Permanent and Seasonal

Residents Community
Attachment in Natural
Amenity-Rich Areas

Environment and Behavior

Volume 42 Number 2
March 2010 197-220
2010 SAGE Publications
10.1177/0013916509332383
http://eab.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Exploring the Contribution

of Landscape-Related Factors
David Matarrita-Cascante
Texas A&M University

Richard Stedman
Cornell University

A. E. Luloff
The Pennsylvania State University

Previous work on amenity-driven migration documented substantial differences

between permanent and seasonal residents and the effects of these differences
on community social dimensions. This study focuses on seasonal and permanent residents attachments to their local area. To increase our understanding
of those factors associated with community attachment in amenity-rich areas,
we incorporate attitudinal and behavioral measures associated with the biophysical environment in our model. We find natural landscape-based factors
make an independent and important contribution to community attachment for
both permanent and seasonal residents.
Keywords:community attachment; biophysical environment; permanent
and seasonal residents

Introduction
Because of their uniqueness and natural beauty, rural natural amenityrich localities are among the fastest growing areas in the United States
(Johnson & Beale, 1994; McGranahan, 1999). As a result they have experienced rapid increased year-round and seasonal in-migration. This has
implications for rural communities that have traditionally coped with
197
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

198 Environment and Behavior

declining populations and resources. Managing rapid population and economic growth represents a new, potentially serious challenge for these
communities (Johnson, 2003).
Problems associated with rapid growth have been noted in the boomtown
and migration literature often expressed in terms of societal disruptions
(Freudenburg, Bacigalupi, & Young, 1982; Greider, Krannich, & Berry, 1991;
Hunter, Krannich, & Smith, 2002; Kohrs, 1974; Landis, 1997). More recently,
research on amenity-rich areas has explored the negative impacts of growth on
local social fabric. Some of these changing social conditions have been
attributed to the sociodemographic, attitudinal, and behavioral differences
between permanent and seasonal residents (Matarrita-Cascante, Luloff,
Field, & Krannich, 2006; Smith & Krannich, 2000; Stedman, 2006a). Such
differences may lie in the divergent ways these groups feel about and interact with the community and landscape.
Of particular interest for this study are seasonal and permanent residents
attachments to local areas. The processes by which individuals become
attached to their locality may differ for seasonal and permanent residents
(Stedman, 2006b). Traditional models of community attachment for yearround residents emphasize time in the setting and social interaction (Austin
& Baba, 1990; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Stinner, Van Loon, Chung, &
Byun, 1990; Theodori & Luloff, 2000). Community attachment reflects an
individuals rootedness and sense of belonging to a community. This sense of
belonging, according Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), had three dimensions:
sense of community, interest in community, and community sentiments.
Less often considered in traditional community attachment studies are
residents interactions with the physical environment, rather than with other
social actors (Beckley, 2003, Brehm, 2007; Brehm, Eisenhauer, & Krannich,
2004, 2006). Furthermore, relatively little attention has been given to the
effect of interactions with the physical environment on community attachment, and how this effect may differ across the types of residence patterns
(i.e., permanent versus seasonal). We believe that this neglect may potentially result in both a lack of understanding of the processes giving rise to
community attachment by seasonal residents and the potential underestimation of their levels of attachment. Thus, and in keeping with the natural
amenity emphasis described above, our research focuses on the contributions of natural landscape-based interactions and motivations to attachment.
Furthermore, it seeks to better understand the processes by which different
types of residents become attached to a local setting. Seasonal residents
reasons for belonging to their community might be associated with stronger
interactions with the natural landscape than with other community members.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 199

Alternatively, permanent residents attachments to community might be

associated, as the conventional community attachment literature suggests,
with more extensive and intensive interactions with social networks of friends,
neighbors, and family.
This study explores how permanent and seasonal residents differ in their
strength of attachment to the local area and the process by which attachment is formed. To address these questions, measures of attitudinal and behavioral measures associated with the natural landscape are incorporated with
more traditional predictors of community attachment.

Framework for Analysis

Community Attachment
Community attachment refers to a sentiment-based emotional connection to community (cf. Brehm et al., 2004; Guest & Lee, 1983; Theodori,
2000). Community attachment reflects an individuals interest, sentiments,
and belonging resulting in rootedness to the community (Hummon, 1992;
Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). Two dominant models have examined the relationship between structural and interactional factors as predictors of community attachment (Austin & Baba, 1990; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). The
linear model posits community attachment is inversely related to community size and population density. Proponents of such a model hypothesize
larger numbers of residents, and therefore density, are associated with less
attached individuals to the community. This model has consistently failed
to adequately explain the relationship between community attachment and
population size or density (Goudy, 1990; Theodori & Luloff, 2000). The
second, or systemic model, examines the relationships between community
attachment and three systemic factorslength of residence, socioeconomic
position (measured by occupation), and life stage (measured by age)and
better explains factors associated with community attachment. In theory,
according to Goudy (1990, pp. 179-180), greater time in the community,
higher socioeconomic position, and increased age create community sentiment based on belonging rather than on human ecological factors like
population size or density (Theodori & Luloff, 2000; Wirth, 1938).
The systemic model has been examined using several intervening variables. The first group of variables is associational bonds (Beggs, Hurlbert, &
Haines, 1996; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). It refers to the number of formal
and informal organizations and activities an individual belongs to in her/his

