Out of love for the village? How general and selective forms of attachment to the village explain volunteering in Dutch community life

Abstract

In the past century, the increasing scale of daily life has weakened and changed the ways residents feel attached to their village. A general and all-encompassing village attachment has evolved into less involving, more selective and partial forms of attachment. Concerns have been raised as to whether these changing forms affect volunteering in village life. In this paper we distinguish between general and selective forms of attachment to the village-social, cultural and environmental attachment-and explore their effects on local volunteering. In line with the theory of 's/elective belonging', we hypothesise that a general attachment to the village predicts high levels of volunteering in village life, whereas selective forms of attachment only predict volunteering in activities related to the specific form of attachment. Based on survey data on over 5000 rural residents, the results show that general attachment only predicts volunteering to a limited extent and that social attachment does so best. Thus, a loosening general attachment to the village may not weaken community activity as is often feared. Instead, it is social attachment that motivates and facilitates volunteering, including among inmigrants. Efforts to strengthen local communities should therefore focus on enhancing social relations between villagers.

Stable Mobilities and Mobile Stabilities in Rural Estonian Communities

“…Often, in these cases, the lines are drawn based on residence frequency (permanent or summer resident) or residence history (in-migrant or in-born). In several studies, in-migrants (or incomers), second home-owners and 'native' inhabitants are separated as different groups within a community (Ellingsen, 2017;Gieling et al, 2019). Our data show that these distinctions were really ambiguous, and the notion of a 'native' resident and incomer was fluid.…”

“…(Bossuet, 2006;Granovetter, 1973). The vision of how to (re)arrange local cultural and symbolic meanings and materialities of the area may be a kind of place branding (Argent, 2019, p. 759), which invites new meanings that attract new inhabitants to the region (Gieling et al, 2019). These aspects illustrate the paradox well.…”

Dealing with the loss of the village supermarket: The perceived effects two years after closure

“…Especially in more peripheral rural areas with low population densities and declining populations that are located relatively far away from larger cities, the loss of facilities has a strong impact on the villages and their inhabitants. Here, rural residents have fewer alternative facilities available and often they are only available at large distances from their homes (Gieling et al., 2019a; Manthorpe & Livsey, 2009; Shucksmith et al., 2009). In the more densely populated and highly urbanised rural areas in Western Europe, such as The Netherlands, alternative facilities often are available relatively close by and most rural residents are no longer dependent on local facilities because they have access to (car) mobility.…”

Non‐engagement of Mid‐aged and Elderly Residents in Rural Civic Livability Initiatives

“…Furthermore, Walton and Cohen (), Walton et al () and Gieling et al () found that the sense of social belonging that results from positive and enduring social relationships motivates and enables residents to engage in community‐focused activities. Residents who feel socially embedded in their community have more access to information about collective wishes and needs, which supports community engagement (Brennan and Luloff ; Crona and Bodin ; Walton and Cohen ; Walton et al ).…”