Evaluate your community and identify types of social work micro practice settings.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uswe20

Journal of Social Work Education

ISSN: 1043-7797 (Print) 2163-5811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uswe20

The Place of Place in Social Work: Rethinking the Person-in-Environment Model in Social Work Education and Practice

Bree Akesson, Victoria Burns & Shawn-Renee Hordyk

To cite this article: Bree Akesson, Victoria Burns & Shawn-Renee Hordyk (2017) The Place of Place in Social Work: Rethinking the Person-in-Environment Model in Social Work Education and Practice, Journal of Social Work Education, 53:3, 372-383, DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2016.1272512

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1272512

Published online: 24 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2485

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

The Place of Place in Social Work: Rethinking the Person-in-Environment Model in Social Work Education and Practice

Bree Akesson , Victoria Burns, and Shawn-Renee Hordyk

ABSTRACT Social work’s traditional emphasis on the individual in the context of social environments has resulted in a neglect of the person in the context of physical environments. This conceptual article addresses this oversight by presenting three subconcepts of place—place attach- ment, place identity, and territoriality—and draws on research exam- ples with marginalized populations to illustrate the possibilities for understanding and integrating these concepts into social work. We ultimately argue for a shift toward an emphasis on place as a fresh avenue of inquiry to broaden and enhance social work education and practice.

ARTICLE HISTORY Accepted: November 2015

Over the past 40 years, the geographic concept of place has become a conceptual building block in various social science disciplines, including urban sociology, environmental psychology, environmental gerontology, and anthropology, and their applied disciplines, such as urban planning, housing studies, and architecture. The concept of place has been conceptualized through two main perspectives: a phenomenological approach of place and a social construc- tionist approach to place (Cresswell, 2004). A phenomenological approach of place is concerned less with studying specific places and more with the subjective meanings, emotions, and the embodied experience tied to place (Cresswell, 2004). For many phenomenological scholars of place, home is the ideal place, as it provides a sense of comfort, security, and belonging (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983; Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1974). On the other hand, a social constructionist approach to place considers how underlying sociopolitical processes related to power (i.e., capitalism, ageism, political violence) shape individual experiences with place (Cresswell, 1996; Harvey, 1996; Massey, 1997).

Although the person-in-environment model is a hallmark of the social work profession (Cornell, 2006), those in social work do not have a solid understanding of place as a significant concept in education and practice. Therefore, through this conceptual article, we aim to reveal place as a concept that is highly relevant and important to education and practice. After situating the concept of place within the history of social work, we demonstrate how three interrelated subconcepts of place—place attachment, place identity, and territoriality—are useful theoretical tools in the social work milieu. We use examples from three social work research projects with older homeless adults, immigrant families, and war-affected children and families to illustrate the utility of these three subconcepts of place. Ultimately, we contend that the concept of place provides a novel interdisciplinary lens to view social work issues and is a promising theoretical tool to reenvision social work’s trademark person-in-environment model.

CONTACT Bree Akesson [email protected] Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, 120 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2H 3W8. © 2017 Council on Social Work Education

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 2017, VOL. 53, NO. 3, 372–383 https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1272512

Place in the history of social work

Although the geographical concept of place has received scant attention in the field of social work, the related concept of the environment has been the hallmark of the discipline. (Cornell, 2006), with social work’s commitment to the person-in-environment perspective distinguishing itself from other helping professions. The environmental perspective is considered to be the foundation of social work (Janchill, 1969), a “conceptual umbrella” under which social work practice has developed (Meyer, 1983, p. 5), and a pillar of social work theory (Goldstein, 2009). Since the birth of the social work profession at the turn of the 20th century, the environment, thinly conceptualized at the time as anything outside the individual, was a central concern for social workers (Strom-Gottfried, 2002). Notably, Mary Richmond (1917) highlighted the interdependence of people and environment through the systematic collection of detailed data regarding an individual’s environment, such as the family and other factors outside the family known as “social evidence” (Richmond, 1917, p. 38). However, by the late 1920s and continuing through the 1970s, the concept of person in environment was eclipsed by evolving theories related to individual functioning (Strom-Gottfried, 2002). Although social work theorists did not entirely exclude the environment from their formulations, it was only marginally included. This emphasis on the individual was more a result of social work’s reliance on psychological developmental theories, whereas geographical theories relating to place were far less common.

The 1970s ushered in greater interest and emphasis on the environment with social work scholars such as Germain (1973), Meyer (1970), and Siporin (1975) advocating for models of social work that placed primary emphasis on systems and ecological theories. Yet, since the 1970s, social work has taken a myopic view of the role of physical place in social work, reflecting challenges within the profession to redefine itself (Rogge & Cox, 2001). Although some scholars have recognized that social work needs to move beyond the social environment, for example, by acknowledging the natural environment (Zapf, 2009), the current social work discourse either ignores the concept and meaning of place in social work or emphasizes the social environment over the physical environment (Coates, 2003; McKinnon, 2008; Närhi, 2004; Zapf, 2009). In this way, the physical environment effectively becoming a present absence, or that which is ubiquitous yet receives scant attention. In fact, current social work trends tend to dichotomize the physical environment into social and physical spheres rather than acknowledging the dynamic and reciprocal interaction between people and place.

