frequently. The conclusion is that spatial proximity, which deter-
mines the frequency of interactions between humans and environmental elements, is the
main homogenizing element of environmental perception. The three factors that capture
and measure environmental perception are named accordingly: environmental elements
with permanent contact, environmental elements with daily contact, and environmental
elements with occasional contact.

Table 3. Model summary regression of influence of environmental perception on place attachment.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 0.775 a 0.600 0.596 1.15516
2 0.841 b 0.708 0.702 0.99215
3 0.878 c 0.771 0.764 0.88346
a Predictors: (constant), environmental elements with permanent contact. b Predictors: (constant), environmental
elements with permanent contact, environmental elements with daily contact. c Predictors: (constant), environ-
mental elements with permanent contact, environmental elements with daily contact, environmental elements
with occasional contact.

Figure 2 shows the intensity with which the environment is perceived from the per-
spective of the three factors that explain this phenomenon. We can see that the intensity
of perception of environmental elements is directly proportional to the frequency of in-
teractions; in other words, the more interactions there are, the greater is the intensity of
environmental perception. The elements of environmental perception most intensely mani-
fested are those with permanent contact. In total, 44% of subjects stated that the things from
the house, the yard of the household, the street they live on, and their own garden are the
elements of environment that they notice to a very high degree. Only 24% of the population
gave very much notice to the aspects meadow/hill/mountain/lake/river/swamp/forest,
shop/factory/wind farm/hydroelectric dam, or exploitation of raw materials.
The coefficient of determination (R square) in Table 3 shows that each of the three regres-
sion models causes significant variation in the place attachment phenomenon. Environmental
perception elements with permanent contact cause variation in place attachment in 60% of the
study population. Elements with permanent contact together with elements with everyday
contact cause a variation in place attachment in 70.8% of the population. Finally, if we add
the occasional interaction elements and obtain the total of environmental perception, there is
significant variation in place attachment in 77.1% of the study population.
Table 4 allows us to analyze the regression equations and make predictions about the
evolution of feelings of place attachment. If we disregard the significance level of the multi-
ple regression models, all three models have a significance level less than 0.1, which means
that they have a strongly significant linear regression. Model 3 is the complete model, which
includes all elements of environment perception. We therefore choose to discuss the predic-
tion that this model allows. The regression equation is: place attachment = 2.743 + 0.457
(environmental elements with occasional contact) + 0.527 (environmental elements with
daily contact) + 0.733 (environmental elements with permanent contact). Place attachment
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 12 of 18

emotion changes by one unit when environmental perception changes by 1.717 units. In
other words, any increase or decrease in environmental perception by 1.717 units will result
in an increase (decrease) in place attachment by 1 unit. If we look at the three elements of
environmental perception, we can see that each element increases the effect on the phe-
nomenon of place attachment. Each element has a directly proportional influence on place
attachment. The influence can be estimated for each of the three models of environmental
perception. The prediction of the influence of the elements of environment perception on
place attachment must start from the environmental elements with permanent contact,
because these elements are the most accessible, with the highest degree of repeatability in
everyday behavior.

Figure 2. Elements of environmental perception.

Table 4. Coefficients table of the influence of environmental perception on place attachment.

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.192 0.288 14.555 0.000
1
Environmental elements with permanent contact 1.224 0.100 0.775 12.252 0.000
(Constant) 3.457 0.276 12.541 0.000
2 Environmental elements with occasional contact 0.673 0.125 0.426 5.370 0.000
Environmental elements with daily contact 0.812 0.134 0.479 6.047 0.000
(Constant) 20.743 0.281 9.745 0.000
Environmental elements with occasional contact 0.457 0.119 0.289 3.836 0.000
3
Environmental elements with daily contact 0.527 0.132 0.311 3.997 0.000
Environmental elements with occasional contact 0.733 0.141 0.379 5.182 0.000
Dependent variable: Q6PA (place attachment).

