Space to Place, Housing to Home: A Systematic Review of Sense of Place in Housing Studies

Abstract

This study conducts a systematic qualitative review of empirical research on sense of place within housing contexts, employing the tripartite model of place identity, place attachment, and place dependence. The study employs an expanded model that captures the internal complexity of each indicator by integrating its cognitive, affective, and conative components, which represent the dimensions of human–place interaction. This model conceptualizes sense of place as a multidimensional construct, facilitating thematic synthesis and cross-study comparisons. A structured search of Scopus and Web of Science identified 10 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. Additionally, eight studies with divergent conceptualizations of sense of place were narratively analyzed to explore the diversity of interpretations across disciplinary perspectives in housing research. The review yields three key findings: (1) The expanded tripartite model provides a framework for understanding the relationships between residents and housing. (2) Sense of place is both a criterion and a catalyst for housing sustainability. (3) The development of a sense of place is influenced by the interaction of physical, spatial, environmental, social, cultural, economic, and institutional housing factors. Sense of place provides insight into how housing becomes home, informing context-dependent strategies that enhance place-based connections and contribute to housing sustainability.

1. Introduction

Place sustainability is inherently context-dependent and rooted in human–place interactions [1,2]. Sustaining a place requires fostering meaningful connections between individuals and their environment. This view aligns with Norberg-Schulz’s [3] argument that sustaining a place goes beyond its physical form; it needs to address human biological, psychological, and cultural dimensions. Sense of place reflects the depth of such engagement, shaped by cognitive processes such as mental mapping and place-based knowledge [4], emotional bonds grounded in familiarity, continuity, and a sense of belonging [5,6], and behavioral involvement through daily routines, personal practices, and functional interaction with the environment [7]. Sense of place is influenced by physical features, symbolism, personal memories, aesthetic qualities, and sociocultural contexts [8,9]. This concept is associated with three primary indicators: place identity, place attachment, and place dependence [10]. They shape how individuals and communities interact with their environments, contributing to satisfaction, health, and well-being, which are core components of social sustainability [11,12]. Furthermore, sense of place promotes environmental stewardship by encouraging individuals to protect and sustain their environments [13]. It further enhances community cohesion, identity, and participation, which are key factors in promoting socially and ecologically sustainable futures [13,14,15].

Sense of place is experienced across multiple spatial scales, ranging from broad geographic regions to neighborhoods and domestic settings [16]. Among these, housing represents as one of the most immediate and enduring environments where individuals develop meaningful associations [17]. This association is rooted in the symbolic meaning of home, a metaphorical anchor of comfort, security, autonomy, identity (self-recognition), and continuity [18,19,20]. More than a material structure, home is a lived environment that fosters meaningful inhabitation through personal experience, social interaction, and symbolic significance [21]. It also reflects a form of “habitus,” where early lived experiences shape current housing preferences and associations [22].

The distinction between housing and home parallels the conceptual difference between space and place, where place is understood as space enriched through dynamic human–place interaction. Adopting a phenomenological perspective, Norberg-Schulz [3] states that “the spaces where life occurs are places… A place is a space which has a distinct character” (p. 5). Accordingly, home emerges when housing is imbued with meaning, value, and emotional significance.

In this sense, home is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that encompasses spatial, material, temporal, and symbolic dimensions [23]. This perspective aligns with the concept of sense of place, which reflects the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral bonds individuals develop with their housing environments.

The concept of sense of place has been extensively examined across diverse housing contexts. According to one study [24], in informal or low-income settlements, a strong sense of place often persists despite inadequate conditions. The place-based bond stems from long-term residence, cohesive social networks, and a sense of belonging that transcends cultural, ethnic, religious, and political differences. It is further reinforced by limited mobility options and residents’ personal agency, expressed through informal economic activities that deepen their livelihood dependence on the settlement. Although a strong sense of place may endure in disadvantaged settings, it tends to be more vulnerable in rapidly transforming environments. In gentrifying residential neighborhoods, changes in local amenities, social structures, and governance negatively affect sense of place, even without physical displacement, by disrupting everyday routines, shared spaces, and familiar social ties [25].

Beyond localized transformations, broader forces such as mobility and displacement further influence sense of place. According to [26], forced migration and domicide disrupt sense of place by severing ties to ancestral homes and identities. Unlike voluntary migrants, domicide victims face lasting disconnection due to the permanent loss of place and limited resources. In resettlement areas, they are often excluded from land, public spaces, and communal life. The inability to apply traditional skills or adapt deepens their isolation, with identity remaining anchored in the place of origin. Rather than fostering a new sense of place, nostalgia becomes a key strategy for preserving continuity and coping with displacement. Reference [27] similarly shows that residential mobility is often rooted in a disrupted sense of place. Migrants experience emotional disconnection, cultural dislocation, and spatial discomfort in new environments, where performing rituals, maintaining identity, and fostering belonging become increasingly difficult. These challenges go beyond circumstantial adjustment; they undermine self-worth, spiritual continuity, and social recognition. The persistent longing for a sense of home, deeply tied to ancestral landscapes and memory, reflects a fundamental human need for rootedness, coherence, and meaning in place.

Other forms of relocation, whether driven by voluntary motivations such as lifestyle preferences or influenced by institutional resettlement policies, also influence sense of place. As demonstrated in [28], lifestyle migration may lead to placelessness when newcomers fail to establish a sense of place through social or spatial connections. Suburban migration from cities is often driven by the desire for a safe, child-friendly environment shaped by pastoral imagery, village identity, and collective memory. When these symbolic anchors are absent or eroded by overdevelopment, residents may experience disaffection, detachment, and a weakened sense of belonging.

According to findings reported in [29], migrants who relocate to rural areas through employment or resettlement programs often maintain strong ties to urban centers via convenient transport links. These connections enable frequent travel to multicultural environments perceived as more inclusive and socially familiar, sustaining urban ties while limiting place-based bonds and reducing the likelihood of long-term residence.

The formation of sense of place may be limited in second home tourism contexts, where temporary residence and minimal engagement often hinder the development of meaningful place-based bonds. According to [30], in conservative rural communities, second homeowners often fail to develop a sense of place due to spatial segregation, limited social interaction, and emotional detachment. Physically, peripheral housing disrupts traditional land use and architectural continuity; socially, residents remain disengaged from local customs and community life; and psychologically, they relate to place as a recreational setting, lacking the sustained involvement necessary to foster a sense of place.

In relation to sense of place in post-disaster and high-risk contexts, research [31,32,33] demonstrates that a strong sense of place can reduce perceived risk and support adaptive responses. In conflict-affected settings, religious faith and spiritual ties to the homeland strengthen sense of place and help residents cope with ongoing threats [31]. Likewise, in communities near nuclear facilities, sense of place mediates the relationship between proximity and risk perception, serving as a psychological buffer. As the facility becomes integrated into daily life and local identity, residents normalize its presence and perceive less risk [32]. In natural disaster-prone housing environments, place-based bonds cultivate adaptive behaviors by motivating residents to protect and remain in valued settings [33]. Beyond its role as a coping mechanism, sense of place can also be actively reconstructed through participation in post-disaster recovery. Engaging survivors in the reconstruction process helps reestablish a sense of place, as the home is central to recovering from loss. Active involvement enhances satisfaction with the physical attributes of rebuilt homes and supports the rebuilding of place-based connections [34].

These diverse housing-related experiences illustrate that sense of place is shaped by a range of interrelated factors, including physical form and spatial layout; functional aspects such as access to amenities, comfort, safety, and convenience; socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-cultural dynamics; aesthetic qualities and connection to nature; and regulatory dimensions such as tenure arrangements and land use controls [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. These elements intersect with broader categories of capital, including social, cultural, financial, human, political, natural, and built, thereby shaping residents’ sense of place through both tangible and intangible resources [43].

The quality of these factors can foster well-being and place-protective behaviors or, conversely, lead to detachment and dissatisfaction. A threatened sense of place, or in housing terms, a disrupted sense of home, can diminish quality of life by causing stress, insecurity, and emotional distress [44]. This may result in a sense of “homelessness,” characterized by detachment and lack of belonging [45], or “non-home,” a space lacking the conditions necessary for meaningful place-based bonds [46]. Such outcomes stem from inadequate housing shaped by political, social, cultural, economic, environmental, and institutional conditions.