There is ambivalence and disagreement over what the person-in-environment model means, how it should be integrated into social work practice and education, and if it should even be social work’s signature concept (Rogge & Cox, 2001). Those in favor of the person-in-environment model as a central social work tenet suggest that it provides a holistic framework to understand person- environment interactions, whereas opponents assert that the person in environment is too broad a notion to guide social work practice (Probst, 2012). This tension about the definition, utility, and operationalization of the concept of place in social work hinders meaningful discussions about how we can best use the concept of place to enhance social work education and practice with diverse and often marginalized populations.

A brief overview of three subconcepts of place

Before providing examples of the utility of the concept of place in social work, this section introduces three subconcepts of place—place attachment, place identity, and territoriality—relevant to social work education and practice. In recognizing there is ample crossover work (Fullilove, 2014; Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2014; Moore, 2000), the first two concepts (place attachment and place identity) have largely been developed from the phenomenological approach of place, whereas territoriality comes from the social constructionist approach to place. These concepts have received extensive theoretical and empirical attention in other social science fields including sociology and psychology. However, they have received little consideration in the field of social work.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 373

Place attachment and place identity

The concepts of place attachment and place identity have been central to the phenomenological approach of place. For Tuan (1974b), everyday involvement with particular physical places over time leads to attachments to place, what Tuan called “topophilia,” literally meaning the love of place. Echoing Tuan’s conceptualizations of place, Relph (1976) contends that place attachment is just as important as attachment to people, as it addresses the fundamental need of human belonging. Relph argues that this sense of belonging occurs when one feels securely attached and rooted in a physical place. Conversely, those who feel no attachment to a place may experience placelessness (Relph, 1976).

Feeling securely attached to place is also considered a necessary requirement for maintaining a positive sense of self, or what Altman and Low (1992) refer to as place identity. Specifically, they contend,

Place attachment may contribute to the formation, maintenance, and preservation of the identity of a person, group, or culture. And, it may also be that place attachment plays a role in fostering individual, group, and cultural self-esteem, self-worth, and self-pride. (p. 10)

The concept of place identity captures the importance of one’s physical environment in the development of individual and collective identities. Memories, thoughts, values, emotions, and meanings are inseparable from the everyday physical environments in which they occur (Proshansky et al., 1983). This weaving of place and self gives rise to individual place identities. Collective identities, on the other hand, emerge from the discursive coconstructions concerning place and the unique cultural, historical, and political factors contributing to the meanings one attaches to place (Dixon & Durrheim, 2000). Place identities often remain unexamined unless there is change, such as that brought on by migration.

Territoriality

In addition to identity and attachment, underlying notions of power contribute to the concept of place. In the human geography literature, power often refers to inherent power dynamics within a physical space (Harvey, 1973; Massey, 1993). A discussion about politics and power and their relationship to place cannot be isolated from the concept of territoriality (Sack, 1983, 1986). Territoriality is a spatial process for claiming and controlling a geographical area, including its people and resources. According to Sack (1986), territoriality is “related to how people use land, how they organize themselves in space and how they give meanings to place” (p. 2).

Territoriality has a psychological benefit for individuals and groups, playing a critical role in the development of a sense of security (Uzzell, 1990). Territoriality leads to a greater identification with home and the local community as a place of sanctuary, resulting in a perception of having more control over the environment. Lang (1987) confirms that territories fulfill the basic human needs for security, identity, and stimulation. A strong sense of territoriality becomes a means of establishing and maintaining one’s sense of identity related to place (Ittelson, 1974).

Drawing on excerpts and examples from three research projects, the next section illustrates how these three subconcepts—place attachment, place identity, and territoriality—are portrayed in different marginalized populations.

The concept of place in social work research: Three examples from the field

Emphasizing the dynamic, reciprocal, and interactive relationship between people and place (Massey, 1994; Relph, 1976), this section explores the application of the three subconcepts of place. Each of these subconcepts are further illustrated using examples from different research projects with marginalized populations. To clarify the subconcept of place attachment, the first

374 B. AKESSON ET AL.

research example describes the experiences of newly homeless older adults (NHOAs) compared to the chronically homeless living in an urban Canadian setting (Burns, 2015). The second research example draws on research with newly immigrant families also living in an urban Canadian setting to further explain the subconcept of place identity (Hordyk, 2014). Providing illustrations of the subconcept of territoriality, the third research example explores the concept and meaning of place for war-affected children and families living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Akesson, 2014b). All three research projects received relevant ethics approval.