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

200 Environment and Behavior

community. Beggs et al. (1996) listed school groups, church groups, and
community groups among those local organizations. Amity, the second group
of variables, is associated with interpersonal relations, social networks, social
ties, and/or social bonding (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981). It refers to the numbers
of individuals enveloped in local friendship structures. Stinner et al. (1990)
identified two components of amity: (a) the density of the individuals local
friendship network; and (b) the degree to which the friendship network is
spatially concentrated. Amity has been measured by questions about the
numbers of family members and friends who live close by and in ones community. Associational bonds and amity are positive social factors in the systemic model and are referred to as local bonds (Stinner et al., 1990).
The systemic model examines the relationship between the variables
described above and local bonds. Additionally, the contribution of the systemic factors and the intervening variables has been tested along three
dimensions of community attachment including sense of community (feeling of belonging and at home); interest in community (interest in what goes
on); and sentiments, or feelings, about ones community (sorry to leave this
community; Theodori & Luloff, 2000, p. 408). Kasarda and Janowitz
(1974) found length of residence had the most powerful and consistent
effects on local bonds (associational bonds and amity). The longer an individual lives in a community, the greater his/her opportunities to become
acquainted with other community members (cf. Freudenburg, 1986). Social
position and stage of life are associated with local social bonds, yet these
relationships are not as strong as the one resulting from length of residence.
The systemic model proposed by Kasarda and Janowitz and refined by others (see Austin & Baba, 1990; Beggs et al., 1996; Goudy, 1990; Stinner et al.,
1990) supports the existence of a direct relationship between length of residence and community attachment (in each of its dimensions). It also suggests the more local bonds people experience, the greater sense of
community and sentiments they have for the community. Furthermore, this
model supports community attachments relationship with associational
bonds. The systemic model helps us understand community attachment as
the result of residents sociodemographic characteristics and local interactions with other individuals and organizations.
Recently, work conducted by Brehm et al. (2004, 2006) and Brehm
(2007) has incorporated interactions with the natural environment into multivariate models of attachment. Their work emerges from earlier studies in
this vein (Beckley, 2003; Gustafson, 2001; Hay, 1998; Hidalgo & Hernandez,
2001). Staying within the basic community framework described above,
Brehm et al. (2004, 2006) found the natural environment played a role in

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 201

predicting individuals attachment to their communities in amenity-rich areas.

Yet, Brehm (2007) cautioned about the multifaceted characteristic of the
natural environment dimensions, expressing the need for additional studies,
using a wide variety of methods, targeted toward multiple types of environments and interactions. Our article builds on this suggestion in several
ways: first, by examining the relative contribution of landscape and social
interactions to attachment; second, by including the potential important role
of motivations (i.e., what are the respective contributions to attachment of
motivations tied to social and environmental factors?); and third, by comparing these contributions across two important types of community
members: permanent residents and seasonal residents.
To summarize, traditional models define community attachment by length
of residence and by social interaction. These approaches typically do not
include interactional or motivational elements associated with the natural
landscape within the definition of community attachment. Building on
Brehm et al. (2004, 2006) and Brehm (2007) we hypothesize that, at least
in amenity-rich communities, the natural environment plays an important
role in predicting a persons community attachment. We hypothesize that:
(a) Permanent residents have a higher level of community attachment than
seasonal residents; (b) in a high-amenity area, landscape interactions and
motivations are positively associated with community attachment levels;
(c) attachment for permanent residents is more strongly predicted by classic
community interaction variables; whereas (d) attachment for seasonal residents is more strongly predicted by interactions with natural landscape.

Conceptual Model
Attachment suggests rootedness based on involvement, ties, sentiments,
and potential interactions with local elements. Local attachment in the community model has been based primarily upon interactions and rootedness
with other people in the setting. Here, however, we explore the degree to
which, particularly in high-amenity settings, attachment is also based on
interactions, meanings, and sentiments people have vis--vis the physical
environment. Building upon previous studies (Beggs et al., 1996; Brehm,
2007; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974) we incorporate predictors associated with
community and the natural environment concomitantly because we believe
interactions with the physical landscape have an impact on community
attachment. The distinction between the effect of social interactions and
natural resource-based interactions, especially in high-amenity communities,

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

202 Environment and Behavior

Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Community Attachment
in a Natural Amenity-Rich Context
Sociodemographics
Social interaction

Natural landscaperelated factors

Community
attachment

Length of residence/
days spent in seasonal
residence

Note: Dashed lines indicate the exploratory relationships examined in this study.

is difficult to define. Stedman, Beckley, Wallace, and Ambard (2004, p. 602)

found natural and social elements underlying attachment were conjoined, as
many important encounters with nature were in the company of others: the
natural world is peopled, and every day social relations are never far from
nature. In the interest of analytical clarity, however, the distinction described
above serves as the basis for our analysis. Community and natural environmental variables were operationalized by social interaction and natural
landscape-related factors respectively (Figure 1).1
As individuals spend more time in their communities, social interaction
with other social actors creates bonds and sentiments for the locality (Luloff,
1998). More frequent involvement in local activities and events and length of
residence fosters attachment. Additionally, the longer individuals live in a
community and the more they interact with local natural amenitiesthrough
recreation and motivation for residence based on physical attributesthe
more likely they are to exhibit feelings of belonging and rootedness (Farnum,
Hall, & Kruger, 2005).
We first determine whether permanent residents and seasonal residents
differ in their strength of community attachment. Then, we examine the
contributions of social interaction factors to community attachment for both
groups of residents. Finally, we add natural landscape-related interactions
and motivations to the model.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 203

