European Planning Studies

Place, Emotions, Ideology and Regional Development in Times of Transformation

In current times of political uncertainty and disruptions, place, emotions and identity are increasingly interrelated and politicized both in democracies and in authoritarian regimes. Not only at the national level and in international conflicts, but also at the regional level, place- and identity-related emotions are intensifying. In the context of climate transition, digital transformation, migration and socio-economic polarisation, emotions such as resentment, nostalgia, pride or hope are no longer peripheral to regional development; rather, they constitute a central driving force (MacKinnon et al., 2024). Understanding these dynamics is key to grasping how place-based emotions shape identity formation, influence ideology and discourse in planning (Zanotto, 2020) therefore structure both the challenges and opportunities for regional development.

In human geography, the concept of place has long been distinguished from abstract space through its experiential, emotional, and symbolic dimensions (Arefi, 1999; Tuan, 1977; Relph, 1976). At the heart of this distinction lies the notion of sense of place—the emotional bond between people and place, shaped by memory, identity, and lived experience. Place is thus understood not as a neutral, objective container, but as a concrete, subjective, and affectively charged entity (Cresswell, 2014; Tuan, 1977; Chu & Hassink, 2023). In recent years, economic geography and regional studies have increasingly emphasized the importance of place-based policies, while simultaneously shifting attention toward the affective, cognitive, and experiential dimensions of people–place relationships. This shift is reflected in a growing interest in agency over structure, particularly in how people perceive the future of places through narratives, imagined opportunities, perceived risks, and practices such as placemaking and place branding (Cartel et al., 2022; Gong, 2024), and how these perceptions shape regional development outcomes. Emerging topics such as the geography of discontent, narrative constructions of place, and spatial imaginaries are all fundamentally connected to the concept of sense of place. At the same time, planning theory has increasingly engaged with questions of ideology and identity politics (Sager, 2020; Inch & Shepherd, 2020), demonstrating how spatial governance is embedded in broader hegemonic struggles. Furthermore, critical reflections on multiple and competing ideologies within planning (Shepherd et al., 2020) remind us that spatial policies are never neutral instruments; they are always intertwined with contested imaginaries of belonging, entitlement, and collective futures (Inch & Shepherd, 2020).

Sense of place, or more broadly place-related emotions, encompasses a range of interrelated dimensions, including place attachment (Butzin & Terstriep, 2023), place dependence, place belonging, and place identity. Most people have a special emotional bond to the places they live in, which stems from the deep connection between people and their surroundings over time (Williams, 2014; Cresswell, 2014). While self-identity refers to how individuals or groups perceive themselves and seek recognition (Fukuyama, 2018a, 2018b), place identity constitutes the aspect of the self that is shaped by one’s relationship with place (Proshansky et al., 1983). In this context, we align with Zanotto (2020, p.104) and Sager (2020, p.81) in understanding ideology as “a particular socially shared belief system” and “a system of coherent images and ideas about the world.” This conceptualisation is closely linked to sense of place, insofar as people often come to interpret, understand, and evaluate the wider world through the places and contexts with which they are most familiar and emotionally engaged.

According to social constructionist approaches, place is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process, always in the making and becoming (Pred, 1984). The construction of place is shaped by broader structural conditions such as capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, as well as by situated practices such as placemaking and place branding (Devine-Wright, 2022; Kavaratzis & Kalandides, 2015; Chu et al., 2023). These practices represent emotional, cultural, and political efforts to anchor identity in space. In this sense, ideology forms part of the broader structural conditions within which places are produced, while simultaneously shaping concrete planning policies and practices. It should therefore be understood not merely as a background cultural phenomenon, but as a constitutive element of regional governance and development trajectories.

Overall, the special issue aims to explore how place-based emotions and practices both shape and are shaped by ideologies and development trajectories, especially under conditions of grand societal challenges, such as climate change, social polarization, and systemic uncertainty. We propose four key areas of empirical inquiry:

1. Left-behind regions, discontent and populism: Building on recent work on growing discontent (Rodríguez-Pose, 2018; Fiorentino et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c; Demirdag et al., 2025), this theme invites studies on how emotional geographies—such as embitterment (Hannemann et al., 2024), subjective well-being (Panori et al., 2025), resentment (Henn & Hannemann, 2024) or nostalgia (Hertrich & Brenner, 2025)—emerge from socio-spatial marginalization and are mobilized in identity politics. This strand explicitly links emotional geographies to sub-national governance structures, planning and policy efficacy.
2. Environmental transformation and sustainability transition: Recent work has shown that place-based framing and local environmental politics (Daneri et al., 2021), as well as sense of place and placemaking (Devine-Wright, 2022), are useful for understanding processes such as de-carbonization of industrial clusters. We welcome contributions that examine the emotional and symbolic dimensions of place-based environmental change. Relevant research directions may include emotional responses to green transitions in coal, steel, or automotive regions; the role of place identity in shaping just transition strategies; and how the symbolic meanings of landscapes influence infrastructure siting decisions.
3. Global cosmopolitans and transnational identities: Increasing mobility, migration, and global integration challenge traditional place-based identities and generate new forms of belonging across scales (Kohlbacher et al., 2015). According to Fukuyama (2018b, p.14), global cosmopolitans argue that “the very concepts of national identity and state sovereignty are outmoded and need to be replaced by broader transnational identities and institutions”. Building on debates around “sanctuary cities” and contested public space (Brinkley, 2020; Ridgley, 2008), contributions under this theme may explore the tensions between local inclusivity and national sovereignty, and examine their implications for housing provision, welfare systems, and integration policies.
4. Digitalization, virtual space and placelessness: We see potential consequences of increasing digitalization for the relationship among place, emotions, identities and ideologies (Halegoua, 2020). Are they changing through the use of the internet and social media? How is that related to place? Potentially, placelessness and the lack of identification with place might be a consequence. Or does it instead amplify existing spatial inequalities and disconnections? Does digital connectivity foster new forms of placelessness or reterritorialization? How does algorithmic governance intersects with regional development strategies?

In addition to these four empirical areas, we see value in two theoretical sociological and philosophical perspectives that could be used to discuss and explore the interrelations between place, emotion and ideology in this special issue. First, recent work by Andreas Reckwitz (Reckwitz, 2022, 2024) on loss in modernity can be used in relation to place and identity. Particularly in left-behind regions where the feeling of loss of jobs and related pride generates an identity that makes people in these regions susceptible to populist politicians with easy solutions (for recent work, referring to loss, see Höhne et al. (2025) and Küttel (2024)). Secondly, and on a more positive note, Hartmut Rosa’s concept of resonance in a reaction to alienation and acceleration in society (Rosa, 2016, 2018), can be used to link the good life in places to identity (for recent work using resonance in a regional context, see Hostniker et al. (2025) and Herzog & Krehl (2024)). These perspectives can be fruitfully connected to debates on ideology and planning (Shepherd et al., 2020), particularly in analysing how emotional experiences and normative narratives become institutionalised within spatial policies and governance frameworks.

In sum, this special issue seeks to advance a deeper understanding of how place-based emotions, ideologies, and practices influence regional development outcomes, especially under conditions of climate transition, digital restructuring, demographic change, and political polarisation. Understanding how emotions, ideologies, and place-based practices shape development trajectories is no longer optional; it is central to effective spatial governance. By foregrounding the affective, symbolic, and experiential ties between people and place, we aim to open up new interdisciplinary conversations between human geography, regional studies, planning, and political economy. We especially welcome conceptual contributions, comparative case studies, and theoretically informed empirical work that bridges emotion, ideology, agency, practice and regional development, thereby deepening scholarly understanding and provide actionable insights for sub-national spatial development planning in Europe and beyond.

References

Arefi, M. (1999). Non‐place and placelessness as narratives of loss: Rethinking the notion of place. Journal of urban design, 4(2), 179-193.

Brinkley, C. (2020). Hardin’s imagined tragedy is pig shit: A call for planning to recenter the commons. Planning Theory, 19(1), 127-144.

Butzin, A., & Terstriep, J. (2023). Strengthening place attachment through place-sensitive participatory regional policy in a less developed region. European Planning Studies, 31(12), 2510-2530.

Cartel, M., Kibler, E., and Dacin, M. T. (2022). Unpacking “Sense of Place” and “Place-making” in Organization Studies: A Toolkit for Place-sensitive Research, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58: 350-363.

Chu, H., Hassink, R., Xie, D., and Hu, X. (2023). Placing the platform economy: the emerging, developing and upgrading of Taobao villages as a platform-based place making phenomenon in China. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, rsad004.

Chu, H., & Hassink, R. (2023). Advancing spatial ontology in evolutionary economic geography. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 16(3), 391-404.

Cresswell, T. (2014). Place: An Introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Daneri, D. R., Krasny, M. E., & Stedman, R. C. (2021). Place‐based identity and framing in local environmental politics. Review of Policy Research, 38(2), 180-202.

Demirdag, I., Özatağan, G., & Eraydin, A. (2025). Situating regional policies: how important are they in populist surge and political divides in Europe? European Planning Studies, 33(12), 2236-2260.