7. Discussion
First, we propose some more precise details about the role of philosophical analysis
in the design of this study. First of all, we would like to point out that philosophical
analysis is a methodological approach that derives from the field of knowledge developed
by various authors under the name of “philosophy of social science” [40–42]. Specifying
the philosophy of social science to our research subject, we highlight some ideas:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 13 of 18

1. Philosophical analysis covers important issues that could not be described by statisti-
cal analysis. One such situation is that place attachment analysis raises an ontological
dispute in that this phenomenon exists outside the symbolic or cultural meanings that
actors manifest. In simple terms, people are usually not aware of feelings like place
attachment or environmental perception, they do not think about them, and they do
not use them in conversations. Yet, they exist and their consequences are decisive for
behavioral patterns such as those based on pro-environmental attitudes.
2. Sociological research covers a limited fraction of a very large phenomenon in terms of
its social implications. Philosophical analysis supports sociological analysis. Thus, the
etymological perspective offers knowledge at the historical level; philosophical analy-
sis brings into question the role of church and faith in crystallizing place attachment;
Heideggerian phenomenology emphasizes the emergence of meaning, as space is
becoming place and house is becoming home; last but not least, philosophical analysis
argues the authors’ choice to limit this sociological study to rural communities.
3. From a methodological point of view, philosophical analysis contributed to the cre-
ation of the theoretical entities that we have used in the research. Philosophy of
social sciences introduces an empiricist approach to social reality that promotes the
construction of theoretical entities by means of “useful fictions” that subsequently
allow scientific prediction by virtue of mathematical content. This type of approach
is called “instrumentalism” [43], and is precisely what has happened in this study
by relating philosophical analysis to sociological interpretation. Theoretical entities
were defined by the items on the scales and then placed in relation as independent
variables that determine place attachment as a dependent variable.
Given that “a concept has a specific defining attributes because of its role in the theory”,
a brief foray into the field of philosophy became necessary because in the methodological
literature, these philosophical questions are often called problems of “construct validity”.
The main concept that we used in this study had many attributes and meanings, but all of
them are kept under other names in sociology. Last but not least, “real features of the world
correspond to the theoretical concepts or constructs, and valid surveys (or other tests) can
measure them” [44].
The phenomenon of place attachment has an individual and a group dimension at the
same time. The group perspective has a strong incidence on the personal level because
people need social integration. Any form of adherence to social values and norms is a
confirmation of social integration. People, consciously or not, tend to adhere to currents of
opinion specific to the social environment they belong to, because social integration allows
access to available forms of social support. Social support is a phenomenon that is strongly
linked to quality of life [45]. The quality of personal life is, most often, one of the powerful
factors that give meaning to human life, even if a kind of mercantilism is observed. This is
suggested by the meanings that rural people give to the term environment. Most of them
consider that the environment is “place around us”, which is a general perspective with a
high degree of impartiality and can be seen as representative of the relationship between
population and nature in the targeted social area [46].
If we calculate the answers given for all 12 variables in relation to place attachment,
we obtain the percentage results presented in Table 5, which highlight the intensity with
which the phenomenon of place attachment is manifested among the inhabitants of rural
areas in the north-western part of Romania. The total number of respondents differs and
is smaller than the number of subjects who answered each variable separately, because in
the case of the data in Table 5, only subjects who answered all questions related to place
attachment at the same time were considered.
It is important to note that 10% of the population manifest a lack of a sense of place
attachment, while 26.1% of the population manifest characteristics that suggest a strong
attachment to the area in which they live. People in rural areas are more likely to be attached
to the area where they live, and this characteristic is a very good context for promoting
pro-environmental behavior. However, there is a need to raise awareness of environmental
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 14 of 18

needs, and then the chances are good that the majority of the population will make efforts
to conserve the environment. At the same time, other social forces and phenomena will also
have an impact on this behavioral pattern. As a rule, when it comes to collective issues that
are part of a social environment’s agenda of priorities, the influence of the majority’s views
is also taken up by those who have different perspectives or are indifferent. Adherence
to majority opinion is a strategy of social integration and is often mandatory, especially
for issues that are intensely perceived by the public. Pollution issues have been and are
intensely debated in the public arena. In addition to public analyses, marketing arguments
such as the pollution standard for cars or green certificates have also emerged. So, failure
to meet standardized pollution reduction performance can lead to additional costs. In this
context, environmental cleanliness issues are willingly or unwillingly becoming part of
people’s daily concerns.

Table 5. Place attachment results.