Sample Selection and Data Collection

The study area consisted of five southern Utah counties (Garfield, Iron,
Kane, Washington, and Wayne).2 Altogether, 80% of their total 17,351
square miles are federal lands (Bureau of Land Management 2005; Utah
Governor, 1999). The area is characterized by national parks and monuments, high mountain peaks, red rock canyons, scenic high desert landscapes, and other natural resource amenities. All five counties experienced
population growth and increased seasonal home development between
1970 and 2000 (Williams, 2006).3
Samples were drawn from lists of residential property owners provided
by each countys tax assessor office that categorized residences as either a
primary or secondary using the standardized codes of Utah counties for tax
assessment purposes. A mail survey was sent to 2,646 selected property
owners, evenly distributed between permanent and seasonal residents. For
seasonal residents, surveys were sent to their permanent residence. Six
sequential mailings were carried out during the spring and summer of 2004.
The timing, number, and types of mailings were based on the tailored
design method (Dillman, 2000). Totals were adjusted for surveys that were
undeliverable, sent to ineligible respondents or people otherwise unable to
participate, resulting in a final sample size of 2,179: 1240 permanent residents and 939 seasonal residents (i.e., the undeliverable rate was higher for
seasonal residents). In total, 1,409 property owners completed and returned
the questionnaire, representing an overall response rate of 64.7%. Of the
surveys completed and returned, 573 were from seasonal homeowners (a 61%
response rate) and 836 were from permanent residents (a 67% response rate).
Each of these rates is considered strong for a general population mail survey.

Measurement
The independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics; length
of residence; and, for seasonal residents, intensity of use, operationalized as the
number of days the seasonal residence was occupied. Community variables
were operationalized with social interaction measures including frequency of
interaction with friends, family, and neighbors, and level of involvement in community activities. Natural landscape-related variables included natural and rural
amenity-based motivations for owning residences in the area; engagement in
recreation activities; the number of parks, forests, monuments and recreation
areas visited, including those within a respondents county. After comparing the

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

204 Environment and Behavior

strength of community attachment for permanent and seasonal residents, we

conducted a block model regression to examine the effect of the variables in
each construct on community attachment for each group.

Dependent Variable
Community attachment was measured with a 5-item Likert scale. Items
included: (a) feel community is a real home to me; (b) people would go out
of way to help; (c) feeling of acceptance in community; (d) feeling of
belonging in community; and (e) most people in community can be trusted.
Responses included 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Principal components analysis revealed a single dimension among these
items that explained 72% and 67% of the variance for permanent and seasonal residents, respectively.4 Reliability analysis produced alpha values of
.90 for permanent residents and .88 for seasonal residents. Based on these
strong reliabilities, a summated scale was created from all the variables
listed above.

Predictor Variables
Length of residence and use of property. Length of residence for permanent residents was measured by the number of years an individual lived in
the community. For seasonal residents, length of residence was measured
as the numbers of years she/he had owned a seasonal residence there.
Because seasonal residents vary in their property use patterns, an item
measuring how often seasonal owners visited the areathe number of days
spent in the area during the last 12 monthswas included to assess intensity of seasonal residence use.
Community factors. Frequency of social interaction was assessed with a
question inquiring how often the respondent interacted with friends, family,
and neighbors. For each measure, an eight-category ordinal response was
used (1 = rarely or never, 2 = about once a year, 3 = several times a year,
4 = about once a month, 5 = several times a month, 6 = about once a week,
7 = several times a week, and 8 = daily). Involvement in community activities was measured with the following question: (a) In general, how would
you describe your level of involvement in community or local area activities or events? There were four response categories: 1 = not active at all,
2 = not very active, 3 = somewhat active, and 4 = very active.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 205

Natural landscape interactions and motivations. We build on the traditional community attachment model by incorporating variables related to
the natural landscape. Because we sought to remain consistent with interactional community-based approaches described in the theoretical framework, our natural resource variables are based on interactions with and
attitudes toward the local natural landscape. Natural and rural amenitybased motives behind residence selection were drawn from a larger suite of
Likert-type questions that included: (a) for personal recreation; (b) for the
propertys natural beauty; (c) because of family or friendship ties; (d)
because of the pace of life in the area; (e) as a financial investment; (f) for
the rural atmosphere of the area; (g) for the high environmental quality of
the area; (h) for the climate conditions in the area; (i) for instrumental housing related reasons (low housing costs, better housing); (j) for cost of living
reasons (low costs of living, low taxes). We used a five-category response
scale from 1 = very unimportant to 5 = very important. Principal components analysis resulted in two dimensionsfor natural and rural amenities,
and for financial reasons (the latter set of items was not included in the
model). The natural and rural amenities of the area measure included: for
personal recreation, the propertys natural beauty, the pace of life in the area,
the rural atmosphere, and environmental quality of the area. This dimension
accounted for 40% and 33% (respectively) of the variance for permanent
and seasonal residents, with an alpha value of .82 for each group.
Outdoor recreation engagement is an indicator of respondents interactions with the natural environment. We created summed scales for consumptive and nonconsumptive recreation activities. Consumptive activities
included hunting, motor boating, fishing, riding all-terrain vehicles, collecting firewood, and using four-wheel-drive vehicles to access back country
areas. Nonconsumptive activities included bicycling, wildlife viewing, bird
watching, backpacking, swimming, day hiking, and cross-country skiing.
Respondents indicated which activities they had engaged during the last 12
months. The alpha value for consumptive recreation was .76 and .66 for
permanent and seasonal residents, respectively. Nonconsumptive alpha values were .63 for permanent residents and .64 for seasonal residents.
The number of parks, monuments, forests, and recreation areas visited measured the breadth of visitation to natural areas. This variable
was based on the number of unique sites each resident visited during the last
year, including: Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Capitol Reef National Park, Cedar
Breaks National Monument, Canyonlands National Park, Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area, Dixie National Forest, Fishlake National Forest,