The following three sections do not present the full findings of these studies. Rather, concepts and quotations are used to illustrate the relevance of the different subconcepts of place when working with these marginalized populations. It is our hope that these examples will broaden the under- standing of those in social work of the relevance and importance of place in the lives of marginalized populations.

Differing experiences of place attachment among older homeless adults in an urban context

Countless scholarly articles have claimed that the immediate environment becomes more significant in old age as social networks and mobility tend to decrease, making one’s home and neighborhood the main sites for identity and belonging (Guest & Wierzbicki, 1999; Peace, Holland, & Kellaher, 2006; Peace, Wahl, Mollenkopf, & Oswald, 2007; Rowles, 1983). A prevalent notion is that an older adult’s sense of security, comfort, autonomy, and well-being is directly related to feeling securely attached to place, which is most often one’s private home and surrounding neighborhood (Burns et al., 2012; Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, & Allen, 2011). Such assumptions implicitly underpin the current “aging in place” (p. 357) policy and practice models that are based on the idea that people become increasingly attached to their homes and prefer to remain in place for as long as possible (Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, Reeve, & Allen, 2011).

One of the most widespread theories of place attachment for older adults was developed by Rowles (1978, 1983) who conceptualized place attachment across three dimensions of insideness: physical, social, and autobiographical. For Rowles (1983), physical insideness is associated with living somewhere for long periods of time; the resident establishes a sense of environmental control or mastery by creating an idiosyncratic rhythm and routine. Social insideness evolves not only from everyday social exchanges and relationships but also from a sense of being well-known and knowing others. Third, autobiographical insideness has been suggested to be the most relevant to describe older people’s attachment to place because it is embedded in memories. Through the process of aging, these memories are recalled selectively in the creation of one’s identity. Older people with strong ties to place are also reported to feel more in control and more secure and to have a positive sense of self. The concept of place attachment has been applied empirically by Rubenstein and Parmelee (1992) and Sugihara and Evans (2000) who make the link between older people’s attach- ment to their private homes, maintaining a positive self-image, and supporting their independence. Thus, understanding place attachment has become a crucial subconcept for understanding well- being and positive self-image for older people. However, the existing body of research has focused largely on adults who are aging in stable and familiar living environments, mainly their private homes. As yet, little is known about experiences of place attachment among older homeless adults, a population that is rising in number but remains largely neglected in research, policy, and practice (Burns et al., 2012).

Examples of place attachment in this section are based on a research study comparing the experiences of long-term, chronically homeless older adults who had moved in and out of home- lessness over the course of their lives and NHOAs, adults who were experiencing their first episode of homelessness at age 50 and over and were homeless for a maximum of 2 years at the time of the study (Burns, 2015). In describing the chronically homeless shelter residents, service providers used the words “comfort” and “security” in relation to shelter living and specified that chronically homeless residents said they “hoped it was their last home”:

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 375

There is just a handful, maybe five or six. I’d say the ones who are truly aging here, they are hoping it is their last home . . . they have their own rituals, their space. Like, Mr. S. goes downstairs to the third floor where there is an English TV room to watch The Price Is Right, and that is a major part of his day. The whole TV room knows that it is Mr. S’s The Price Is Right. If he is not there at 11, they still switch the channel in anticipation. It is just established.

The long-term homeless adults had established a sense of social and physical and autobiographi- cal insideness within the shelter. Having lived at the shelter for years, they had established routines and knew their physical environment well (known as autobiographical and physical insideness). They were connected to their community, and, in turn, they were well known by others (i.e., they had high levels of social insideness), all of which are signs of heightened place attachment (Rowles, 1978).

In contrast, the NHOAs battled place attachment at the shelter by actively working toward exiting homelessness as quickly as possible. They spent as little time as possible at the shelter, avoided shelter residents, and refused to self-identify as homeless. One NHOA explained that he was doing everything to avoid “becoming part of the furniture” as he has seen happen with other shelter residents,

Some people they live here for years. They are part of the furniture that’s why, I see that too much, and I don’t want to. [The homeless shelter] is only a trampoline. That’s what I’m putting in my head and saying, oh, it’s a bouncing place. I bounce.

By considering the subconcept of place attachment from the narratives of older homeless adults, this study provides important insight into how the experience of place attachment can differ for people who are residing in an emergency homeless shelter. The long-term homeless wished to age in place inside an emergency shelter. This desire to stay put was reinforced by feelings of physical, autobiographical, and social insideness (Rowles, 1978). On the other hand, the NHOAs aimed to avoid becoming attached to the shelter or establishing any form of insideness. They convinced themselves that homelessness was only temporary, which in turn was also a strategy to resist taking on a negative homeless identity. Overall, the results of this study show that within the growing population of older homeless adults, those who become homeless for the first time in later life have different experiences with place attachment than those who have been homeless for extended periods of time. Acknowledging older homeless adults’ differing experiences with place attachment is a promising strategy to guide rehousing strategies and ensure the diversity of needs are met.