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

soft place attachment 125 10.0 10.0
medium place attachment 803 63.9 73.9
strong place attachment 328 26.1 100.0
Total 1256 100.0

Even if the focus of this research is ultimately on pro-environmental behavior, we

believe that this topic needs to be investigated from related perspectives, primarily because
of the notoriety of pollution problems and their consequences. This notoriety generates
an intense phenomenon of social desirability among the population, especially since the
positions towards environmental problems, which we find almost permanently in the
public space, are unidirectional and cannot be otherwise since the problems generated
by pollution cannot be seen in a positive sense. In this context, investigations into the
phenomenon of place attachment have a double functional role. Firstly, place attachment
is a barometer for the individual’s willingness to manifest pro-environmental behavioral
patterns and, secondly, it has the role of avoiding systematic errors generated by the
phenomenon of social desirability.
Of the variables describing environmental perception (Figure 3), we note that three
were listed by 80% of respondents. These are the things from the house, the yard of the
household, and one’s own garden. It can be said that these three variables describe the
closest areas of the environment, which appear most frequently in the action areas of
the respondents. Environmental perception is a social manifestation that can be found
in four distinct forms: the environment as external object, as representation of self, as
embodiment of value, and as arena for action [47]. The three aspects of the environment
perceived with high intensity by the subjects, can be classified simultaneously in two
categories: as representation of self and as arena for action. The frequency with which
the individual interacts with the environmental element does not necessarily represent
an advantage in relation to increased intensity of perception. On the contrary, frequent
interaction inhibits attention and induces a sense of habituation that generates a tendency
to carelessness and a perception of the natural as ordinary and banal. The literature shows
that increased attention to environmental elements with which the individual interacts
all the time is an indicator of social isolation [48]. It is not the same when we think of
environmental elements as forms of representation of the self or as environmental tools in
carrying out one’s own activities. The conclusion is that the increased intensity we see in
the manifestation of environmental perception has deeply subjective explanations. More
concretely, environmental perception manifests itself in the context of elements that can
be used as a representation of the self but also as a pragmatic form of providing a suitable
environment for the performance of everyday activities. This is not unimportant, because
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 15 of 18

such information can decisively guide strategies to increase the intensity with which
environmental perceptions are manifested in order to induce pro-environmental behavior.

Figure 3. Intensity of occurrence of variables defining environmental perception.

8. Conclusions
Therefore, we consider that, in the rural environment, the meanings of the primary
philosophical terms have been preserved in sociology, even if they have other names. All
these meanings are maintained within the variables that we used in the research section.
Analyzing and understanding the forms of manifestation of the phenomenon of place
attachment is an important issue for contemporary societies. The need to monitor and
stimulate the growth of place attachment is stronger today than in the past. This is due to
the problems faced by mankind in relation to the environment and pollution. Inadequate
care of areas occupied and frequented by humans also results in pollution of nature, and
this leads to major imbalances in ecosystems, affecting or destroying flora and fauna and
generating extreme climatic phenomena associated with global warming. From a social
point of view, all this inevitably leads to a lower quality of life in general.
The effectiveness of knowing the forms of manifestation of place attachment and
subsequently developing productive strategies to stimulate its spread and intensity is based
on identifying elements of everyday life that facilitate intervention in this phenomenon. Our
study is oriented towards environmental perception as a general form that facilitates the
interaction between man and the world around him. Also, environmental perception is an
area of everyday perception that plays an important role in well-being and in the adoption
of positive attitudinal patterns towards people, towards institutional environments, and
towards everyday activities.
As stated in the literature review, there are differences between rural and urban
environments in terms of the relationship between people and the environment. The
pace of life, social symbols, and even the attitudinal patterns that people adopt in relation
to the world are things that occur differently in rural environments compared with the
urban space [49]. First of all, referring to urban environments, the rules of interaction with
elements of the environment are stricter. This is largely due to the fact that elements of
the urban environment are often the result of public investment. Quality assessment in
public investments has sustainability as an indicator of performance, so public institutions
impose behavioral patterns that generate sustainability. On the other hand, in terms of
surface area of environmental zones, rural inhabitants influence and interact with larger
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 16 of 18