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

206 Environment and Behavior

and Grand Canyon National Park. Responses ranged from 0 to 10 (the

number of parks visited, coded dichotomously). Additionally, we captured
respondents intensity of use of local place by creating a variable that enumerated visits to parks, monuments, forests, and recreation areas within a
respondents county. This measure was constructed by determining the respondents number of visits to the above parks, monuments, forests, and recreation
areas within the last 12 months that were in his or her county. Because some
park boundaries cross county lines, they were considered to be parts of multiple counties. For a park to be included in a county, it had to have a substantial
presence there (greater than 5% of its total area). Next, we created a ratio of
the number of respondents visits to parks in his or her county to total number
of parks in that county. Finally we sought to understand how respondents
park visits within his or her county compared to county-level averages of
visitation (i.e., to assess whether some respondents were more likely to
engage in such visits than their local counterparts). To create this scale, each
respondents rate of visitation to local parks was multiplied by the proportion
of survey respondents who had visited a park in their county during the last
12 months. Answers consisted of four categories: 0 = no visits, 1 = 1 visit,
2 = 2 to 5 visits, 3 = 6 to 10 visits, and 4 = over 10 visits.
Sociodemographic factors. Annual household income, age, level of formal
education, employment status, and religious affiliation were included as
sociodemographic variables in the analysis. Income was coded into eight
categories that ranged from: 1 = less than $15,000 to 8 = $150,000 or more.
Respondent age, measured in years, was treated as an interval variable.
Education consisted of six categories: 1 = less than high school degree,
2 = high school degree or GED, 3 = some college, 4 = 2-year technical or
associate degree, 5 = 4-year college degree, and 6 = advanced degree.
Employment status was measured as a dichotomy (1 = employed, 0 = nonemployed). Religious affiliation was also coded dichotomously, as 72% of the
permanent and 50% of the seasonal respondents reported affiliation with the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS; or Mormons). This variable was coded 1 = LDS, 0 = other affiliation or no religious preference.5

Data Analysis
We first conducted an independent samples t-test to examine differences in
the level of community attachment between permanent and seasonal residents.
Then, to address the central question of the study, What factors are associated

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 207

with community attachment and how do they differ for seasonal and permanent
residents?, block model regression analysis was conducted for both groups.6

Results
Permanent residents were significantly more attached to their communities than seasonal residents (x- perm= 4. 20, x- seas= 3.84; t = 7.62, sig. = .000;
df = 1374; Cohens d = .41). To better understand the factors behind
these differences, we examined what predicts community attachment for
each group.

Regression Analysis (Permanent Residents)

The block regression that predicted attachment for each group contained
four sequential blocks: (a) sociodemographic variables, (b) length of residence, (c) social interactions, and (d) natural environment variables. For
permanent residents (Model 1), when only sociodemographic variables
were included, age, religious affiliation, and length of residence were significant and positively related to community attachment (see Table 1). This
model was statistically significant, F = 18.36, p < .001, and explained 10%
of the variation (adjusted R2 = .10). In Model 2, length of residence was
introduced. Controlling for the sociodemographic variables, length of residence was positively related to community attachment. Age and religious
affiliation remained statistically significant. Adding length of residence
slightly increased the proportion of explained variance above that associated with the sociodemographics, adjusted R2 = .11, F = 17.30, p < .001.
Model 3 introduced social interaction. When the effects of the sociodemographic and length of residence variables were controlled, level of
involvement in local activities and frequency of interaction with neighbors
were found to positively affect attachment. Age, religious affiliation, and
length of residence remained associated with attachment. Adding the social
interaction construct substantially increased the proportion of explained
variance beyond that contributed by sociodemographics and length of residence, adjusted R2 = .18, F = 17.78, p < .001.
Model 4 introduced the natural landscape-related variables. Controlling
for sociodemographics, length of residence, and social interaction, amenity
reasons for owning ones residence were positively associated with attachment. Age, religious affiliation, length of residence, level of involvement in

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

208 Environment and Behavior

Table 1
Block Model Regression Analysis for Factors
Associated With Community Attachment, Permanent
Residents (standardized coefficients)
Factor

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Sociodemographics
Income
0.050
0.048
0.036
Age
0.168***
0.128**
0.137**
Education
0.022
0.000
0.027
Religious affiliation
0.294***
0.253***
0.218***
Employment status
0.034
0.021
0.017
Years lived in
0.126**
0.092*
the community
Social interaction
Level of involvement
0.156***
in local activities
Frequency of interaction
0.069
with friends
Frequency of interaction
0.033
with family
Frequency of interaction
0.133**
with neighbors
Natural landscape-related
factors
Consumptive recreation
activities
Non-consumptive recreation
activities
Amenity reasons for
owning residence
Number of parks
and natural
areas visited
Visits to national
parks within
respondents county
df
Adjusted R2
F change
n

5
0.101
18.361***
790836

6
0.112
17.296***
774836

10
0.183
17.780***
762836

Model 4
0.051
0.107*
0.018
0.231***
0.012
0.097**

0.151***
0.043
0.035
0.128**

-0.015
-0.015
0.283***
0.003

-0.039

15
0.256
18.093***
748836

Note: n values vary because of missing data on one or more indicators (cases pairwise).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 209

Table 2
Block Model Regression Analysis for Factors
Associated With Community Attachment,
Seasonal Residents (standardized coefficients)
Factor

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Sociodemographics
Income
0.087
0.103*
0.137**
Age
0.197***
0.172**
0.160**
Education
0.053
0.047
0.086
Religious affiliation
0.088
0.083
0.058
Employment status
0.041
0.004
0.001
Years owned seasonal home
0.006
0.031
Days spent in
0.226***
0.084
seasonal residence
Social interaction
Level of involvement
0.246***
in local activities
Frequency of interaction
0.080
with friends
Frequency of interaction
0.113*
with family
Frequency of interaction
0.202**
with neighbors
Natural landscape-related
factors
Consumptive recreation
activities
Non-consumptive
recreation activities
Amenity reasons for
owning residence
Visits to National Parks
Visits to National Parks
within respondents county
df
Adjusted R2
F change
n

5
0.051
6.279***
494573

7
0.093
8.229***
494556

11
0.201
10.737***
428573

Model 4
0.071
0.163**
0.054
0.089*
0.041
0.038
0.064

0.201***
0.063
0.124*
0.151*

0.015
0.066
0.271***
0.062
0.102
16
0.273
11.040***
428573

Note: n values vary because of missing data on one or more indicators (cases pairwise).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

210 Environment and Behavior

local activities, and frequency of interaction with neighbors continued to be

associated with higher attachment. Adding the natural environment related
variables to the model significantly increased the proportion of explained
variance, adjusted R2 = .26, F = 18.09, p < .001.