The concept of place and its related subconcept of place attachment are certainly pertinent theoretical lenses to view the experiences of individuals who have experienced homelessness. Likewise, as the next section demonstrates, connection with place through nature can help immi- grant families adapt to their new social and physical environments by contributing to the develop- ment of place identity.

Nature and urban place identity for immigrant families

Within urban settings, several dimensions have been found to be pertinent in the development of individual and collective place identities, which include (a) continuity between the present location and one’s personal past, (b) feelings of belongingness and rootedness, (c) the ability to perceive what is unique about the urban place, (d) a sense of familiarity and orientation, and (e) a commitment to stay (Lalli, 1992). Researchers have found that nature spaces such as parks and gardens play a role in the development of place identity in immigrant adult populations (Li, Hodgetts, & Ho, 2010; Morgan, Rocha, & Poynting, 2005; Rishbeth, 2004; Rishbeth & Finney, 2006). It has remained unclear, however, whether the natural environment as experienced in urban centers influences the development of place identity in immigrant families.

This section draws on findings from a research study exploring how encounters with the urban natural environment, flora, fauna, geography, and climate influenced the adaptation of newcomer

376 B. AKESSON ET AL.

children and their families (Hordyk, Dulude, & Shem, 2015; Hordyk, Hanley, & Richard, 2015). Using the social determinants of a health framework, psychological, social, and physical factors emerged. As illustrated in the following, urban nature spaces in home and public settings contrib- uted to a new place identity. Sensory nature experiences facilitated a deepened awareness of the present physical environment while stimulating memories of the home country. This movement between past and present allowed newcomers to develop a hybrid sense of place identity in which the past and present were woven together.

Immigrant families who accessed urban parks and gardens described their outdoor experiences as providing a sense of continuity between the home and the host country. More than visual, a wide variety of sensory-filled experiences—described by participants as the varied aroma of herbs, the incessant buzzing of the cicadas, the mouth-watering taste of fresh tomatoes, the touch of earth, the sight of tiny shoots pushing through the ground—were instrumental.

Juanita was conscious of this need for familiarity, stating that one of the reasons she chose to immigrate to Canada was the similarity between Canada and her home country in South America:

When I came here, I wanted a change in my life. I really like nature in [her home country], but I could not choose an area that was too different . . . I like the ocean. I like the sun. I like nature and green vegetation. I wanted to go somewhere where I could have that.

Juanita chose to come to Canada in May so that she could adjust to this new country in the spring and summer, the seasons that most closely represented what she had known in her home country.

Urban natural settings also contributed to a collective sense of identity when outdoor family traditions could be revived in a new city. Lien and Vong had already established a family tradition in their home country, regularly frequenting a large urban park on the weekends. This tradition had increased in frequency now that they lived within walking distance of a neighborhood park in Montreal, which allowed them to feel more at home with other Montreal families. Lien also described how the urban park contributed to individual identity when she described how her children “are more relaxed.” Having room to run and play outdoors on a daily basis had made her children less pressured and performance- oriented than before.

Newcomer families created a sense of continuity between the home and host countries through traditions of gardening on balconies, windowsills, and in yards. Some plants were recognizable to them, whereas others were clearly unique to their home country, as the seeds had been imported. Indoors, some grew small tropical plants from the seeds of oranges, avocadoes, or lemons, and they kept these throughout the winter. Although they knew the plants would not readily bear fruit in Montreal’s cold climate, the plants were reminiscent of home and provided a bridge between where families once had been and where they now found themselves, once again facilitating a new sense of identity.

That nature places in urban settings contributed to feelings of belonging and rootedness. While meeting with Dora and her mother in a local park, the third author (Hordyk) was invited by Dora to a place that she called her “hiding spot.” Located in the corner of the park, a group of low-lying trees had branches that were accessible for her to climb. As it was summer, the branches were filled with leaves, providing privacy from those who passed by. Her mother stated that each time they came to the park, Dora wanted to spend time there. When asked about the first thing she heard when she arrived in Canada, she replied that she heard the trees greeting her and whispering “coo-coo Dora.” Her mother explained that she and Dora lived in an apartment that had little privacy because of its size and paper-thin walls. The neighbors complained when they heard Dora playing or running in the apartment. Dora felt a sense of belonging perched in the trees of this hiding place.