The studies described above collectively underscore the significance of sense of place in housing as a framework for understanding human–housing relationships. However, the considerable variation in how sense of place and its indicators are conceptualized across the literature undermines conceptual clarity and limits the comparability of findings. To address this gap, the present study adopts the tripartite model of sense of place proposed by Jorgensen and Stedman [10], who conceptualize it as a broader construct comprising three indicators: place identity, place attachment, and place dependence. Building on this framework, the study develops an expanded tripartite model in which each indicator incorporates cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. Guided by this expanded model, a qualitative systematic literature review is conducted to identify and analyze empirical research within housing contexts. Accordingly, the following research questions are addressed in this study:

• How is sense of place conceptualized in housing research?
• How is the tripartite model applied across different housing contexts?
• How are the cognitive, affective, and conative components of each indicator manifested in different housing contexts?
• What physical, spatial, environmental, social, cultural, economic, and institutional contextual factors influence the development of a sense of place within housing context?
• How does sustainability manifest through the lens of sense of place within housing?

This review makes three key contributions. Theoretically, it refines the understanding of sense of place and its three core indicators. Empirically, it synthesizes housing studies to identify contextual factors shaping sense of place. Practically, this review offers an interdisciplinary perspective that can inform future efforts in housing research, planning, and design by enhancing place-based bonds, thereby promoting residents’ well-being and reinforcing sustainability.

2. Theoretical Framework: Sense of Place as a Core Concept in Human–Place Interaction

Places are not merely physical settings or spatial coordinates; they are inherently relational constructs, shaped through dynamic interactions between individuals and their environments [5,47]. Tuan [6] (p. 6) introduces a temporal dimension, noting that “what begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value”. Altman and Zube [48] explain that the transformation from space to place occurs when a physical setting acquires psychological or symbolic significance. Through this process, the setting acquires a distinct character and the capacity to engage the senses, thereby distinguishing it from other settings [49]. Central to this process is the term sense of place, introduced by Buttimer [50] to describe the experiential and symbolic bonds people form with places. Jackson [51] (p. 25) defines sense of place as “a lively awareness of the familiar environment, a ritual repetition, a sense of fellowship based on a shared experience”. More broadly, sense of place reflects the evolving relationship between people and their environments, ranging from basic spatial awareness to deep emotional attachment and identification, sometimes strong enough to inspire personal sacrifice [5].

The concept of “genius loci” or “spirit of place”, introduced by Norberg-Schulz [3], is often confused with sense of place. Jackson [51] acknowledges a conceptual link, suggesting that sense of place is a modern reinterpretation of the genius loci. However, as Jive’n and Larkham [52] emphasize, these terms operate at different conceptual levels. Genius loci refers to the inherent spirit or character of a place, an essence revealed and reinforced through design and spatial form [3]. In contrast, a sense of place is a relational and subjective construct, grounded in how individuals and communities perceive, experience, and interact with places, reflecting the meanings assigned to the environment through these interactions. Relph [53] similarly distinguishes the spirit of place as the inherent identity of a place, and the sense of place as the human ability to perceive and emotionally respond to it, which is especially relevant in virtual environments where the former may be lacking but the latter can still be evoked. Traditionally associated with physical settings, sense of place is now increasingly studied within virtual and hybrid environments [54]. In virtual contexts, the sense of place is shaped less by physical presence and more by emotional, imaginative, and multisensory engagement [53]. Expanding on this, Banks and Bowman [55] demonstrate that human–place interaction extends across both physical and digital spaces, with virtual presence, social media, and digital memory increasingly shaping the sense of place.

Sense of place encompasses both positive and negative experiences associated with places [18]. Positive experiences are often linked to feelings of satisfaction and well-being, reflected in related concepts such as “topophilia” [8], “rootedness” [49], “insideness” [5], “community sentiment” [56], and “special places” [57]. In contrast, negative associations may manifest as dysphoria or a sense of “placelessness,” defined as an absence of connection to place [5,16]. Disruptions in the experience of place have been described in various terms, including “diaspora” [58], a “loss of place” [59], the emergence of “non-place” [60], a “loss of nearness” or “remoteness” [61], a “loss of intimacy” [62], and “alienation” [63] with one’s surroundings. One concept that vividly illustrates this disruption is “solastalgia,” which describes the distress experienced when a once-familiar place undergoes unwanted change. In response to a threatened sense of place, solastalgia reveals that this bond is rooted not only in physical presence but also in emotional stability, identity, and the meanings associated with one’s surroundings [64]. In the absence of a sense of place, environments become unsustainable, jeopardizing their habitability and diminishing individual well-being. Ultimately, without meaningful human connection, a place is reduced to a mere physical space. These dynamics highlight that place sustainability is deeply contingent on the presence and preservation of a strong sense of place [65,66,67,68]. Moreover, sense of place is essential to the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives, particularly in guiding sustainability transitions. Horlings [65] conceptualizes sense of place as the “inner dimension” of sustainable development and emphasizes that such transitions must be grounded in the personal and cultural values embedded in local environments. Furthermore, sense of place contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3, Good Health and Well-being, by enhancing psychological well-being. It also advances SDG 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities, by fostering sustained engagement with the built and natural environment, thereby strengthening community cohesion and supporting sustainable human settlements [69].

2.1. The Tripartite Model of Sense of Place

In the study of human–place interaction, scholars have proposed multidimensional frameworks to explain the complex relationships between people and their environments. Developed across disciplines and time periods, these models reflect diverse theoretical perspectives and emphasize different aspects of this interaction, as summarized in

Table 1. Human–place interaction dimensions.

Article	Year	Dimensions of Human–Place Interaction
[77]	1960	Perceptual area, Expressive area, Aesthetic values of a culture, Adaptive area, Instrumental area, Integrative area, Ecological
[78]	1971	Perception and Cognition: Cultural Variability Vision and Complexity, Images, Values, and Schemata Design and Behavior: Crowding, Environmental Quality, Propinquity, Friendship and Interaction, Privacy Designers as form givers: Designers and the public, Determinants of spatial organization
[79]	1973	Mechanistic model, Perceptual–cognitive–motivational model, Behavioral model, Ecological–social systems model
[5]	1976	Insideness, Outsideness, Existential Experience
[80]	1977	Form, Imagination, Activities
[81]	1991	Form, Meaning, Activities
[20]	1992	Cognitive, Emotional, Behavioral
[82]	1998	Physical Setting, Meaning, Activities
[83]	2000	Geographic Location, Material Form, Investment with Meaning and Value
[84]	2001	Self, Others, Environment
[10]	2001	Cognitive, Affective, Conative
[85]	2003	Perceptual, Sociological, Ideological, Political, Ecological
[86]	2006	Physical Features, Meaning, Individual Features, Activities
[87]	2009	Location, Locale (material setting), Sense of Place
[88]	2010	Physical, Social, Socio-demographic
[89]	2010	Person, Process, Place
[90]	2015	Demographic characteristics, Physical and visual features, Social characteristics and activities, Meanings, Ecosystem
[91]	2021	Place, People, Time, Self
[92]	2023	Time, Objective physical characteristics, Subjective physical characteristics, Individual characteristics.
[55]	2024	Symbolism, Purpose, Identity, Relation, Emotion

. The human–place interaction framework proposed by Low and Altman [20] has been applied by many scholars to conceptualize sense of place, including in recent studies [70,71]. As sense of place functions as a conceptual lens for understanding the dynamic interplay between individuals and their environments [72]. Building on this framework, Jorgensen and Stedman [10] conceptualized sense of place as a multidimensional construct grounded in attitude theory, incorporating the cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions of human–place interaction. Their model includes three indicators: place identity (cognitive), place attachment (affective), and place dependence (conative). To empirically test this model, they employed structural equation modeling and found that sense of place is best represented as an overarching evaluative construct that integrates these indicators while preserving their distinct roles. This tripartite model of sense of place, including place identity, place attachment and place dependence [10] has been supported by other scholars, such as Shamai and Ilatov [73] who emphasize its value as a robust empirical framework, particularly when the three indicators are treated as subscales. The model effectively captures the intersection of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of place experience [74,75,76].

