Dimensions of Community Attachment and Their Relationship to Well‐Being in the Amenity‐Rich Rural West*

Abstract

This research had two primary objectives: 1) to broaden the sociological construct of community attachment to incorporate both social and natural environment dimensions of attachment, and 2) to examine how variations in attachment relate to two dimensions of well-being in natural amenity-rich rural communities. The specific dimensions of well-being measured are two important factors identified in previous researchcollective action and perceptions of open communication. Factor analysis of fourteen measures of attachment indicated social attachment and attachment to the natural environment are distinct dimensions of the broader concept of community attachment. Participation in collective action and perceptions of open communication within a respondent's community explained only a small portion of the variance in levels of both social and natural environment attachment. Religious affiliation and length of residence were strongly associated with social attachment, supporting findings from previous empirical work. However, length of residence and religious affiliation were not statistically associated with levels of attachment to the natural environment, further reinforcing the distinction between the two dimensions of attachment.

Environmental and Community Stability of a Mountain Destination: An Analysis of Residents’ Perception

“…It is well known that tourism development relies on the goodwill of the local residents [6][7][8], so destination managers should provide community's support. Brehm and associates [9] noted that it is also important to discover the emotive relations between residents and their places and what they want to protect and preserve. Also, meeting the needs of the host population in terms of improved living standards in the short and long term is one of the objectives of sustainable tourism in mountain areas.…”

The contribution of wild food experiences to sense of place in McBride, British Columbia

“…This includes sense of place (Williams & Stewart, 1998;Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001;Stedman, 2003), place attachment (Brown & Perkins, 1992;Low & Altman, 1992, Vaske & Kobrin, 2001Williams & Vaske, 2003), place dependence (Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995;Pretty, Chipuer & Bramston, 2003;Hunt, 2008), place identity (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983;Korpela, 1989;Dixon & Durrheim, 2000), topophilia (Tuan, 1974;González, 2005;Oliveira, Roca & Leitão, 2010), community attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;Hummon, 1992;McCool & Martin, 1994;Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2004), belonging (Jacobson, 2002;Mormon-Robinson, 2003;Trudeau, 2006;Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008), insideness (Relph, 2008;Rowles, 1983;Lim & Barton;2010), and rootedness (Tuan, 1980;McAndrew, 1998;Andreotti, Galès, Fuentes, 2013), among others. Though it is still debated how place concepts relate to one another, many researchers argue that sense of place is a multidimensional concept comprising two, three, or five facets (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981;Williams & Vaske, 2003;Kyle, Graefe & Manning, 2005;Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006;Scopelliti & Tiberio, 2010;Raymond, Brow...…”

“…questions were based largely on the research designs of two community attachment studies (Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2004;Brehm, 2007). Brehm et al (2004) examine the environmental facet in community attachment in two small communities in intermountain Wyoming and Utah.…”

“…Brehm et al (2004) examine the environmental facet in community attachment in two small communities in intermountain Wyoming and Utah. They draw from the work of Beckley (2003), who advocates for the use of several methods to understand the full details of a phenomenon.…”

“…They draw from the work of Beckley (2003), who advocates for the use of several methods to understand the full details of a phenomenon. Brehm et al (2004) employed household surveys consisting of Likert-type scale questions to understand the importance of various aspects to the community in which they live, ranging from 1 = "not at all important" to 7 = "extremely important." Residential addresses from public utility records in the 2004 study were assigned a number and 200 households were randomly selected.…”