Feelings of belonging were also fostered by environmental conservation traditions that some families began on their arrival in Canada. Selena had lived in countries where recycling programs were not an established community-based practice. In Montreal where recycling was discussed in community centers and schools as well as modeled by her neighbors, Selena shared how her identification as Canadian was shaped in part by her participation in this local environmental practice.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 377

As social work educators preparing students to engage with immigrant populations in the process of adapting to a new social and physical environment, we might consider the embodied experiences in urban nature settings that children and families draw on to develop their identities. As newcomers negotiate the process of adaptation to new geographies, traditions, and communities (Ensor & Gozìdziak, 2010; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, & Bornstein, 2007), social workers might consider how sensory contact with nature components of the environment, in parks, on sidewalks, on windowsills, or seen through windows, facilitate an embodied awareness of place and a transformed awareness of self within that place. Contact with urban nature provides continuity between the home and host countries, permits newcomers to become aware of and participate in local ecological initiatives, and facilitates the strengthening of individual and collective identities that are simulta- neously rooted in the home country and the place of migration.

This section clearly illustrates the importance of place, specifically urban nature, for the devel- opment of identity among immigrant populations. Using examples from research with war-affected populations, the next section explores how politics and power intersect with place (including place attachment and place identity) and contribute to territoriality.

The politics and power of territoriality for war-affected children and families

The concept of territoriality is particularly apt in explaining the politics and power of place for war- affected children and families, for the places that these populations live in are highly politicized. Territoriality’s very definition implies that it is embedded in relations of power as a strategy for establishing different access to and movement within place. Based on a study exploring the concept and meaning of place for Palestinian children and families living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Akesson, 2014b, 2015, 2016), this section provides examples that show that the politics and power of place are openly on display in their everyday experiences. Territories are clearly defined and embedded in power and politics and have direct implications on the everyday experi- ences of their residents.

The 709-kilometer separation wall between Israel and the West Bank is one of the most extreme exercises in territoriality, slicing deep into the Palestinian territories (Falah, 2003; Fields, 2010; Halper, 2000; Parsons & Salter, 2008). With the construction of the wall, the West Bank has been territorially segmented, with certain areas designated for either Palestinian or Israeli access (Falah, 2003; Hanafi, 2009; Newman, 1996). Tawil-Souri (2011) describes this kind of territoriality as a demonstration of “how directly and explicitly domination and control are inscribed into the way space is organized” (p. 13). The wall currently isolates at least 35,000 Palestinians and 50 commu- nities in the areas between the wall and the Green Line, which is the internationally recognized border between Israel and the West Bank. Adil, a young Palestinian man from the West Bank, described in the following how the wall divides his community:

They want to surround [my village] by the wall. . . . So the wall is just going [to be] at the middle of the village. So, I live here and my brother lives here and none of us can see the other.

Similarly, a family from a small village in the West Bank described the effects of the wall on their lives:

Aunt: We cannot go places, because the wall stops our mobility. Grandfather: They have confiscated our lands to build the wall. Aunt: We cannot move freely. . . . We cannot go to Jerusalem. They don’t give us permission. The children have relatives who live on the other side of the wall. They cannot move freely to see them.

As this exchange indicates, the construction of the wall has led to substantial economic losses for Palestinian families, including loss of land, destruction of key environmental assets, and restricted access of farmers to their land (Save the Children Sweden, International Bureau for Children’s Rights, & Defence for Children International, 2011).

378 B. AKESSON ET AL.

Another example of a highly contested territory is the military checkpoint, which mediates Palestinian mobility. Movement in Palestine is highly controlled through military checkpoints, and travel between Israel and the West Bank is almost completely banned; it is only allowed for restricted categories of people such as medical personnel or employees of diplomatic or interna- tional institutions, all of whom are required to obtain special permission from Israeli authorities (Abu Nahleh, 2006). Yet, even those granted permission may or may not be able to pass because of the prevailing political climate. Sanaa, a young Palestinian woman from East Jerusalem, explained, “Here we spend every day, three hour, five hour in the checkpoint to go into Jerusalem, and it’s just [a] ten minutes [walk].” Likewise, a mother of seven from a small village in the West Bank said, “it affects our life . . ., we hardly move. Always, we’re forced to stay home. We can’t go whenever we want.” Because of its ambiguous and contested nature, the military checkpoint is a flashpoint for resistance against Israeli occupation, representing a territorial struggle that involves children and families.

Policies such as checkpoints and the wall contribute to what Halper (2000) has termed Israel’s matrix of control, which uses territoriality to create artificial borders, limit movement within and across borders, and effectively suppress everyday activities of the Palestinian people. Because of these movement restrictions, Palestinian children and families experience difficulty accessing education, employment, and medical care (Giacaman et al., 2009), as well as visiting family members who may live in another area of the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Sanaa explained how she must travel a long distance to get to and from her university, even though she only lives 10 minutes away: “Every day I make a big circle to come here, because [of] the checkpoint, because [of] the wall. And they say, why is it [a] bad life? I know!” Restricted mobility obviously has specific consequences for children and their families living in contexts such as Palestine; when family members are suddenly separated from one another by physical barriers, the family unit is undermined, and children’s protective social environment and overall well-being are compromised.