2.1.1. Place Identity

Place identity, initially conceptualized by Proshansky et al. [93], refers to how individuals perceive themselves in relation to their environment. It is understood as a substructure of self-concept shaped through ongoing human–place interaction. Place identity emerges through a reciprocal relationship in which both the self and the place derive meaning from one another [94]. It is formed through personal awareness, memories, and symbolic associations that connect the self to place [95]. Place identity evolves through individuals’ interactions with both social and physical environments and is embedded within broader cultural, political, and economic contexts [96]. It is shaped over time by long-term residence and the accumulation of lived experiences that contribute to a sense of self in relation to place [97]. Beyond the individual, place identity encompasses shared meanings that contribute to collective identity and shape community dynamics [98].

2.1.2. Place Attachment

Place attachment refers to the emotional bond individuals or communities form with specific places, shaped by their experiences and interactions [63]. This attachment can be positive or negative, depending on the nature and quality of those experiences, and develops over time through repeated and meaningful engagement, fostering feelings of rootedness, familiarity, and security [99]. Place attachment involves deep emotional investment and a desire for proximity and continued interaction [100]. It is influenced by both the objective characteristics of a place and subjective individual factors such as values, memories, and symbolic meaning [101,102]. Place attachment is not static; it evolves over time and is shaped by factors such as residential satisfaction, length of residence, significant life events, and changing personal expectations [103].

2.1.3. Place Dependence

Place dependence refers to the extent to which a particular environment supports an individual’s needs, goals, or activities [15,104]. Unlike place attachment, which emphasizes emotional bonds, place dependence reflects a functional bond rooted in the practical value a setting offers for goal fulfillment [105]. It reflects the extent to which a place enables desired behaviors and outcomes, particularly in comparison to alternative environments [106,107,108]. This reliance is not fixed but context-dependent, shaped by the perceived utility and effectiveness of the environment. A setting that reliably supports functional needs may reinforce place dependence, foster user loyalty, and promote sustained use [109].

2.2. Expanded Tripartite Model

Building on Jorgensen and Stedman’s [10] foundational work and subsequent scholarly definitions of each indicator, this study adopts an expanded tripartite model that incorporates recent theoretical developments by Strandberg and Styvén [110] as they argue for the inherent complexity of place identity, identifying its three core components, including cognitive, affective, and conative. This reflects that, although sense of place indicators have traditionally been associated with singular human–place dimensions (cognitive, affective, and conative, respectively), they are not confined to only one; instead, each indicator can simultaneously encompass all three components.

Accordingly, place identity is shaped not only by how individuals cognitively construct their self-concept in relation to place, but also by emotional associations and behavioral expressions. Similarly, place attachment encompasses a cognitive component (e.g., memories), an affective component (e.g., emotional security), and a conative component (e.g., continued interaction). Place dependence includes a cognitive component (e.g., goal support), an affective component (e.g., feelings of irreplaceability), and a conative component (e.g., continued use).

This expanded model clarifies how the cognitive, affective, and conative components operate within each core indicator of sense of place, enabling a more nuanced understanding of their distinct yet interconnected roles. Figure 1 illustrates these interrelationships, and

Table 2. Components and subcomponents of sense of place indicators.

	Place Identity *	Place Attachment	Place Dependence
Cognitive	Self-categorization, Centrality of identity, Self-fit, Self-meanings, Self-congruity	Evaluative beliefs, Memories, Symbolic meaning, Personal significance	Perceived utility, Functional fit, Goal support, Contextual advantages
Affective	Affective attachment, Centrality of affect, Self-merging, Motivational drivers	Feelings of belonging, Affection, Rootedness, Emotional security	Feelings of irreplaceability, Emotional reliance, Necessity-based attachment, Affective commitment to utility
Conative	Behavioral attachment, Preferences, Functional evaluations	Continued interaction (routine/emotional familiarity), Intention to stay or return, Protective actions, Proximity-seeking behavior	Continued use, Avoidance of alternatives, Functional loyalty, Place-anchored behavioral choices

* Subcomponents of place identity are directly adopted from [110] (p. 13).

presents the components and sub-components of sense of place indicators.

2.3. Conceptual Divergence in the Sense of Place Literature

Despite the integrative potential of the tripartite model, the literature continues to reflect a range of divergent conceptual approaches. As noted by [18,111,112], some studies treat these as distinct constructs; others conceptualize one, particularly place attachment, as encompassing the others, while some consider all four as separate but interrelated dimensions of people’s bonds with place. Williams et al. [113] initially framed place identity and place dependence as subdimensions of the broader construct of place attachment, a model later applied by Williams and Vaske [104]. Scannell and Gifford [89] use sense of place and place attachment interchangeably, referencing Jorgensen and Stedman [10], despite that study’s emphasis on conceptual distinctions. Similarly, [114] uses place attachment as a broader construct comprising place dependence, place affect, place social bonding, and place identity. Reference [115] frames sense of place as a higher-order construct comprising indicators such as place meaning and place attachment. Similarly, [91] views it as a broader construct that incorporates place attachment, place identity, place dependence, sense of community, and rootedness. Reference [116] conceptualizes sense of place as a more complex construct that includes place attachment, which is linked to place identity and place dependence, and place meaning, which encompasses place satisfaction and place experience.

These varying interpretations may stem from disciplinary differences spanning human geography, social sciences, environmental psychology, architecture, design, and planning, each emphasizing distinct dimensions of human–place interaction [117]. In response, Williams [118] emphasizes the need for methodological clarity and the adoption of context-dependent, pluralistic approaches.

Several studies have explored the concept of sense of place within the housing context through various conceptual frameworks. The following studies equate place attachment with sense of place. Reference [100] examines social and physical attachment as indicators of sense of place across three spatial scales: house, neighborhood, and city. Its findings indicate that social attachment plays a more significant role than physical attachment in shaping the sense of place. Among the scales, neighborhoods exhibit the weakest sense of place. Additionally, variations in sense of place by age and gender suggest that it is influenced by both individual characteristics and the broader spatial context.

Reference [119] incorporates seven indicators and examines the sense of place across building, street, and neighborhood scales. Its findings show that the sense of place is strongest at the building scale, where personal and emotional bonds are most concentrated, and weakest in the neighborhood scale, due to limited opportunities for social interaction. At the street level, spatial coherence, the presence of natural elements, and opportunities for casual social encounters contribute to stronger place-based connections. Overall, the study emphasizes the role of spatial configuration and environmental features in shaping residents’ sense of place.

Reference [120] employs four indicators to assess the sense of place in a newly constructed housing area within a planned city, developed to absorb population overflow from a nearby metropolis. Its findings highlight four key physical qualities that shape residents’ satisfaction: the presence of green and natural spaces; public and social facilities that promote interaction; functional infrastructure ensuring accessibility and convenience; and the provision of essential services and amenities.

Reference [121] uses two indicators in assessing the sense of place and identifies a range of factors that negatively influence it in residential settings. These include limited social and emotional experiences, along with design-related constraints such as small room sizes, restricted opportunities for personalization, impersonal interior layouts, lack of privacy, and underutilized communal spaces. Collectively, these conditions weaken residents’ ability to establish meaningful bonds with their housing environment.

In contrast to the studies that explicitly use place attachment interchangeably with sense of place, the following adopt a more implicit approach. Reference [122] applies the framework of Jorgensen and Stedman [10]; however, it does not specifically use the term sense of place. Instead, it treats place attachment as an overarching construct, assessed through three indicators. To avoid terminological confusion, it labels the emotional dimension as affective attachment, thereby preserving place attachment as a broader construct. Its findings emphasize the importance of place-based identity, along with emotional and functional ties, in shaping residents’ protective behaviors toward their housing environment. Similarly, reference [92] adopts an implicit approach by using the term “sense of place attachment” as an overarching construct. In this study of a social housing complex, findings show that both objective characteristics such as accessibility, parking availability, quality of materials, entertainment facilities, public space amenities, and green areas, and subjective perceptions including peace, safety, beauty, and legibility, along with socio-demographic factors, shape the bond between people and their housing environment. The study concludes that subjective perceptions, which are directly shaped by physical attributes, have a stronger influence, emphasizing the importance of incorporating emotional and experiential aspects into residential design and policy.