areas. These areas are characterized as natural environmental zones. The measurement of
the forms of manifestation of place attachment in rural social environments is based on this
consideration of areas of interaction and influence on the part of the inhabitants.
Environmental perception is a basic form of interaction between man and nature, a
way in which individuals define themselves in relation to the world around them. The
hypothesis that environmental perceptions exert a determining force in relation to place
attachment has been confirmed. The ten variables through which we described environ-
ment perception were structured into three categories according to the ways in which
they correlate with each other. The factor analysis resulted in three categories describing
environmental perception: environmental elements with permanent contact, environmental
elements with daily contact, and environmental elements with occasional contact.
There is a deterministic relationship between environmental perception and place
attachment, a relationship that was tested by regression analysis. According to the results
of this study, it is possible to accurately predict the intensity of increase or decrease in
the feeling of place attachment as a function of the measured variation in the intensity
of environmental perception. For example, if we consider the category of the population
that shows a low level of place attachment, we will be able to increase this level through
concrete interventions in environmental perception. So, if the intensity of environment
perception increases by 1.7 units (which concretely means an increased interest in the
environment), according to the regression analysis we will obtain an increase in the intensity
of place attachment by one unit. Based on these analyses, we are able to provide a strategy
to improve pro-environmental behavior through feelings of place attachment, which is
modified by directly intervening in the interest that people living in rural environments
show for the elements of the environment they interact with in everyday life.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.D., D.M. and I.M.O.; methodology, D.D.; software,
D.D.; validation, D.D., D.M. and I.M.O.; formal analysis, D.D. and D.M.; investigation, D.D., D.M.
and I.M.O.; resources, D.D., D.M. and I.M.O.; writing—original draft preparation, D.D. and D.M.;
writing—review and editing, D.D., D.M. and I.M.O.; visualization, D.M. and I.M.O.; project ad-
ministration, D.D., D.M. and I.M.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study did not require ethical approval.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data are not publicly available due to privacy considerations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Lee, C.; Hummon, D.M. A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. Sociol. Q. 1993, 34, 111–131.
2. Penko Seidl, N.; Šmid Hribar, M.; Hudoklin, J.; Pipan, T.; Golobič, M. Defining Landscapes, and Their Importance for National
Identity—A Case Study from Slovenia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6475. [CrossRef]
3. McCormack, A.; O’Leary, T. Development and Application of Landscape Assessment Guidelines in Ireland: Case Studies Using
Forestry and Wind Farm Developments. In Countryside Planning; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 158–172.
4. Stobbelaar, D.J.; Pedroli, B. Perspectives on Landscape Identity: A Conceptual Challenge. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 321–339.
[CrossRef]
5. Heidegger, M. Originea operei de Artă, Traducere de Gabriel Liiceanu si Thomas Kleininger; Editura Univers: Bucures, ti, Romania, 1983.
6. Cosmescu, A. Teoria percept, iei la A. Spir s, i E. Husserl: Similitudini s, i diferent, e. Rev. Filos. 2016, 2, 142–151.
7. Dang, L.; Weiss, J. Evidence on a Relationship between Place Attachment and Behavioral Intentions between 2010 and 2021: A
Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13138. [CrossRef]
8. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
9. Mjahed Hammami, S.; Abdulrahman Al Moosa, H. Place Attachment in Land Use Changes: A Phenomenological Investigation
in Residents’ Lived Experiences with a Renewable Energy Project Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8856. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 17 of 18