Regression Analysis (Seasonal Residents)

For seasonal residents, when only sociodemographic variables were
included, age was positively related to community attachment (Table 2).
Although statistically significant, F = 6.23, p < .001, it only accounted for 5%
of the total variation in attachment (adjusted R2 = .05). In Model 2, length of
residence and days spent in the seasonal residence were introduced. Controlling
for sociodemographics, more days spent in the seasonal residence was associated with stronger attachment. Age remained positively associated with community attachment. Additionally, income gained significance. Adding these
variables to the model nearly doubled the explained variance from that associated with the sociodemographics, adjusted R2 = .09, F = 8.23, p < .001.
Model 3 introduced social interaction. Controlling for the effects of sociodemographics, length of residence, and days spent in seasonal residence,
level of involvement in local activities, frequency of interaction with family
members, and frequency of interaction with neighbors were tied to stronger
attachment. Age and income remained significant and positive as well.
However, days spent in seasonal residence was no longer significant. Adding
social interaction increased the proportion of explained variance beyond that
contributed by the sociodemographics and length of residence and days spent
in seasonal residence, adjusted R2 = .20, F = 10.74, p < .001.
Model 4 introduced the natural environment-related variables. Controlling
for sociodemographics, length of residence and days spent in seasonal residence, and social interaction, amenity reasons for owning residence positively
affected attachment. Age, level of involvement in local activities, frequency of
interaction with family members and neighbors remained associated with
community attachment. Additionally, religious affiliation gained significance
in this model. Adding the environment-related construct increased the proportion of explained variance, adjusted R2 = .27, F = 11.04, p < .001.

Conclusions and Implications

We examined the relationship between community theory-based predictors
of attachment to amenity-rich areas with natural landscape-related predictors.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 211

We compared the performance of these models across two groups (permanent and seasonal residents) and hypothesized that attachment for
permanent residents would be (a) stronger and (b) better predicted by the
community-based social interaction variables, whereas seasonal residents
attachment would be based on attitudes and behaviors vis--vis the natural
landscape. These hypotheses were partially supported: Permanent residents
had stronger community attachment than seasonal residents, and several
differences between types of residents emerged. Consistent with theory,
one of the strongest positive predictors of attachment among permanent
residents was length of residence.
For seasonal residents, community attachment was fostered via interaction with neighbors and family. In contrast, for permanent residents
only frequency of interaction with neighbors increased attachment levels.
This might be explained by the larger scope of opportunities seasonal
residents have. Due to higher incomes and mobility (see MatarritaCascante et al., 2006; Stedman, 2006a), seasonal residents have the capacity to choose where they build/purchase seasonal residences. Prior
knowledge of the social actors who live in the area may assist in their
decision-making processes (cf. Tuan, 1980).7
We were more struck, however, by the similarities between seasonal
and permanent residents than their differences. Our study site is strongly
characterized by membership in the LDS church. This fosters community
attachment for both groups. Being an LDS member reflects shared beliefs,
practices, and lifestyles. Glock, Benjamin, Ringer, and Babbie (1967)
indicated churches fulfilled several important social and emotional needs.
As church members, respondents interacted and became involved in common
activities which contributed to increased feelings of belonging. Because
so many respondents are LDS members (72% of permanent residents and
50% of seasonal residents), not being a member probably confers an outsider status. Additionally, local social interactions promote attachment for
both groups. Although this is nearly a truism in studies of year-round residents
(i.e., Beggs et al., 1996; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Theodori & Luloff, 2000),
our results counter common assumptions that seasonal residents have few
local social interactions and that these interactions have little to do with
attachment.8
Natural landscape-related factors also led to community attachment for
both groups. This relationship has not been strongly emphasized, as previous models of community attachment have focused on social relationships
to the relative neglect of the physical environment contribution (e.g., Austin
& Baba, 1990; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). Again, we were struck by the

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

212 Environment and Behavior

similarity of the groups. For both seasonal and permanent residents, natural
and rural-amenity motives for owning property in the area increased community
attachment, suggesting that at least in high-amenity communities such as
these, permanent and seasonal residents share many elements of their dayto-day lives (for example, slower pace of life or relaxation in proximity to
natural pristine environments) that contribute to community attachment.
For each group, actual recreation participation or parks visitation was not
associated with increased attachment, suggesting the more important role
of motives than behaviors.
These findings corroborate and extend the results of recent studies exploring the role of the biophysical environment in predicting attachment to community (Brehm, 2007; Brehm et al., 2004, 2006) and to place (Beckley,
Stedman, Wallace, & Ambard, 2007; Stedman, 2003). Brehm (2007) called
for further research examining different dimensions of the biophysical environment as a predictor of community attachment based on its multiple
facets. In this study, we added to our understanding of community attachment by exploring nature-based motivations and interactions.
Such motivations, as examined here, reflect the high-quality natural
characteristics of an area. These motivations are guided by evaluative judgments of the landscapes characteristics, which in turn become important
social determinants. As noted in Williams (2007) studies of amenity-rich
areas in the West, the landscape represents an important factor in defining
the overall character of the community. Therefore it is important to understand that the aesthetic physical conditions of these localities are highly
significant for social psychological reasons (i.e., community attachment)
and not just for structural reasons (i.e., the beauty of town based on proximity to natural assets). Such evaluations reflect in residents motivations and
consequently his or her sense of belonging, security, and identity; even
among newcomers (William, 2007; p. 212).
As well, this study adds to the existing literature by clearly differentiating between permanent and seasonal residents. In contrast to Brehm et al.
(2006), we found that seasonal and permanent residents were not distinct in
their biophysical-related factors determining community attachment. That
is, for permanent and seasonal residents, the clean, natural, and rural environment was a common element leading to sentiments for the community
in which they seasonally or permanently resided.
On a more theoretical level, our research has utilized traditional community attachment measures, and has expanded this framework somewhat by
including natural resource-related motivations and interactions. Further
expansion, however, is in order. Sense of place research uses the same core