Among studies employing different conceptual frameworks, two explicitly use the term sense of place, although the indicators differ from the tripartite model. Reference [123] assesses sense of place in a public housing context using two indicators. Its findings show that many residents prefer renovation over relocation, reflecting a strong attachment to place. This connection is particularly pronounced among older residents and is shaped by feelings of meaning, belonging, and pride. Longer tenure further strengthens the sense of place, highlighting the importance of stability and the passage of time in cultivating emotional and social bonds. Additionally, positive neighborhood characteristics such as social cohesion, community engagement, and supportive peer relationships reinforce this connection. Notably, contrary to prevailing assumptions, negative conditions such as fear of crime and social disorder appear to have a limited impact in this context.

Reference [124] investigates the sense of place within a historical and culturally significant housing context, using two indicators from the tripartite model, excluding place dependence. Its findings suggest that natural and culturally embedded sounds enhance the sense of place, while noise from traffic and commercial activity has a diminishing effect. Positive personal evaluations, such as appreciation for cultural preservation and overall life satisfaction, also contribute to a stronger sense of place. Qualitative data further support these findings, indicating that familiar sounds foster emotional connections, reinforce daily routines, and strengthen residents’ sense of belonging.

These studies highlight the varied conceptualizations of sense of place in housing research, as summarized in

Table 3. Conceptual divergences in sense of place literature within housing studies.

Article	Term Used	Indicators
[100]	Place attachment = Sense of place	Social attachment, Physical attachment
[119]	Place attachment = Sense of place	Place identity, Place dependence, Nature bonding, Social bonding, Belonging, Familiarity, Social interaction
[120]	Place attachment = Sense of place	Place identity, Place affect, Place dependence, Social bonding
[121]	Place attachment = Sense of place	Place identity, Place dependence
[122]	Place attachment (indirectly sense of place)	Affective attachment, Place identity, Place dependence
[92]	Sense of place attachment (indirectly sense of place)	Place dependence, Place identity, Process.
[123]	Sense of place	Place attachment, Community attachment
[124]	Sense of Place	Place attachment, Place identity

. Among these authors, some in their more recent studies adopt sense of place as a broader construct based on the tripartite model. These studies are examined in the subsequent section, as they align with the adopted tripartite model and are included in the systematic review.

3. Method

This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework in Supplementary Materials developed by Page et al. [125] which outlines a rigorous process for identifying, selecting, and evaluating studies to address specific research questions. It ensures comprehensive, unbiased synthesis, while highlighting gaps in the literature. The framework proceeds through four distinct phases, identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, and incorporates a 27-item checklist to promote transparency and methodological rigor.

3.1. Search Strategy

The literature search was conducted on 2 April 2025, and was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English to ensure scholarly quality and consistent language. The comprehensive search was performed using Scopus and Web of Science, which are widely recognized academic databases known for their broad coverage of peer-reviewed literature [126,127,128]. No time restrictions were applied, enabling the inclusion of a broad range of studies to capture diverse perspectives on sense of place. Advanced queries targeting titles, abstracts, and keywords were employed to increase precision. To reflect the dual focus on housing and sense of place, structured search strategies were developed based on four term categories, as demonstrated in

Table A1. The query set used during the identification phase.

Boolean Logic	Search Cluster		Keywords 1
TITLE-ABS-KEY AND	C1	Core concept	“Sense of place”, “SOP”, “Sense of home”
AND	C2	Sense of place constructs and indicators	“Genius Loci”, “Spirit of Place”, “Place Identity”, “Place Attachment”, “Place Dependence”, “Affective Attachment”, “Emotional Attachment”, “Place Affect”, “Functional Attachment”, “Sense of Belonging”, “Place Meaning”, “Place Experience”, “Place Perception”, “Place Satisfaction”, “Place Familiarity”, “Topophilia”, “Rootedness”, “Insideness”, “Community Sentiment”, “Loss of Place”, “Non-Place”, “Loss of Nearness”, “Loss of Intimacy”, “Dysphoria” “Diaspora”, “Placeness”, “Placelessness”, “Alienation”, “People-Place Relationship”, “Human–Place Relationship”, “People-Place Interaction”, “Human–Place Interaction”
AND	C3	Setting context	Housing*, House, Home, Residential*, “Domestic Space”, “Domestic Place”, Dwelling*
AND	C4	(Method/Analysis)	Indicator*, Measure*, Factor*, Component*, Variable*, Dimension*, Criteria*, Criterion*, Scale, Framework, Construct, Qualitative, Quantitative

¹ OR Boolean logic applied.

, Appendix A. Boolean operators and keyword combinations were adapted to each database’s syntax to ensure comprehensive and targeted retrieval of relevant literature. This review was not registered, and no formal protocol was prepared.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Based on the study’s theoretical framework, articles were included only if they conceptualized sense of place as a multidimensional construct incorporating the three core indicators: place identity, place attachment, and place dependence. While additional indicators were permitted, these three were essential. Studies also had to be clearly situated within housing contexts; those with only peripheral relevance were excluded. Regardless of the methodological approach (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed), eligible studies were required to present clear methods and report distinct findings for each indicator. Studies lacking conceptual clarity or indicator-level results were excluded. The screening of records through titles, abstracts, and keywords, followed by full-text eligibility assessment in two phases, resulted in ten articles being included in the final review. Eight additional studies with divergent conceptualizations were excluded from the synthesis but are discussed narratively in the theoretical framework section to reflect broader disciplinary perspectives. The selection process is illustrated in the standard PRISMA 2020 flowchart (Figure 2) and further detailed in a custom-designed diagram (Figure 3) that reflects the specific stages of the review. To clarify the geographic distribution of the reviewed studies, two maps are provided, one illustrating the distribution of the included studies (Figure A1, Appendix B) and the other showing the distribution of the narratively discussed studies (Figure A2, Appendix B).

3.3. Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) developed by Hong et al. [129] All ten studies had clearly defined research questions and employed appropriate data collection strategies. Quantitative descriptive studies generally met core criteria, although issues related to sample representativeness and nonresponse bias were observed. The only quantitative non-randomized study did not adequately control for confounding variables. Qualitative studies demonstrated strong alignment across data collection, analysis, and interpretation. While all mixed methods studies provided clear rationales and effectively integrated qualitative and quantitative components, some did not sufficiently address inconsistencies between the two strands. Overall, the studies were of acceptable quality, despite certain methodological limitations. The quality assessment of the included studies is presented in

Table A2. Quality assessment of included studies ¹.

Quantitative Descriptive Studies
Article	Are there clear research questions?	Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?	Is the sample representative of the target population?	Are the measurements appropriate?	Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?	Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question?
[133]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes
[134]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes
[130]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes
Quantitative non-randomized
Article	Are there clear research questions?	Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	Are the participants representative of the target population?	Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?	Are there complete outcome data?	Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?	During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?
[131]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Qualitative
Article	Are there clear research questions?	Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?	Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?	Are the findings adequately derived from the data?	Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?	Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?
[138]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
[140]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mixed methods
Article	Are there clear research questions?	Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?	Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?	Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?	Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?	Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
[135]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes
[132]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes
[137]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
[136]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes

¹ The questions are directly adopted from MMAT [129] without modification.

in Appendix A.

3.4. Data Analysis

A qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted using a deductive coding approach grounded in the expanded tripartite model of sense of place. Study findings were extracted and categorized according to the cognitive, affective, and conative components of place identity, place attachment, and place dependence. Cross-study patterns were then synthesized to examine how these components manifest across various housing contexts. In addition, findings related to the determinants influencing sense of place were extracted and categorized into themes, subthemes, and corresponding descriptions or representative factors.

4. Results

The reviewed studies examine sense of place across a wide range of housing contexts and settlement types. In the post-disaster recovery and disaster resilience context, the studies highlight how residents adapt to or reconnect with their environments following disruption. Sense of place is also investigated in institutionally constructed public housing for low-income populations and in retrofitted social housing developed through formal programs with sustainability enhancements. In contrast to these formally constructed settings, informal settlements, typically self-built and characterized by low-quality living conditions, are also examined. Other studies focus on high-quality urban neighborhoods featuring architecturally distinctive housing and integrated natural elements, as well as waterfront housing located in scenic, nature-rich environments. While all studies address both the housing unit and its surrounding environment, two place particular emphasis on micro-scale spatial features such as housing thresholds (front yards), and one conducted a comparative analysis of rural housing typologies with a focus on spatial configuration. From a residential mobility perspective, one study examines later-life downsizing and its implications for sense of place.