Devine-Wright, P. (2022). Decarbonisation of industrial clusters: A place-based research agenda, Energy Research & Social Science, 91: 102725.

Fiorentino, S., Glasmeier, A. K., Lobao, L., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2024a). ‘Left behind places’: what are they and why do they matter? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 1-16.

Fiorentino, S., Glasmeier, A. K., Lobao, L., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2024b). ‘Left behind places’: What can be done about them? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(2), 259-274.

Fiorentino, S., Sielker, F., & Tomaney, J. (2024c). Coastal towns as ‘left-behind places’: economy, environment and planning. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 17(1), 103-116.

Fukuyama, F. (2018a). Identity: Contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition. Profile books.

Fukuyama, F. (2018b). Why national identity matters. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 5-15.

Gong, H. (2024). Futures should matter (more): Toward a forward-looking perspective in economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 48(3), 292-315.

Halegoua, G. R. (2020). The digital city. In The Digital City: Media and the Social Production of Place. New York, USA: New York University Press.

Hannemann, M., Henn, S., & Schäfer, S. (2024). Regions, emotions and left-behindness: a phase model for understanding the emergence of regional embitterment. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1207-1218.

Henn, S., & Hannemann, M. (2024). Populist resentments and identities and their repercussions on firms and regions. The example of East Thuringia. Journal of Economic Geography, 24(3), 459-474.

Hertrich, T. J., & Brenner, T. (2025). When the past becomes the future: The challenges of policies in ‘Left Behind’ places in East Germany–A case study from the Gera region. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 17(8), 100195.

Herzog, A., & Krehl, A. (2024). A RIS-framework for capturing ‘resonance’ as a critical element for promoting Social Innovations. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(11), 100130.

Höhne, B., Kölzer, J., & Träger, H. (2025). Geography of Shrinkage: Local Population Decline and Electoral Support for the Anti-establishment Parties AfD and BSW in East German State Elections. German Politics, 1-29.

Hostniker, S., Seebacher, M. M., & Ermann, U. (2025). Regionen in Resonanz: Regionalentwicklung als performative Praxis. Raumforschung und Raumordnung| Spatial Research and Planning, 83(3), 205-219.

Inch, A., & Shepherd, E. (2020). Thinking conjuncturally about ideology, housing and English planning. Planning Theory, 19(1), 59-79.

Kavaratzis, M., and Kalandides, A. (2015) Rethinking the place brand: the interactive formation of place brands and the role of participatory place branding. Environment and Planning A, 47: 1368-1382.

Kohlbacher, J., Reeger, U., and Schnell, P. (2015) Place attachment and social ties–migrants and natives in three urban settings in Vienna. Population, Space and Place. 21: 446-462.

Küttel, N. M. (2024). Oral history in geographischer Forschung: Emotionen und Verlust in Erfahrungsgeschichten ehemaliger Werftarbeiter:innen erforschen. Geographica Helvetica, 79(4), 325-339.

Mayer, H. (2020). Slow innovation in Europe’s peripheral regions: Innovation beyond acceleration. In Schlüsselakteure der Regionalentwicklung; Welche Perspektiven bietet Entrepeneurship für ländliche Regionen? 9-22.

MacKinnon, D., Béal, V., & Leibert, T. (2024). Rethinking ‘left-behind’places in a context of rising spatial inequalities and political discontent. Regional Studies, 58(6), 1161-1166.

Panori, A., Kalogeresis, A., Papastergiou, E., Ziogas, T., & Ballas, D. (2025). Unraveling the nexus: Subjective well-being and left-behind places. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 100222.

Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time‐geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74: 279-297.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57-83.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.

Reckwitz, A. (2022). Verlust und Moderne–eine Kartierung. Merkur, 76(872), 5-21.

Reckwitz, A. (2024). Verlust: ein Grundproblem der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Ridgley J (2008) Cities of refuge: Immigration enforcement, police, and the insurgent genealogies of citizenship in US sanctuary cities. Urban Geography, 29(1): 53–77.

Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189-209.

Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Rosa, H. (2018). The idea of resonance as a sociological concept. Global dialogue, 8(2), 41-44.

Sager, T. (2020). Populists and planners: ‘We are the people. Who are you?’. Planning Theory, 19(1), 80-103.

Shepherd, E., Inch, A., & Marshall, T. (2020). Narratives of power: Bringing ideology to the fore of planning analysis. Planning Theory, 19(1), 3-16.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Williams, D. R. (2014). Making sense of ‘place’: Reflections on pluralism and positionality in place research, Landscape and Urban Planning, 131: 74-82.

Zanotto, J. M. (2020). The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Planning Theory, 19(1), 104-126.