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 213

construct (place attachment), but (a) expands this construct to potentially

include multiple domains (e.g., identity and dependence); (b) broadens the
potential mechanisms by which attachment is built to explicitly include interactions with the natural environment; and (c) analyzes the contribution of
descriptive place meanings to attachment (see Stedman, Amsden, & Kruger,
2006 for an example). This literature has its own nexus of variables and
operational measures that are related to, yet remain somewhat distinct from,
those in the community-based literature. We did not make use of the sense of
place literature in creating our measures, but believe this area of inquiry holds
great potential for combining with community to form more synthetic understandings, particularly in high-amenity rural communities where the natural
environment may be a major source of attachment for both year-round and
seasonal residents (Eisenhauer, Krannich, & Blahna, 2000; Stedman, 2003).
The work of Brehm and colleagues seems firmly situated in community
attachment, but given the relatively disparate community and place literatures, coupled with the strong similarities in core concepts such as attachment, it is well worth further delineating points of commonality and contrast
between the approaches. Simply put, when should we be talking about community and when should we talk about place (Luloff, 1998)?
In particular, we see two key areas where the sense of place approach
may help produce a more nuanced understanding, given its complementary
emphasis on interactions with the natural landscape of a local area. First,
sense of place research has emphasized the multidimensionality of attachment. Place identity refers to a symbolic connection between a persons use
of place and his or her self-identity (Manzo, 2003; Proshansky, Fabian, &
Kaminoff, 1983; D. R. Williams & Vaske, 2003). In contrast, place dependence or functional attachment reflects the utilitarian importance of a
place in providing the conditions to reach specific goals or desired activities
(D. R. Williams & Vaske, 2003). Some researchers view place identity and
place dependence as two dimensions of place attachment (Bricker &
Kerstetter, 2002; Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005). Others describe place
dependence as a precursor to place identity (Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995;
Moore & Graefe, 1994), and some suggest that the supposed multidimensionality of these constructs does not hold up to empirical scrutiny (e.g.,
Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Regardless, thinking about community
attachment in this same way would seem to be a fruitful area for further
research, where some communitiesfor some peoplemay take on important symbolic meaning (i.e., this community represents who I am). For
others, attachment to a community may be more tied to goal achievement
that characterizes dependence (i.e., a safe place to raise a family and/or a

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

214 Environment and Behavior

place to make a high income). These dimensions may differ importantly

betweenor withincommunities.
Second, an emerging area of sense of place research addresses the meanings different groups hold for the landscape and how attachment is tied to
these meanings (Stedman, 2008). Our research did not attempt to measure
these local meanings. Although we gain some insights via the items about
motivations for home ownership, these items do not capture all that is
entailed by the way symbolic meanings are used in the sense of place literature. Especially given the power of the motivations in predicting attachment,
further research should examine the relationship between local attachment
and community meanings: What sorts of people are more likely to hold what
sorts of meanings; what is the interactional basiswhether with other social
actors or local natural resourcesof these meanings; and what meanings
produce stronger community attachment? In sum, though we did not utilize
measures derived from the sense of place literature, we feel there is much
can be gained by bringing these two research traditions together.
Our findings also have important practical implications. This is particularly the case for resource managers and community practitioners who
often find themselves in the position of balancing between competing interests (i.e., zoning and/or development differences; Kemmis, 1990; William,
2007). Our findings give some hope on this front, suggesting thatat least
in the communities that we studiedmotivations related to the natural
landscape foster common values in a way that transcends residence status.
These groups are not as different from each other as is commonly assumed.
Communicating this commonality may help reduce the perceived gap
between residents (Graber, 1974; Smith & Krannich, 2000) who share
similar motivations: Both year-round and seasonal residents emphasize
similar elements as key to attachment. The identification of common values
and objectives is perhaps one of the most important elements for successful
community development as it eliminates barriers to communication and
participation (Howe, McMahon, & Propst, 1997; Wilkinson, 1991; William,
2007). This is of particular importance for rapidly growing communities
which experience dramatic social and infrastructural changes.
These findings indicate the importance of including landscape-based
interactions and motivations as predictors of community attachment.
Common characterizations, which at times approach the level of caricature,
divide residents of amenity communities into two distinct groups: yearround residents, who interact with and care about each other, and the wellbeing of the community; and seasonal residents, who interact with and care

