READING PASSAGE 3

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 on the following pages.

Images and Places

A new research method uses photography to try to explain why people form an attachment to certain places

Question 27 (Sec A):

A Human beings naturally become attached to places they visit or inhabit and these emotional attachments have become increasingly important in research on recreation sites and activities. Research into this phenomenon is called ‘sense-of-place research’. This research has employed a variety of approaches to gauge people’s feelings toward a place, including surveys and personal interviews, but so far has not used photo-based methods. However, Visitor Employed Photography (VEP), used to capture visitor perceptions of landscape and recreational quality, represents a potential innovation in sense-of-place research.

Question 28 (Sec B):

B A ‘place’ is a setting that we give meaning to based on the personal experiences, relationships and feelings we associate with it. A crucial distinction that needs to be made is between the more subjective concept of attachment and the symbolic ‘meanings’ or labels we use to describe the type of place a setting represents. Is, for example, a multiple-use forest area a wilderness? A playground? A workplace? Symbolic meanings are important in that they form the basis of our attachment to a place: we attribute meaning to our settings, and in turn become attached to the meanings (Stedman, 2003). All settings can have multiple meanings depending on how we encounter them. Some researchers suggest that, because meaning emerges through individual experience, for example ‘my camping trip’, place meanings are completely individualistic: a given setting such as a park will contain as many different meanings as there are people using the setting (Meinig, 1979). Others, however, (e.g. Greider & Garkovich, 1994) assert that meanings are based on social categories and therefore are shared by others within these categories. For example, farmers share certain meanings for a plot of land that are distinct from those of real-estate developers or hunters.

Question 29 (Sec C):

C Clearly, place attachment is built through familiarity with a place over a period of months or even years. Relph (1976) describes sense-of-place attachment as the steady accumulation of events within a setting; this creates ‘home places’. According to this view, those who have participated fully in the life of the home or community, or have accumulated a series of everyday events in a setting, will have the strongest attachment to it. Extended residence in a place tends to make us feel toward it almost as a living thing, affecting our emotions in the same way as a family would (Ryden, 1993). However, Tuan (1977) notes that a sense of place may also develop quite rapidly in ‘chosen places’, where dramatic landscapes and intense experiences can lead to an immediate attachment. Indeed, many settings, especially those that attract visitors, may simultaneously exist as home places and chosen places.

Question 30 (Sec D):

D Clearly we are dealing with a complex phenomenon and photo-based research methods may help us to understand it better. In VEP, tourists are asked to take photographs. This technique has primarily been used to assess the perceptions of visitors to parks and recreation places. Haywood (1990) describes several benefits of VEP. Photography is an enjoyable, familiar activity to tourists which helps to sharpen observation and identify specific locations that are important. It can give clearer ideas on elements that are liked or disliked and also facilitates comparisons between places.

Question 31 (Sec E):

E However, several methodological issues need to be taken into account. First, who should take the photographs? VEP research typically involves visitors or tourists but, when applied to questions of attachment to a community, this approach has potential pitfalls. Chenoweth (1984) notes that research subjects may take photos that represent only a part of their entire recreational experience. This tendency probably relates to unfamiliarity with the setting. For example, when researchers assign the task of photographing a travel route with which respondents are not familiar, participants may save too many pictures and then use them all up at the end of their visit, even if there is no suitable material. Markwell (1997) noted an opposite tendency in his study of pictures taken on a nature tour: beginnings of excursions were over-represented, due perhaps to the initial novelty of the trip. Furthermore, Haywood (1990) suggests that compressing the photo-taking period into a single day (as he did in his work) may result in an over-representation of tourist icons rather than ordinary places. In contrast, Yamashita (2002), when focusing on local residents’ perceptions of the qualities of the water around them, noted that residents may have more difficulty expressing visual appeal than visitors, precisely because they are insiders and less conscious of aesthetic qualities. When addressing complex attachment to landscape, we would expect, however, that familiarity ought to increase the validity of the items selected to represent sources of attachment. We also expect that photographs taken by local residents will represent a wider range of phenomena than pictures taken by transient visitors.

Question 32 (Sec F):

F But how should the photographs be interpreted? Goin (2001) notes that with every photo taken ‘a fiction is created … but presents to the uninformed an overwhelming conviction of fact’ (p. 363). By implication, what photos appear to be and what they really represent may be very different things, and some follow-up helps to uncover the intended meanings of the participant. Yamashita (2002) notes the utility of asking respondents to provide descriptions of each photo in a notebook or diary. These elaborations are helpful, but in cases of complex phenomena, an interview may help participants clarify their intentions (Markwell, 1997).