10. Neale, C.; Lopez, S.; Roe, J. Psychological Restoration and the Effect of People in Nature and Urban Scenes: A Laboratory
Experiment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6464. [CrossRef]
11. Jackson, J.B. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape; Yale University Press: London, UK, 1984.
12. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernández, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281.
[CrossRef]
13. Fried, M. Continuities and Discontinuities of Place. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000, 20, 193–205. [CrossRef]
14. The European Landscape Convention (Florence, 2000). Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/the-european-
landscape-convention (accessed on 30 November 2023).
15. Jorgensen, B.; Stedman, R. Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes Toward Their Properties. J. Environ. Psychol.
2001, 21, 233–248. [CrossRef]
16. Relph, E. Place and Placelessness; Pion Limited: London, UK, 1976.
17. Sack, R.D. Homo Geographics: A Framework for Action, Awareness and Moral Concern; John Hopkins University Press: London,
UK, 1997.
18. Patterson, M.E.; Williams, D.R. Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. J. Environ.
Psychol. 2005, 25, 361–380. [CrossRef]
19. Brown, G.; Raymond, C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment.
Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 89–111. [CrossRef]
20. Moser, G. Quality of life and sustainability: Toward person 415 environment congruity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 351–357.
[CrossRef]
21. Brown, B.B.; Perkins, D.D. Disruptions in place attachment. In Place Attachment; Altman, I., Low, M., Eds.; Plenum Press: New
York, NY, USA, 1992.
22. Rollero, C.; De Piccoli, N. Does place attachment affect social well-being? Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appliquée 2010, 60, 233–238. [CrossRef]
23. Keyes, C.L.M. Social well-being. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1998, 61, 121–140. [CrossRef]
24. Liiceanu, G. Repere pentru o hermeneutica a locuirii. Rev. Secolul 20 Loc–Locuire Poluare 1999, 1, 37–43.
25. Manolescu, A. Peisaje modelatoare. Rev. Secolul 20 Loc–Locuire Poluare 1999, 1, 23–34.
26. Norberg-Schulz, C. Habiter: Vers une Architecture Figurative; Electa Editrice: Milano, Italy; Paris, France, 1985.
27. Harvey, D. (Ed.) Society, the City, and the Space–Economy of Urbanism; Association of American Geographers: Washington, DC,
USA, 1972.
28. Vâlceanu, D.G.; Zulaica, L. Indicele calităt, ii locuirii—Instrument de evaluare a calităt, ii locuirii urbane. Urban. Arhit. Construct, ii
2012, 3, 45–56.
29. ten Brinke, S.S. Imagining, Appropriating and Silencing: Street Working Chil-dren’s Strategies of Home-Making in Public and
Private Space. Childhoods Today 2014, 8, 1–23.
30. Barker, R.G. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior; Stanford University Press:
Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1968.
31. Braud, P. (Ed.) La Science Politique; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 1990.
32. Vernant, J.P. (Ed.) Mit şi Gândire în Grecia Antică; Meridiane Publishing: Bucures, ti, Romania, 1995.
33. Rostás, Z. (Ed.) Monografia ca Utopie. Interviuri cu Henri H. Stahl; Paideia Publishing House: Bucures, ti, Romania, 2000.
34. Mihăilescu, V. (Ed.) Antropologie. Cinci Introduceri; Polirom: Ias, i, Romania, 2007.
35. Van Zomeren, M.; Postmes, T.; Spears, R. Toward an integrative model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of
three sociopsychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 504–535. [CrossRef]
36. Mackie, D.; Devos, T.; Smith, E. Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 602–616. [CrossRef]
37. Tartaglia, S. A comparison between theoretical and naïve definitions of community. In Community Participation and Empowerment;
Hindsworth, M.F., Lang, T.B., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2009.
38. Felonneau, M.L. Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 43–52. [CrossRef]
39. Ryff, C.D.; Keyes, C.L.M. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 69, 719. [CrossRef]
40. Rosenberg, A. Philosophy of Social Science; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1988; Volume 2.
41. Potter, G. The Philosophy of Social Science: New Perspectives; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2016.
42. Little, D. New Directions in the Philosophy of Social Science; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2016.
43. Benton, T.; Craib, I. Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought; Bloomsbury Publishing: London,
UK, 2023.
44. Risjord, M. Philosophy of Social Science: A Contemporary Introduction; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2022.
45. Marian, M.; Dărăbăneanu, D.; Chirodea, F.; T, oca, C.V. Analysis of social support as an argument for the sustainable construction
of the European Community space. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7448. [CrossRef]
46. Dincă, I.; Dărăbăneanu, D.; Oprea, I.M. Collective and Social Representations on Nature and Environment: Social Psychology
Investigation in Rural Areas. Land 2021, 10, 1385. [CrossRef]
47. Ittelson, W.H. Environmental perception and urban experience. Environ. Behav. 1978, 10, 193–213. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1106 18 of 18

48. Schweiker, M.; Ampatzi, E.; Andargie, M.S.; Andersen, R.K.; Azar, E.; Barthelmes, V.M.; Berger, C.; Bourikas, L.; Carlucci, S.;
Chinazzo, G.; et al. Review of multi-domain approaches to indoor environ-mental perception and behaviour. Build. Environ. 2020,
176, 106804. [CrossRef]
49. Bădescu, I.; Buruiană, C.; Şişeştean, G.; Abraham, D. Ţăranii şi Noua Europă; Editura Mica Valahie: Bucures, ti, Romania, 2003.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.