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 215

about the natural world. Including natural landscape-related measures has

helped identify this common misconception.
Generally, attachment is important because it brings individuals together
to work in favor of what they care about (cf., Moore & Graefe, 1994).
Residents who express attachment to their community routinely participate
in it (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2006, p. 84). From an interactional approach
to community (Kaufman, 1959; Wilkinson, 1991), participation is a key
element for successful community development. Interaction with other
residents promotes levels of familiarity and ties that can potentially increase
feelings toward the community (cf., Freudenburg, 1986; Granovetter, 1973).
Additionally, the landscape characteristics important for residents attachment to their community need to be considered. Efforts should be made to
maintain or promote those characteristics reflecting the natural beauty, easy
pace of life, and the areas rural, clean environment. This seems particularly
important in a natural amenity-rich contexts, characterized by their potential for attracting residents with their aesthetic characteristics (Howe et al.,
1997; McGranahan, 1999); development in these places may threaten the
natural environment attributes that people are attracted by and attached to
(Brehm et al., 2004). Furthermore, development can, as learned here, deter
community values that bond people together. As a result, residents may find
themselves living in places with different aesthetic and communal characteristics than desired. Decision makers and different stakeholders within a
community should promote conditions fostering feelings of belonging and
rootedness within a community, which result in collaborative efforts addressing community-wide interests. Knowing converging interests among different types of residents provides decision makers with important leverage for
achieving broader community development objectives.
In conclusion, a clear understanding of what is important for residents
of a community is central to the promotion of community development
strategies guided by general community interests (Wilkinson, 1991). This
study demonstrated the elements leading to community attachment result
from interaction with others and the physical environment for both seasonal
and year-round residents.

Notes
1. This is a general conceptual model, not a path-analytic model. The factors used here
are intended to assess the independent effects of social and natural resource interaction on
community attachment.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

216 Environment and Behavior

2. Utah was selected because it is predominantly an amenity-rich state as evidenced in

McGranahans (1999) natural amenity scale. This area includes Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Capitol Reef National Park,
Cedar Breaks National Monument, Canyonlands National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area, the Dixie National Forest, and Fishlake National Forest, many destination sites for national
and international tourists. Furthermore, the States dominant share67%of its land base is
under federal control by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park
Service (Bureau of Land Management, 2005).
3. Population data from 1990 to 2000 indicated Washington County was the fastest growing
(86%), followed by Iron (62%), Garfield (19%), Kane (17%), and Wayne (15%). Second homes
accounted for about 14% of the total housing units (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, 2000).
4. Cutoff for factor loadings were set at .4. Because of space limitations, factor loadings
and eigenvalues are not presented but are available upon request from the first author. This is
also the case for amenity and rural reasons for owning residence, and engagement in recreation
activities measures.
5. Utahs residents are predominantly members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints (LDS). The Association of Religion Data Archives reported in 2000, adjusting for historically African American denominations, 80% of the states residents belonged to the LDS
church.
6. Regression diagnostics indicated that collinearity between the dependent and independent variables was within tolerance limits.
7. This is supported by the 61% of seasonal residents who responded positively to the
question: Prior to a seasonal or vacation home in this community, did you ever visit friends
or relatives in the area?
8. As one anonymous reviewer has pointed out, this finding may be based on the relative lack
of diversity among our study population, which was dominantly Caucasian and church-going (LDS
in particular). These characteristics were widely shared by permanent and seasonal residents, suggesting strong sociocultural similarities that may have transcended other differences. The reviewer
has pointed out that this raises important questions about the generalizability of these findings. We
agree with Stedman (2008) who notes the tension between place-specific results and the quest for
generalizability: To a degree . . . all findings and generalizations about place will remain rooted in
the particulars of the setting that produced them (p. 78). Thus, although there may be some general
lessons, places and communities remain somewhat unique as well.

References
Association of Religion Data Archives. (2000). State membership report. Retrieved October
2006, from http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/resports/state/49_2000.asp
Austin, M., & Baba, Y. (1990). Social determinants of neighborhood attachment. Sociological
Spectrum, 10(1), 59-78.
Beckley, T. (2003). The relative importance of sociocultural and ecological factors in
attachment to place. In L. E. Kruger (Ed.), Understanding communityforestry relations (pp. 105-126). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 217

Beckley, T. M., Stedman, R. C., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2007). Snapshots of what matters
most: Using resident employed photography to articulate sense of place. Society and Natural
Resources, 20, 913-929.
Beggs, J., Hurlbert, J., & Haines, V. (1996). Community attachment in a rural setting: A refinement and empirical test of the systemic model. Rural Sociology, 61(3), 407-426.
Beyers, W., & Nelson, P. (2000). Contemporary development forces in the nonmetropolitan west:
New insights from rapidly growing communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4), 459-474.
Brehm, J. (2007). Community attachment: The complexity and consequence of the natural
facet. Human Ecology, 35, 477-488.
Brehm, J., Eisenhauer, B., & Krannich, R. (2004). Dimensions of community attachment and
their relationship to well-being in the Amenity-rich West. Rural Sociology, 69(3), 405-429.
Brehm, J., Eisenhauer, B., & Krannich, R. (2006). Community attachments as predictors of
local environmental concern. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2),142-165.
Bricker, K., & Kerstetter, D. (2002). An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater
recreationists attach to the South Fork of the American River. Tourism Geographies, 4,
396-425.
Bureau of Land Management. (2005). Fire management plan draft, chapter 1. Retrieved October
2006, from http://www.ut.blm. gov/fireplanning/draftlupea/chapter1.pdf
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John
Wiley.
Eisenhauer, B., Krannich, R., & Blahna, D. (2000). Attachments to special places on public
lands: An analysis of activities, reasons for attachments, and community connections. Society
and Natural Resources, 13(5), 421-411.
Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and
tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR660). Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, and the Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Freudenburg, W. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable in community research? The American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 27-63.
Freudenburg, W., Bacigalupi, L., & Young, C. (1982). Mental health consequences of rapid
growth: A report from the longitudinal study of boom town mental health impacts. Journal
of Health and Human Resources Administration, 4, 334-352.
Gibbons, S., & Ruddell, E. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on
select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17, 171-183.
Glock, C., Benjamin, Y., Ringer, B., & Babbie. E. (1967). To comfort and to challenge: A
dilemma of the contemporary church. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goudy, W. (1990). Community attachment in a rural region. Rural Sociology, 55(2), 178-198.
Graber, E. (1974). Newcomers and old-timers: Growth and change in a mountain town. Rural
Sociology, 39(4), 504-513.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360-1380.
Greider, T., Krannich, R., & Berry, H. (1991). Local identity, solidarity, and trust in changing
rural communities. Sociological Focus, 24(4), 263-282.
Guest, A., & Lee, B. (1983). Sentiment and evaluation as ecological variables. Sociological
Perspectives, 26,159-184.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5-16.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
18, 5-29.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