The review includes four quantitative, two qualitative, and four mixed methods studies, demonstrating the various approaches used to investigate sense of place. All studies are grounded in Jorgensen and Stedman’s [10] tripartite model, consistently applying the three core indicators. Some studies extend this framework with additional context-specific indicators [130,131,132]. Four studies employ a standardized 12-item measurement model, evenly distributing items across the three indicators [133,134,135,136]. Others devise the number and type of items based on methodological and contextual needs [130,131,132,137]. Based on

Table 4. Quantitative studies on sense of place in housing.

Article	Theme	Region/Country	Housing Context/Settlement Type/Occupancy Type	Physical and Spatial Characteristics	Method			SOP Indicators (n)	Additional SOP Indicator (n)	Predictor Variables (n)
					Quantitative
					Study Design-Sample Size (n)	Data Collection	Data Analysis/Software
[130]	High-quality housing and SOP	North America /Elmwood Village, Buffalo, New York, USA	Urban/Mixed housing types (single-story, duplexes, apartments)/Permanent	Historical architectural diversity; vegetated streetscapes; moderate enclosure (sky views, building scale, tree cover); park access	Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/(202)	In person surveys	Regression analysis, Correlation analysis, Descriptive statistics/software not specified; likely SPSS	PI (6) PA (3) PD (5)	Nature Bonding (5)	Socio-demographic (5) Neighborhood scale (3) Street scale (2) Building scale (3)
[131]	Public Housing and SOP	Middle East & North Africa /Pardis, Tehran, Iran	Suburban/Multi-story apartment blocks/Permanent	Regular layout, identical blocks; limited public services; external transport access; lack of local transport and recreational and communal spaces	Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/330)	In person surveys	Structural equation modeling, Descriptive statistics, Correlation analysis/SPSS v22, AMOS v22	PI (5) PA (4) PD (6)	SOP (3)	Sociodemographic (8) Residential Satisfaction (4)
[133]	Waterfront Housing and SOP	North America /Vilas County-northern Wisconsin, USA	Rural/Detached single-family houses/Mixed (Permanent and Seasonal)	Natural landscape with native vegetation and lake; amenity-based, low-density residential setting	Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/(290)	Mail survey	Structural equation modeling, Descriptive statistics, Correlation analysis/SPSS v10.0.5, LISREL 8.70	PI (4) PA (4) PD (4)	None	Sociodemographic Factors (2) Behavioral Engagement (2) Property Development Index (1) (Summed from 9 physical features of the property) Attitude Toward Shoreline Housing (4) Attitude Toward Natural Vegetation (3) Lake Importance (3)
[134]	Post-Disaster Housing and SOP	Europe & Central Asia /Edremit, Van, Turkey	Urban/Apartment blocks (3–4 stories)/Permanent	Regular layout, identical blocks; concrete-frame structures; green spaces, playgrounds, public facilities	Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/(235)	In person surveys	Structural equation modeling, Descriptive statistics/R software, SPSS v24	PI (4) PA (4) PD (4)	None	Socio-demographic (10) Satisfaction with Landscaping: Effect of planting on the local climatic conditions (5) Open-green spaces and scenery (4) Landscape furniture/equipment (4) External connections and social services (5) Accessibility and roads within the residential area (3)

,

Table 5. Qualitative studies on sense of place in housing.

Article	Theme	Region/Country	Housing Context/Settlement Type/Occupancy Type	Physical and Spatial Characteristics	Method			SOP Indicators (n)	Additional SOP Indicator (n)	Predictor Variables (n)
					Qualitative
					Study Design/Sample Size (n)	Data Collection	Data Analysis/Software
[138]	Informal Housing and SOP	Sub-Saharan Africa (Southern Africa)/ Hopley and Hatcliffe Extension, Harare, Zimbabwe	Peri-urban/Self-built single-story housing/Permanent	Haphazard layout; overcrowded and poor-quality housing constructed from mixed materials (wood, tin, bricks, polythene); built without planning permission; limited infrastructure; disconnected from formal urban systems	Open-ended questions/Four focus groups (two per settlement), 8 participants each (32)	In person Focus group discussions	Phenomenological thematic analysis following Van Manen’s [139] three-step approach (holistic, selective, detailed)	PI, PA, PD (11 questions)	None	Length of residence, social networks, shared histories, housing transformation, access to services, autonomy, neighborhood reputation, future prospects (all discussed qualitatively, not as structured variables)
[140]	Retrofitted Sustainable Housing and SOP	Middle East & North Africa /Qasr Al-Hallabat and Ajloun, Jordan	Semi-rural/Retrofitted single-family housing/Permanent	Structured layout; formally constructed housing retrofitted with sustainable features (solar panels, energy-efficient windows); includes front yards, gardens, and occasional second-story extensions; culturally responsive design; limited but improving infrastructure access.	Open-ended questions/27 households (16 in Qasr Al-Hallabat, 11 in Ajloun)/(36)	In person interview, Direct observation, and visual ethnography	IPA with thematic coding and triangulation/NVivo	PI, PA, PD (11 questions)	None	Social bonding and networks, cultural continuity, home-based enterprises, community projects, housing retrofitting (solar panels, energy-efficient windows, gardens), access to essential services, local traditions, self-driven modifications (all discussed qualitatively, not as structured variables)

and

Table 6. Mixed methods studies on sense of place in housing.

Article	Theme	Region/Country	Housing Context/Settlement Type/Occupancy Type	Physical and Spatial Characteristics	Method			SOP Indicators (n)	Additional SOP Indicator (n)	Predictor Variables- (n)
					Mixed (Quantitative and Qualitative)
					Study Design/Sample Size (n)	Data Collection	Data Analysis/Software
[132]	Rural Housing Typology and SOP	Middle East & North Africa /Ashkor, Guilan, Iran	Rural/Indigenous and Engineered Single- and two-story detached houses/Permanent	Indigenous: Timber/brick, organic layout, high integration Engineered: Concrete/brick, compartmentalized, lower integration	Interviews, Questionnaire 7-point Likert scale/(382)	In-person surveys and interviews	Quantitative data: Descriptive statistics, Inferential statistical analysis, Space syntax analysis/R software, UCL Depthmap Qualitative data: Content analysis using open coding	PI (4) PA (5) PD (5)	Aesthetics (4) Nature Bonding (6) Familiarity (2) Sense of Belonging (4) Social Bonding (4) Social Interactions (5) Privacy (9)	Type of housing, Spatial configuration, Activity pattern
[135]	Disaster-Resilient Housing and SOP	East Asia & Pacific /Tadlac, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines	Rural/Single- and two-story houses/Permanent	Bamboo/wood and concrete and mixed housing Flood-prone settlements	Interviews, Questionnaire 4-point Likert scale/(71)	In-person surveys and interviews	Quantitative data: Regression analysis, Descriptive statistics/SPSS v2 Qualitative data: Phenomenological analysis with Experience Use History (EUH) and thematic interpretation	PI (4) PA (4) PD (4)	None	Socio-demographic (10) Housing characteristics (9)
[136]	Late-Life Housing Downsizing and SOP	North America /Multi-state, USA	Urban-Suburban/Apartments or attached units/Permanent	Smaller, low-maintenance homes with accessibility considerations; ease of daily functioning; proximity to services; designed or selected for aging-related needs	Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/(235)	Phone interview, in person survey	Quantitative data: Structural equation modeling, Descriptive statistics, Correlation analysis, Regression analysis/SPSS v25, PROCESS macro v3.0 Qualitative data: Descriptive content analysis using predefined coding schema	PI (4) PA (4) PD (4)	None	Sociodemographic (8) Relocation factors (7) Perceived Health (6) Push–Pull Factors (24) Relocation controllability (9) Relocation outcomes (7)
[137]	Urban Housing Threshold and SOP	Middle East & North Africa /Ahwaz, Iran	Urban/Single-story houses with front yards/Permanent	Middle-class residential context/One-sided house typology/Private front yards oriented north–south/Open yard between house and street (no courtyard)/Used for social, leisure, and functional activities	Interviews, Questionnaire 5-point Likert scale/(248 survey, 16 interviews)	In-person interviews, phone interviews, and online survey	Quantitative data: Structural equation modeling/ SmartPLS 3 Qualitative data: Grounded theory coding and thematic content analysis with triangulation	PI (2) PA (3) PD (3)	None	Autonomous Behavior (5) Normative Behavior (6) Controlled Behavior (6)

, the following subsections detail how sense of place is conceptualized and measured across these varied contexts.