As social workers continue to work with war-affected populations at home and abroad they must consider the distinct intersection between children’s and families’ engagement with places, the impact of this engagement on their understandings of place, and the political uses of space, exemplified by the subconcept of territoriality. This intersection resonates with the human and political geography literature, which has delved into the strong reciprocal entanglements among people, place, and power (Pile & Keith, 1997; Sharp, Routledge, Philo, & Paddison, 2000). Findings from this particular research project revealed that the nature of children’s and families’ interactions and discourses with place conveyed a deep understanding of place. By integrating an understanding of territoriality, social work is well-placed to better integrate solutions to improve the place-related well-being of war-affected populations.

Discussion and conclusion: Conceptualizing the place of place in social work education

This article demonstrates that the geographical concept of place provides a nuanced lens for considering the critical importance of the physical environment in daily human functioning. Findings from research with older homeless adults, newcomer families, and war-affected children and families provide evidence of how the physical environments of individuals and families hold deep personal meaning. These populations have complex and contradictory relationships with their environments. As social work attempts to address today’s pressing and complex social issues, the concept of place offers a fresh perspective to better understand what helps and hinders well-being, comfort, and security among the marginalized populations with which social workers interact. Theories of place attachment, place identity, and territoriality indicate that changes in these environments may have an impact on social, emotional, and physical functioning in a manner that is equal to if not greater than changes in one’s social environment.

Social workers engaged in community and clinical practice can access concepts of place to deepen our understanding of the diverse meanings and experiences different populations may have with

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 379

certain geographical locations. For example, conventional homes for older homeless people are not always the ideal place for long-term homeless who have become attached to shelter life and consider the shelter a home. Yet, recently homeless older adults resist forming attachment to shelters by actively seeking housing and work with aims to exit homelessness as quickly as possible. Similarly, for populations affected by war, home is not always a safe and protective environment (Akesson, 2014a). The home, despite potentially offering physical protection from violence in the surrounding community can also be a site of neglect or family violence, an understanding of place that might not be easily apparent to a social worker. Likewise, feeling a sense of belonging as an immigrant in a new neighborhood or country depends on an ability to tolerate unfamiliar and at times threatening sensory experiences while simultaneously recognizing sensory stimuli that have some commonality with the past. This embodied sense of knowing is critical to locating oneself within a new environ- ment. Over time a new hybrid place identity is fostered between home and host countries.

When we as social workers are so familiar with geography that we no longer have to reflect on how to locate ourselves, we can forget the complex placed-based decisions needed to navigate daily life. Questioning our own assumptions of place positions us to ask more nuanced questions of our clients and to recognize potential barriers or resources that place provides to health and well-being. To illustrate, we suggest incorporating questions such as those listed in Table 1 into assessment models used in social work education. We suggest that these questions may stimulate thoughts in the populations we work with, allowing them also to become conscious of place-based strategies that can also be implemented to promote health and well-being. These questions are intended to complement existing assessments used in social work practice and to widen the dialogue concerning the ecological models used in social work education and intervention.

In the context of social work practice and education, these questions can be used to underscore the connection people have with place.

As world populations are shifting at an increasingly rapid pace, whether moving to urban centers or across borders, people’s relationship with place is constantly in transition. This conceptual article demon- strates how place—and specifically place attachment, place identity, and territoriality—can enhance social work education and shape and improve our understanding and interventions with diverse populations, such as those who are marginalized. Ultimately, the concept of place provides a fresh avenue of inquiry to advance our knowledge in social work education and practice. Incorporating the concept of place into social work education will introduce broader definitions of the environment, which in turn will lead to more holistic, client-centered interventions in social work practice.

Table 1. Place-based questions for social work assessment.

● What adjectives would you use to describe the physical aspects of your current living environment, what you call home, and the environment that you move through or work in each day?

● What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of the aroma, sound, visual, tactile, and taste aspects of this particular place (whichever may apply)?

● How does this environment make you feel? ● Which aspects of this environment contribute to a sense of feeling well? Which aspects would you describe as contributing to

stress? ● If you could change anything about this environment, what would it be? How did you arrive at this place (e.g., born here,

immigrated here, forced to relocate)? ● What were your hopes and expectations when you arrived at this place? ● Do you feel that you have enough places here where you feel comfortable and feel as if you belong here? Please explain. ● Does this place make you feel safe? Please explain. ● Do aspects of this place contribute to feelings of belonging in you and your family? What makes it difficult for you and your

family to feel like you belong to this place? ● What activities remind you and your family of different places? Do you and your family have adequate access to these

activities? ● Does this place contribute to your understanding of self, family, or community? Why or why not?