218 Environment and Behavior

Hidalgo, M., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
Howe, J., McMahon, E., & Propst, L. (1997) Balancing nature and commerce in gateway
communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In I. Altman
& S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253-278). New York: Plenum.
Hunter, L., Krannich, R., & Smith, M. (2002). Rural migration, rapid growth, and fear of crime.
Rural Sociology, 67(1), 71-89.
Johnson, K. (2003). Unpredictable directions of rural population growth and migration. In
D. Brown & L. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century
(pp. 19-31). University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Johnson, K., & Beale, C. (1994). The recent revival of widespread population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of the United States. Rural Sociology, 59(4), 655-667.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners
attitudes towards their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233-248.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American
Sociological Review, 39(3), 328-339.
Kaufman, H. (1959). Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces, 38,
8-17.
Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Kohrs, E. V. (1974). Social consequences of boom growth in Wyoming. Paper presented at the
regional meetings of the Rocky Mountains Association for the Advancement of Science.
Laramie, WY.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment
in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 153-177.
Landis, P. (1997). Three iron mining towns. Middletown, WI: Social Ecology Press.
Luloff, A. E. (1998). What makes a place a community. Paper presented at the Fifth Sir John
Quick Bendigo Lecture. La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
Matarrita-Cascante, D., Luloff, A. E., Field, D. R., & Krannich, R. (2006). Community participation in rapidly growing communities. Community Development: The Journal of the
Community Development Society, 37(4), 71-87.
Manzo, L. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships
with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61.
McGranahan, D. (1999). Natural amenities drive rural population change (Agricultural
Economic Report 781). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
Moore, R., & Graefe, A. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail users.
Leisure Sciences, 16, 17-31.
Proshansky, H., Fabian, A., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 273-287.
Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction
in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 55-66.
Smith, M., & Krannich, R. (2000). Culture clash revisited: Newcomer and longer-term residents attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology, 65(3), 396-421.
Stedman, R. (2003). Is it really just a social construction: the contribution of the physical
environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

Matarrita-Cascante et al. / Residents Community Attachment 219

Stedman, R. (2006a). Places of escape: Second home meanings in Northern Wisconsin. In

N. McIntyre, K. McHugh, & D. Williams (Eds.), Multiple dwelling and tourism:
Negotiating place, home, and identity (pp. 129-144). Oxon, UK: CABI Press.
Stedman, R. (2006b). Understanding place attachment among second homeowners. American
Behavioral Scientist, 50(2), 1-19.
Stedman, R. (2008). What do we mean by place meanings? Implications of place meanings
for managers and practitioners. In L. E. Kruger, T. Hall, & M. C. Stiefel (Tech. Eds.),
Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management (Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-744; pp. 71-82). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Stedman, R., Amsden, B., & Kruger, L. (2006). Sense of place and community: Points of
intersection with implications for leisure research. Leisure, 30(2), 393-404.
Stedman, R. C., Beckley, T. M., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words:
Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places.
Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 580-606.
Stinner, W., Van Loon, M., Chung, S., & Byun, Y. (1990). Community size, individual social
position, and community attachment. Rural Sociology, 55(4), 494-521.
Theodori, G. (2000). Levels of analysis and conceptual clarification in community attachment and
satisfaction research: Connections to community development. Journal of the Community
Development Society, 31(1), 35-58.
Theodori, G., & Luloff, A. E. (2000). Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas.
Society and Natural Resources, 13(5), 399-420.
Tuan, Y. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24(1), 3-8.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Census 1990. Retrieved November 2006, from http://www
.census.gov/
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved November 2006, from http://www
.census.gov/
Utah Governor. (1999). Governors office of planning and budget report. Retrieved November
2006, from http// www.governor.utah.gov/DEA/publications/report.pdf
Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. Middletown, WI: Social Ecology
Press.
William, T. 2007. New geographies of the American West: Land use and the changing patterns
of place. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-840.
Williams, T. (2006). In the midst of a changing landscape: Residents beliefs and attitudes
about aspects of the American West. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Utah State
University.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24.

David Matarrita-Cascante is an assistant professor in the Department of Recreation, Park,

and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University. His current focus is on the interrelationship
between communities and natural resources. To date, this work has revolved around a
better understanding of the effects of rapid demographic and structural changes occurring in
amenity-rich rural resource dependent communities and their response to such changes. His
work has been conducted in national and international settings.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014

220 Environment and Behavior

Richard Stedman is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell

University. His work emphasizes sense of place, communities and natural resources, and
especially the challenges and opportunities represented by social and environmental change in
rural places.
A. E. Luloff is a professor of Rural Sociology and co-chair of the Human Dimensions of Natural
Resources and the Environment dual-title, intercollege graduate degree program at Penn State. He
has taught, conducted research, and written about the impacts of social change, as a result of
sociodemographic shifts, on the natural and human resource bases of the community for more
than 30 years. Changes in land cover and use, particularly at the ruralurban fringe, and the impact
of rural development policy on small and rural communities are central features of his work. He
has been involved in survey and evaluation research supported by state, regional, national, and
international public and private agencies. He is a cofounder, Secretary-Treasurer, and Executive
Director designate of the International Association for Society and Natural Resources.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at University of Helsinki on January 31, 2014