4.1. Quantitative Studies

The quantitative studies employed structured survey-based designs with sample sizes ranging from 202 to 330 participants. All studies utilized 5-point Likert-scale questionnaires to measure sense of place indicators. Data were collected primarily through in-person surveys, with one study [133] using a mail-based format. Analytical approaches included descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and sense of place and indicators scores, as well as advanced techniques such as structural equation modeling, correlation analysis, and regression analysis to examine relationships between sense of place indicators and various contextual predictors.

In the context of waterfront housing, specifically privately owned lakeshore properties, [133] investigates how physical, perceptual, and individual factors influence residents’ sense of place. It assesses predictors including sociodemographic characteristics, behavioral engagement, property features, and environmental attitudes toward shoreline housing and natural vegetation. The findings underscore the importance of both built and natural elements in shaping residents’ place connections.

In the context of post-disaster permanent housing, [134] investigates the relationship between landscape satisfaction and sense of place. Landscape satisfaction is evaluated based on factors including the role of vegetation in microclimatic comfort, the quality of green space, outdoor amenities, accessibility, social facilities, and transportation. Despite low landscape satisfaction, residents report a strong sense of place, suggesting that social continuity, emotional security, and limited housing alternatives help sustain attachment, even when environmental quality is poor.

A high-quality urban neighborhood known for its architectural character and livability serves as the setting for [130], which explores residents’ sense of place within a high-quality housing context. In addition to the three core indicators, it includes an additional indicator of nature bonding, assessed across the building, street, and neighborhood scales. Its findings reveal that spatial characteristics significantly influence sense of place, with the strongest values reported at the neighborhood level, followed by the building and street scales.

The relationship between public housing and sense of place is explored in [131] which examines residents’ overall satisfaction, with particular attention to the mediating role of sense of place. Sense of place is measured both through its core indicators and as a general construct using separate items. According to the authors, this dual approach captures both structured and holistic perceptions of place, supporting its role as a mediating variable in the proposed path model. The findings confirm that sense of place significantly predicts residential satisfaction, highlighting the importance of residents’ psychological and experiential bonds with their environment and the need to look beyond physical conditions when evaluating public housing outcomes.

4.2. Qualitative Studies

The qualitative studies employ exploratory, interpretative designs with small, purposive samples of 32 [138] and 36 [140] participants. Data are collected through in-person interviews, focus group discussions, direct observation, and visual ethnography. Both studies use open-ended questions targeting all three sense of place indicators, guided by 11 qualitative prompts. Data analysis is conducted using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) with thematic coding and triangulation in [138], and phenomenological thematic analysis following Van Manen’s [139] three-step approach (holistic, selective, and detailed) in [140].

Within informal settlements, reference [138] qualitatively examines the formation of sense of place, despite challenges posed by insecure living conditions and inadequate infrastructure. The study challenges dominant narratives that portray such areas as lacking meaningful place-based experiences, providing a grounded perspective on housing in marginalized contexts.

With a similar method of qualitative inquiry, reference [140] explores the influence of retrofitted sustainable housing initiatives on the sense of place among low-income residents. The study examines how design features such as solar water heaters, energy-efficient windows, bamboo shading, and resident-led home modifications, along with socio-cultural factors, contribute to the sense of place. The authors argue that sustainable housing policy should go beyond technical efficiency to address residents’ psychological and cultural experiences.

4.3. Mixed Methods Studies

The mixed methods studies adopt integrated designs combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to explore sense of place. Sample sizes ranged from 71 to 382 participants. Questionnaires employed 4-point [135], 5-point [136,137], and 7-point Likert scales [132]. Data collection involves in-person surveys and interviews, with some studies incorporating phone and online formats. Quantitative analyses mirror those used in the quantitative-only studies; however, reference [132] applies inferential tests such as Chi-square, t-tests, and K-means clustering. These approaches are complemented by qualitative methods, including content analysis with predefined coding schemas, grounded theory with thematic analysis and triangulation, open coding, and phenomenological interpretation.

In the context of disaster-resilient housing, reference [135] examines sense of place in a flood-prone settlement, considering housing structure and socio-demographic factors. The findings show that housing characteristics influence sense of place, and that a strong sense of place enhances community resilience by supporting adaptation, justifying continued residence, and enabling coping strategies in high-risk environments.

Focusing on housing downsizing in later life, reference [136] explores how push–pull motivations and perceived control influence older adults’ adjustment and their evolving sense of place. The study examines transitions to various housing types, including independent living communities, senior apartments, continuing care retirement communities, and low-income senior housing. Participants’ preferences regarding location, proximity to family and services, housing layout, safety, affordability, and maintenance shaped their post-relocation sense of place. Findings highlight that, beyond housing-related characteristics, perceived control is a mediating factor between motivational drivers and the development of a sense of place.

The link between rural housing typology and sense of place is examined in [132], which focuses on the influence of spatial configuration and activity patterns on place-based bond. In addition to the three core indicators, the study incorporates supplementary indicators adopted from [141], including aesthetics, nature bonding, familiarity, sense of belonging, social bonding, social interactions, and privacy. Comparing indigenous and engineered housing in a rural context, the study emphasizes the importance of preserving traditional spatial configurations that promote collective living and enhance residents’ sense of place.

Urban housing front yards serve as the setting for study [137], which investigates the influence of behavioral types, including autonomous (internally motivated), normative (socially guided), and controlled (externally compelled), on the development of a sense of place. The study aims to understand how everyday actions, shaped by varying levels of personal agency, influence residents’ symbolic and emotional connection to, as well as their functional reliance on, the living environment. According to the study, autonomous and normative behaviors foster stronger symbolic, emotional, and functional connections to the housing environment, whereas controlled behaviors rooted in necessity have minimal effect.

5. Discussion

This section presents the results concerning place identity, place attachment, and place dependence as identified across the included studies. The analysis follows a deductive approach, structured around the components and subcomponents of the expanded tripartite model of sense of place.

5.1. Determinants of Place Identity

5.1.1. Cognitive Component

Within the waterfront housing context, residents’ perceptions of the lake’s importance emerged as the strongest predictor of place identity in their lakeshore properties, as reported in [133]. The lake serves as a symbolic element reinforcing self-meanings and the centrality of identity, as individuals define their self-concept and express personal values in relation to place. Attitudes toward shoreline development and native vegetation also show moderate positive associations with place identity. Residents who value preserving the lake’s natural character, particularly through unaltered shorelines, are more likely to identify with their property.

Similarly, reference [134] demonstrates that, in post-disaster housing, familiar visual landmarks, such as lakes, citadels, and mountains, along with a shared socio-cultural background, influence the development of place identity. These physical and social features contribute to self-congruity, as individuals perceive them to reflect their personal identity, values, and support self-categorization within the new environment.

Reference [130] notes that place identity is influenced by natural features (e.g., moderate greenery, open sky views) and built characteristics (e.g., spacious housing units, familiar architectural styles) of a high-quality urban neighborhood. These environmental qualities contribute to self-congruity. At the same time, such features enhance self-fit by offering a level of physical and lifestyle compatibility that reinforces place identity.

Likewise, reference [131] underscores that residents’ interpretation of the physical environment contributes to place identity by enabling them to assign symbolic and personal meaning (self-meaning) to environmental features of public housing environment.

Reference [136] suggests that place identity can emerge through cognitive adaptation to a new environment following housing downsizing, rooted in self-meaning, even when there is no physical similarity between the old and new environments.

Furthermore, references [135,138] highlight long-term residence as critical to the development of place identity in informal settlements characterized by inadequate physical conditions and in disaster-prone settlements marked by environmental vulnerability. This suggests that, even in informal and disaster-prone settlements with inadequate physical conditions, residents come to see themselves as part of a place-based community through processes of self-categorization.

5.1.2. Affective Component

In post-disaster housing settings, place identity is also shaped by affective dimensions such as the presence of long-standing neighbors and improved housing conditions, as illustrated in [134]. These factors promote affective attachment, reinforcing place identity through a sense of continuity and comfort.