380 B. AKESSON ET AL.

Notes on contributors

Bree Akesson is an Assistant Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University's Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work in Ontario, Canada. Victoria Burns is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS)–Urbanisation, Culture et Société (UCS) in Quebec, Canada. Shawn-Renee Hordyk is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at École de Psychoéducation, Université de Montréal in Quebec, Canada.

ORCID

Bree Akesson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6760-7198

References

Abu Nahleh, L. (2006). Six families: Survival and mobility in times of crisis. In L. Taraki (Ed.), Living Palestine: Family survival, resistance and mobility under occupation (pp. 103–184). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Akesson, B. (2014a). Castle and cage: Meanings of home for Palestinian children and families. Global Social Welfare, 1, 81–95. doi:10.1007/s40609-014-0004-y

Akesson, B. (2014b). Contradictions in place: Everyday geographies of Palestinian children and families living under occupation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Akesson, B. (2015). Trees, flowers, prisons, flags: Frustration and hope shaping national identity for Palestinian families. Global Studies of Childhood, 5, 33–46. doi:10.1177/2043610615573378

Akesson, B. (2016). Palestinian children forging national identity through the social and spatial practices of territori- ality. In Z. Millei, & R. Imre (Eds.), Ideals of childhood and nation in the twenty-first century: International case studies and perspectives (pp. 141-162). Basingstoke, UK: Plagrave Macmillan.

Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Burns, V. (2015). Oscillating in and out of place across housed-homeless trajectories: Experiences of newly homeless older

adults in Montreal. Montréal, Canada: McGill University. Burns, V., Grenier, A., Lavoie, J.-P., Rothwell, D., & Sussman, T. (2012). Les personnes âgées itinérantes—Invisibles et

exclues. Une analyse de trois stratégies pour contrer l’itinérance. Frontières, 25, 31–56. doi:10.7202/1018230ar Coates, J. (2003). Ecology and social work: Towards a new paradigm. Halifax, Canada: Fernwood. Cornell, K. L. (2006). Person-in-situation: History, theory, and new directions for social work practice. Praxis, 6, 50–

57. Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place: Geography, ideology and transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Dixon, J. A., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 27–44. doi:10.1348/014466600164318 Ensor, M. O., & Gozìdziak, E. M. (2010). Children and migration: At the crossroads of resiliency and vulnerability.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Falah, G.-W. (2003). Dynamics and patterns of the shrinking of Arab lands in Palestine. Political Geography, 22, 179–

209. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(02)00088-4 Fields, G. (2010). Landscaping Palestine: Reflections of enclosure in a historical mirror. International Journal of Middle

East Studies, 42, 82a. doi:10.1017/S0020743809990821 Fullilove, M. (2014). “The frayed knot”: What happens to place attachment in the context of serial forced displace-

ment? In L. C. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 141–153). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Germain, C. (1973). An ecological perspective in casework practice. Social Casework, 54, 323–330. Giacaman, R., Khatib, R., Shabaneh, L., Ramlawi, A., Sabri, B., Sabatinelli, G., . . . Laurance, T. (2009). Health status

and health services in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Lancet, 373, 837–849. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09) 60107-0

Goldstein, E. (2009). The relationship between social work and psychoanalysis: The future impact of social workers. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 7–13. doi:10.1007/s10615-007-0090-8

Guest, A. M., & Wierzbicki, S. K. (1999). Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 92–111. doi:10.1177/10780879922184301

Halper, J. (2000). The 94 percent solution: A matrix of control. Middle East Report, 216, 14–19. doi:10.2307/1520209 Hanafi, S. (2009). Spacio-cide: Colonial politics, invisibility and rezoning in Palestinian territory. Contemporary Arab

Affairs, 2, 106–121. doi:10.1080/17550910802622645 Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 381

Hordyk, S. R. (2014). “Nature is always there”: The role of nature in the adaptation process of immigrant children. Montréal, Canada: McGill University.

Hordyk, S. R., Dulude, M., & Shem, M. (2015). When nature nurtures children: Nature as a containing and holding space. Children’s Geographies, 13, 571–588. doi:10.1080/14733285.2014.923814

Hordyk, S. R., Hanley, J., & Richard, É. (2015). “Nature is there; its free”: Urban greenspace and the social determinants of health of immigrant families. Health & Place, 34, 74–82. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.03.016

Ittelson, W., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G., Winkel, G. H., & Dempsey, D. (1974). An introduction to environmental psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Janchill, M. P. (1969). Systems concepts in casework theory and practice. Social Casework, 50(2), 74–82. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 12, 285–303. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7 Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York,

NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K. D., & Bornstein, M. H. (2007). Immigrant families in contemporary society. New

York, NY: Guilford Press. Li, W., Hodgetts, D., & Ho, E. (2010). Gardens, transitions and identity reconstruction among older Chinese

immigrants to New Zealand. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 786–796. doi:10.1177/1359105310368179 Manzo, L. C., & Devine-Wright, P. (Eds.). (2014). Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications.

Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Massey, D. (1993). Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, &

L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change. London, UK: Routledge. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Massey, D. (1997). A global sense of place. In T. Barnes, & D. Gregory (Eds.), Reading human geography (pp.

315–323). London, UK: Arnold. McKinnon, J. (2008). Exploring the nexus between social work and the environment. Australian Social Work, 61, 256–

268. doi:10.1080/03124070802178275 Meyer, C. (1970). Social work practice: A response to the urban crisis. New York, NY: The Free Press. Meyer, C. (1983). The search for coherence. In C. Meyer (Ed.), Clinical social work in the eco-systems perspective (pp.

5–34). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207–217. doi:10.1006/

jevp.2000.0178 Morgan, G., Rocha, C., & Poynting, S. (2005). Grafting cultures: Longing and belonging in immigrants’ gardens and

backyards in Fairfield. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26, 93–105. doi:10.1080/07256860500074094 Närhi, K. (2004). The eco-social approach in social work and the challenges to the expertise of social work. Jyväskylä,

Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Newman, D. (1996). Shared spaces—Separate spaces: The Israel-Palestine peace process. GeoJournal, 39, 363–375.

doi:10.1007/BF02428499 Parsons, N., & Salter, M. B. (2008). Israeli biopolitics: Closure, territorialisation and governmentality in the occupied

Palestinian territories. Geopolitics, 13(, 701–723. doi:10.1080/14650040802275511 Peace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2006). Environment and identity in later life. Maidenhead, UK: Open University

Press. Peace, S., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., & Oswald, F. (2007). Environment and ageing. In J. Bond, S. Peace, F.

Dittman-Kohli, & G. Westerhof (Eds.), Ageing in society (pp. 209–233). London, UK: Sage Publications. Pile, S., & Keith, M. (Eds.) (1997). Geographies of resistance. London, UK: Routledge. Probst, B. (2012). Living with and living within: Visions of “environment” in contemporary social work. Qualitative

Social Work, 12, 689–704. doi:10.1177/1473325012455086 Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8 Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London, UK: Pion. Richmond, M. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Rishbeth, C. (2004). Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape. Journal of Urban Design, 9, 311–333.

doi:10.1080/1357480042000283878 Rishbeth, C., & Finney, N. (2006). Novelty and nostalgia in urban green space: Refugee perspectives. Tijdschrift voor

Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97, 281–295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2006.00520.x Rogge, M. E., & Cox, M. E. (2001). The person-in-environment perspective in social work journals: A computer-

assisted content analysis. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(2), 47–68. doi:10.1300/J079v28n02_03 Rowles, G. D. (1978). Prisoners of space? Exploring the geographical experience of older people. Boulder, CO: Wesview

Press. Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 3, 299–313. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80033-4

382 B. AKESSON ET AL.

Rubenstein, R. L., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and representation of life course by the elderly. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment: Human behavior and environment (Vol. 12, pp. 139–163). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Sack, R. (1983). Human territoriality: A theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73, 55–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1983.tb01396.x

Sack, R. D. (1986). Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Save the Children Sweden, International Bureau for Children’s Rights, & Defence for Children International. (2011).

Country profile of the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A review of the implementation of the UN Convention on the rights of the child. Beirut, Lebanon: Save the Children Sweden.

Sharp, J. P., Routledge, P., Philo, C., & Paddison, R. (2000). Entanglements of power: Geographies of domination/ resistance. London, UK: Routledge.

Siporin, M. (1975). Introduction to social work practice. New York, NY: Macmillan. Strom-Gottfried, K. (2002). Assessing intrapersonal and environmental systems. In D. H. Hepworth, R. H. Rooney, &

J. A. Larsen (Eds.), Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (6th ed., pp. 219–258). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole-Thomson Learning.

Sugihara, S., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 400–409. doi:10.1177/00139160021972586

Tawil-Souri, H. (2011). Qalandia checkpoint as space and nonplace. Space and Culture, 14, 4–26. doi:10.1177/ 1206331210389260

Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Space and place: Humanistic perspective. Philosophy in Geography, 6, 387–427. Uzzell, D. L. (1990). An environmental psychological perspective on learning through landscape. In E. Adams (Ed.),

Learning through landscapes: A report on the use, design, management and development of school grounds (Appendix 5). Winchester, UK: Learning Through Landscape Trust.

Wiles, J., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeves, R. E. S., & Allen, R. (2011). The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52, 357–366. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr098

Zapf, M. K. (2009). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 383