Collective memory and community pride play a pivotal role in shaping place identity in informal settlements, as evidenced in [138]. These factors reflect affective attachment, self-merging, and motivational drivers, as residents develop emotional bonds and invest in shared narratives despite social and infrastructural marginalization.

Inherited housing is identified in [135] as a powerful contributor to place identity. This reflects affective attachment rooted in family continuity, and centrality of affect, as the inherited home becomes a deeply meaningful space that is integrated into residents’ self-concept.

5.1.3. Conative Component

Place identity is shaped, not only by symbolic or emotional ties, but also by intentional and repeated behaviors within housing environments. In [137], place identity is shaped by both normative (e.g., greeting neighbors) and autonomous behaviors (e.g., solitude, gardening) in front yards. These illustrate behavioral attachment, as repeated voluntary interactions and flexible space use support identity through action-based preferences.

In flood-prone settlements, reference [135] reports that resident-led construction, such as elevating homes on stilts, shapes place identity. This reflects behavioral attachment, as residents actively engage with and modify their living environment in response to contextual challenges. It also reflects functional evaluations, since these adaptations enhance the safety, usability, and resilience of their homes.

Evidence from informal settlements further supports this pattern. Reference [138] highlights that self-built housing fosters place identity by promoting ownership, agency, and a sense of belonging grounded in shared labor and incremental modification. This reflects behavioral attachment and functional evaluations as housing modifications respond to contextual needs over time.

Similarly, references [132,140] demonstrate that housing adaptations and maintenance activities, including the construction of semi-open porches, home extensions, and care of communal areas within rural settlements, sustain place identity. This is an indication of behavioral attachment and functional evaluations. In addition, these actions reflect cultural and social expressions of preference and contribute to self-place alignment, thereby reinforcing place identity.

5.2. Determinants of Place Attachment

5.2.1. Cognitive Component

Within the waterfront housing context, place attachment is primarily shaped by residents’ evaluative beliefs about the environment, particularly support for preserving native vegetation and perceiving the lake as a meaningful landscape feature, as observed in [133]. These evaluations reflect the emotional value attributed to natural character and environmental continuity.

In the context of public housing, reference [131] finds that well-designed communal and natural spaces enhanced residential satisfaction by fostering symbolic meaning and evaluative beliefs, as place attachment arises from perceived environmental adequacy.

In the context of housing downsizing, reference [136] reports that older adults who voluntarily relocated under favorable conditions developed stronger place attachment when the transition was perceived as self-directed. This sense of agency contributed to a positive evaluative beliefs and personal significance of the new environment.

Disaster-resilient housing offers unique conditions under which place attachment develops. Reference [135] highlights that perceived housing security in flood-prone settlements, especially in elevated or two-story homes, access to essential services such as water, and inheritance of homes strengthened place attachment. This affirms evaluative beliefs related to safety and resilience. In addition, the inheritance of homes contributes to intergenerational memories associated with the living environment, further reinforcing place attachment.

Within a high-quality housing environment, reference [130] indicates that housing type and size influenced place attachment, particularly in larger, single-family homes. This reflects evaluative beliefs about the home’s ability to meet residents’ needs through perceptions of comfort and stability, thereby enhancing place attachment.

5.2.2. Affective Component

Reference [134] shows that emotional security and comfort deepen place attachment, especially in contrast to temporary housing. Shared traumatic experiences further contributed to a collective sense of belonging, thereby reinforcing place attachment.

Within retrofitted sustainable housing, reference [140] reveals that strong interpersonal networks, frequently described by residents as “feeling like one family,” fosters place attachment. This exemplifies feelings of belonging and affection rooted in social connectedness.

In the case of informal settlements, reference [138] emphasizes that long-term residence and embedded personal histories cultivated place attachment within informal settlements. These reflect rootedness, as attachment is sustained through familiarity and prolonged neighborly interaction despite adverse physical conditions.

5.2.3. Conative Component

Engagement in physical property development, such as maintenance, structural modifications, or landscaping, serves as a behavioral expression of place attachment in waterfront housing, as shown in [133]. These actions signify an intention to remain long-term and a desire to care for and maintain the home.

Similarly, reference [135] indicates that continued residence and rebuilding after flooding are indications of place attachment. These reflects protective behaviors and a strong commitment to place despite environmental risks.

In rural housing contexts, reference [132] emphasizes that routine domestic behaviors such as shared meals and prayer conducted within shared interior spaces in indigenous housing foster place attachment. Further support comes from [137] which highlights that solitary and familial practices in front yard spaces, such as gardening, resting, or social interaction, also contribute to place attachment. Together, these findings illustrate how culturally embedded and spatially grounded practices strengthen attachment through continued interaction and proximity-seeking behaviors within domestic environments.

5.3. Determinants of Place Dependence

5.3.1. Cognitive Component

In public housing contexts, perceived environmental adequacy, including access to employment, services, and transportation, significantly influences residential satisfaction and shapes residents’ place dependence, as shown in [131]. The study concludes that insufficient infrastructure in public housing areas weakens place dependence. These findings align with perceived utility and contextual advantages, as residents evaluate place based on its functional capacity to meet daily needs.

Evidence from [136] suggests that, when housing conditions align with daily routines, residents undergoing housing downsizing experience a sense of environmental mastery and autonomy following relocation. This alignment supports lifestyle goals and reflects functional fit, thereby strengthening place dependence.

According to [130] architectural style influences place dependence, as residents assess how well housing aligns with their needs and preferences. These findings reflect both goal support and functional fit, reinforcing dependence through compatibility between housing form and user expectations.

5.3.2. Affective Component

Emotional bond on the housing environment is shown to deepen over time in retrofitted sustainable housing, as reported in [140]. Improvements in housing conditions, service accessibility, social infrastructure, and community relationships contribute to this growing dependence. For older adults and families, the familiarity of routines and surroundings further reduces the desire to relocate, reflecting a growing necessity-based attachment.

Observations drawn from post-disaster housing in [134] highlight that, despite dissatisfaction with environmental conditions, residents formed strong place dependence due to limited alternatives and a symbolic sense of security after displacement. This reflects necessity-based attachment and affective commitment to utility.

Similarly, reference [138] reports that place dependence is shaped by emotional bonds to community life, practical necessity, and the adaptability of space to support daily routines in informal housing settlements. This reflects feelings of irreplaceability and an affective commitment to utility.

5.3.3. Conative Component

Place dependence in flood-prone settlements is reinforced through community-driven actions, including the construction of flood-resilient homes and the alignment of livelihood practices such as seasonal fishing and farming with environmental cycles [135]. These behaviors reflect continued use, functional loyalty, and avoidance of alternatives, as place reliance stems from long-term environmental alignment and adaptive responses to risk.

Place dependence in informal settlements is shaped by residents’ ability to modify and use their spaces for economic activities as the absence of land regulations allows for greater autonomy in adapting spaces to support livelihoods. Moreover, community-led improvements to local infrastructure further strengthen this attachment [138]. These dynamics reflect place-anchored behavioral choices, as the integration of economic functions into the housing environment makes the place functionally essential to daily life, thereby reinforcing both reliance on place and avoidance of alternatives.

In the context of waterfront housing, reference [133] demonstrates that place dependence is positively influenced by physical development of properties such as docks, winterized homes, detached boathouses, and landscaped shorelines. These actions refer to intention for continued use and functional loyalty.

In the context of rural housing, reference [132] emphasizes that spatially integrated and multifunctional layouts of indigenous housing support domestic tasks, enable efficient routines, and foster place dependence. These features reinforce continued use, functional loyalty, and place-anchored behavioral choices by aligning housing functionality with daily life patterns.

Findings from [137] indicate that spatial practices in front yard spaces, shaped by both autonomous and normative behaviors, influence place dependence. These practices reflect place-anchored behavioral choices, as the use of space becomes functionally and socially embedded in daily routines, thereby reinforcing dependence on place.

5.4. Findings and Implications

The presented synthesis supports the expanded tripartite model of sense of place, confirming that each core indicator (place identity, place attachment, and place dependence) can encompass cognitive, affective, and conative components. This multidimensional understanding highlights the conceptual complexity of sense of place in the housing context.

Table 7. Sense of place coding matrix ¹.

Article	Place Identity			Place Attachment			Place Dependence
	Cognitive	Affective	Conative	Cognitive	Affective	Conative	Cognitive	Affective	Conative
[133]	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1
[134]	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0
[130]	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0
[131]	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0
[136]	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0
[138]	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1
[135]	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1
[137]	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1
[132]	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1
[140]	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0

¹ 1 = presence; 0 = absence of component.

(coding matrix) identifies the presence or absence of each component across ten selected articles, while

Table 8. Frequency of subcomponents identified in studies contributing to sense of place.

	Place Identity	Literal Count	Place Attachment	Literal Count	Place Dependence	Literal Count	Overall Total
Cognitive	Self-categorization	2	Evaluative beliefs	5	Perceived utility	1
	Centrality of identity	1	Memories	1	Functional fit	2
	Self-fit	1	Symbolic meaning	2	Goal support	2
	Self-meanings	3	Personal significance	1	Contextual advantages	1
	Self-congruity	2
Total		9		9		6	24
Affective	Affective attachment	3	Belonging	2	Feelings of irreplaceability	1
	Centrality of affect	1	Affection	1	Emotional reliance	1
	Self-merging	1	Rootedness	1	Necessity-based attachment	2
	Motivational drivers	1	Emotional security	1	Affective commitment to utility	2
Total		6		5		6	17
Conative	Behavioral attachment	5	Continued interaction	2	Continued use	3
	Preferences	3	Intention to stay or return	2	Avoidance of alternatives	2
	Functional evaluations	4	Protective actions	2	Functional loyalty	3
			Proximity-seeking behavior	2	Place-anchored behavioral choices	3
Total		12		8		11	31
Overall total		27		22		23	72

quantifies the frequency of specific subcomponents associated with each indicator. The integrated analysis of the two tables reveals the following patterns: in seven out of 10 studies, place identity is primarily shaped through the cognitive component. Place attachment, although traditionally considered an affective construct, is most frequently associated with the cognitive component in five studies, while the affective component is the least represented, appearing in only three studies. Place dependence is most strongly linked to the conative component, identified in five studies. The overall frequency analysis across the three indicators of sense of place shows that conative subcomponents are the most frequently represented (n = 31), followed closely by cognitive subcomponents (n = 24). In contrast, affective subcomponents are the least represented, with a frequency of n = 17.

In addition to structured interpretation of human–place relationships, the model also reveals sense of place’s contribution to sustainability. As previously proposed in the literature, sense of place contributes to social sustainability through the reinforcement of social capital [142]. This is evident in the findings of this review, as social capital in housing context is reinforced through long-term residence and neighborly ties, interpersonal networks, collective memory and community pride, participatory engagement, and social interaction embedded in communal routines.

Sense of place reinforces cultural sustainability through “cultural identity, diversity, vitality, and continuity” [143]. The findings support this relationship, showing that cultural sustainability in housing is maintained through the preservation of traditions, the intergenerational transfer of homes, and spatial practices shaped by cultural norms and everyday domestic routines. Moreover, the findings confirm that sense of place fosters environmental sustainability by promoting ecological awareness, place-protective behaviors, including adaptive responses to natural disasters and a strong preference for natural elements within the housing environment; and supporting the established link between environmental sustainability and sense of place [144,145]. Sense of place is reflected through economic sustainability, demonstrated by the integration of livelihood practices into housing, self-built and incrementally modified homes that support affordability and autonomy, and spatial adaptations aligned with economic routines and functional loyalty.

To further contextualize sense of place in housing research,

Table 9. Determinants of sense of place in housing contexts across studies.

Themes	Sub-Themes		Description/Representative Factors
Physical and Spatial	Design, Layout and Spatial Configuration	Housing Environment	Spatial clarity and enclosure (legibility, density); architectural coherence; pedestrian-friendly and human-scaled design
		Housing Unit	Housing type and size; amenity-based layout; spatial integration; privacy; ease of maintenance
	Functional Fit and Utility	Housing Environment	Mobility and accessibility; proximity to essential services; availability of social and recreational spaces; support for daily routines
		Housing Unit	Flexibility in use; adaptability; structural safety and durability; potential for personalization
Environmental	Natural Elements		Presence of native vegetation; proximity to water bodies and natural landmarks; minimal intervention in natural state
	Environmental Qualities		Microclimatic comfort; visual quality of green and open spaces; environmental safety and comfort; culturally significant and natural soundscapes
Social	Social Dynamics		Kinship and neighbor ties; shared history; community recognition and pride; emotional security through social continuity; mutual support networks
	Life Stage and Socio-demographic Factors		Age and length of residence; control over relocation; household composition and vulnerable groups; socio-economic background; Multigenerational continuity
Cultural	Symbolic and Cultural Alignment		Home as a symbolic extension of self; cultural and traditional congruence expressed through collective memory, communal, and ritual practices
Economic	Financial Factors		Housing affordability; use of housing for livelihood activities (home-based enterprises); cost-sensitive relocation decisions.
Institutional	Tenure and Land Use Regulations		Security of tenure; autonomy in land use decisions; clarity of property rights and regulatory frameworks

synthesizes the key determinants identified across the reviewed studies. These determinants are organized into six thematic categories, each comprising specific sub-themes and representative factors. Despite variations in research contexts, a consistent pattern emerged: both tangible and intangible attributes of housing environments contribute significantly to the development and experience of residents’ sense of place.

6. Conclusions

This study conducted a systematic, conceptually grounded qualitative review of empirical literature on sense of place within housing contexts. By employing an expanded tripartite model that integrates cognitive, affective, and conative components across place identity, place attachment, and place dependence, the review offers a nuanced framework for interpreting the multidimensional nature of human–place interaction in housing environments. The findings affirm that sense of place is not a singular or static experience, but an evolving construct shaped by how individuals cognitively evaluate, emotionally relate to, and behaviorally engage with their housing.

A key finding is the continued dominance of place attachment in the literature, which is often conflated with the broader concept of sense of place. This conflation risks oversimplifying the complex ways in which people form bonds with their housing. The expanded tripartite model addresses this issue by demonstrating that each indicator contributes uniquely to residents’ sense of place through distinct yet interconnected experiences. The findings highlight the practical relevance of sense of place for sustainability. It is not merely a conceptual abstraction but a factor essential to sustainable outcomes. Housing environments that support personal meaning, socio-cultural continuity, and functional alignment with everyday life foster enduring human–place bonds. These bonds, in turn, promote long-term commitment, care, and resilience, positioning sense of place as a key element of housing sustainability.

The review also reveals considerable variation in methodological approaches, ranging from structured, scale-based assessments to open-ended qualitative approaches, including phenomenological techniques. Despite these differences, a consistent pattern emerges: sense of place is shaped by both tangible and intangible determinants, including spatial and physical conditions, environmental qualities, social and cultural dynamics, and economic and institutional factors. These determinants are highly context-dependent, shaped by a variety of housing conditions including socio-spatial (e.g., urban vs. rural, formal vs. informal), functional (e.g., post-disaster, domicide, refugee, lifestyle migration), institutional (e.g., public, social), temporal (e.g., temporary, seasonal, life-stage transitions), and symbolic (e.g., historically and culturally embedded environments). Examining these across diverse geographic and sociopolitical contexts is essential for understanding the processes through which sense of place is formed and sustained. Such insights can inform more context-dependent housing policies and design practices.

Future research should continue to advance the multidimensional understanding of sense of place, and particularly how individuals transform housing into home, a space imbued with identity, attachment, and dependence. While the expanded tripartite framework provides a strong foundation, additional indicators or components may be needed to capture context-specific experiences, necessitating further conceptual and methodological refinement.

A limitation of this review concerns the search strategy. The Boolean operator AND was applied between two keyword clusters, C1 (Core Concept) and C2 (Sense of Place Constructs and Indicators), to specifically target studies addressing sense of place and its three core indicators. While this approach improved search precision, it may have inadvertently excluded relevant studies aligned with the review’s objectives, particularly those that referenced only one of the clusters, but not both, in their title, abstract, or keywords. Additionally, restricting the review to English language publications may have excluded relevant non-English studies, thereby limiting geographic diversity and the applicability of insights into the determinants of sense of place.