Rural Sodohgi 73(1), 2008, pp. 44-61Copyright © 2008 by the Rural Sociological Society

Profiling Participative Residents in Westem Communities*

David Matatrita-Cascante and A.E. LuloffDepartment (^Agricultural Economics and Rural SodologfThe Petmsylvama State University

ABSTRACT Differences between old-timers and newcomers and their effectson community social dimensions have been the object of much research.These studies have shown how extensive in-migration of people withdifferent socioeconomic backgrounds, values, and perspectives contribute toheightened social conflict in some communities. Popular media accountsand some social science research referred to the conflict emerging fromthese differences as a culture clash. This study examines the effects thatdifferent backgrounds, attitudes, and behaviors have on communityparticipation. Here, earlier work on differences in participation levelsbetween seasonal and permanent residents is extended in an attempt toidentify structural and interactional characteristics associated with partici-pative citizens regardless of their residential status, A profile of participativeresidents was found. Knowing these characteristics helps identify people whocould bring important and useful insights to local decision-making. Theseresidents make a deliberate choice to purposively engage in communityefforts. Such voluntary interaction creates a pro-community environmentwhere needs and solutions are tackled by residents. Additionally, thisinteractive environment serves as a ground for the reduction of differencesamong community members. Through this process, community develoj>ment is achieved, enhancing community well-being.

Natural amenity-rich locations have become attractive to individualsseeking places to recreate, live, or retire (McGranahan 1999). Growingnumbers of Americans have seasonally or permanently migrated toareas close to water, mild climate, and varied topography since the1970s (Beale and Johnson 1998; McGranahan 1999). Many of theseareas are in the West and have experienced significant population in-migration.

Population growth associated with migration to amenity-rich areashas had an array of impacts on local Westem rural communities. Pastresearch has shown how extensive in-migration of people with differentsociodemographic characteristics, values, attitudes, and behaviorscontributed to community social conflict (Berry, Krannich, and Greider1990; Doak and Kusel 1996; Freudenburg, Bacigalupi, and Young 1982;

* This research was supported by USDA CSREES (Project # 2003-35401-12889). Theauthors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Tracy Williams for her work onconstructing the data set, and Richard S, Krannich and Donald R. Field for helpfulcomments and discussions about this paper.

Profiling Partidpative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 45

Graber 1974; Greider, Krannich, and Berry 1991; Smith and Krannich2000). Of particular interest for this study are the ways social conflictcreated barriers to communication and interaction.

Social interaction is the key element to community according tointeractional theory (Kaufman 1959; Wilkinson 1991). Social interac-tion allows individuals to express their interests in locally-based issues.When individuals "sit down at the table" and address issues of localconcern, community emerges (Luloff 1998),

Locality-oriented social interaction is the core element thatdistinguishes a community from other local societies such asneighborhoods or municipalities (Matarrita-Cascante et al.2006:72).

According to Luloff (1998:8), social interaction shapes discourse andaction while redefining relationships among actors. The nature of theserelationships is not static. Wilkinson (1991) noted that theserelationships change in terms of actors, associations, and activities.However, the whole formed by these interrelated acts becomes anongoing process of social interaction known as a social field (Wilkinson1991:82).

Multiple social fields exist within local societies according tointeractional theory. The most common of these fields is referred toas a special-interest (or locality-oriented institutional) field. A locality-oriented field emerges as local residents organize to accomplish specificgoals and interests clearly identified with the locality (Luloff andBridger 2003; Wilkinson 1991).

The locality-oriented field is routinely identified by its distinct focuson specific goals. In contrast, a field with more general interest in thecommunity's well-being exists. Marked by its generalization acrossinterest lines, the community field encompasses the other social fields,coordinating and harnessing them in the pursuit of the broader,general community interest (Wilkinson 1991:84). Its constant processof change is characterized by actors, associations, and actions movinginto and out of contact with the generalization process.

Such cross-cutting and integrative efforts enable community action(Cheers and Luloff 2001). Community participation is how communityaction materializes. Community participation includes involvement in

This study builds on a larger body of literature on participation and voluntaryassociation (e.g., Anderson 1970; Axelrod 1956; Babchuk and Booth 1969; Hahn 1970;Wright and Hyman 1958; Zimmer and Hawley 1959),

46 Rural Sodology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

local clubs, civic groups, and projects that address specific communityproblems. According to an interactional approach to community,increments in community participation result in community develop-ment improvements. When local actors act upon their shared interestsin the quest to solve local community problems, successful communitydevelopment occurs. This leads to improvements in community well-being (Claude, Bridger, and Luloff 2000; Theodori 2000).

This study extends earlier work (Matarrita-Cascante 2005; Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006) that examined levels of community participationamong seasonal and permanent residents in Southern Utah. Thosestudies focused on the identification of structural and interactionalcharacteristics associated with community participation.^ They foundthat permanent residents differed from seasonal residents in that theformer were significantly more participative. One way to reduce thisdifference is by identifying individuals in the community who remainparticipative regardless of residence status. Here, we address thefollowing question: "What is the profile of a participative resident?"Knowing these characteristics can facilitate the identification ofindividuals who could contribute to improved community well-being.

Methods

Sample Selection and Data Collection

Data for this study was collected in 2004 in five southern Utah^ counties(Garfield, Iron, Kane, Washington, and Wayne). All experiencedpopulation growth and increased seasonal home development between1970 and 2000. Such growth, in part, refiects the growing attractivenessof natural amenity-rich areas, particularly those in the Western regionof the United States (Brehm, Eisenhauer, and Krannich 2004; Johnsonand Beale 1994; McGranahan 1999). These contiguous countiesencompass 17,351 square miles. A large portion of the area, roughly

^ Structural measures reflect ways in which respondents are differentiated in terms ofaccess to resources, opportunities, and social statuses within broader social contexts.These measures are generally not amenable to manipulation via policy or managementdecisions. Interactional factors, on the other hand, focus on the processes that lead tospecific states. They measure relationships between groups or individuals, people'sperceptions of well-being, and individual and collective behavior based on perceptions.Interactional factors are not given or static, i.e., structural. Rather, interactional factorschange with time making them amenable to policies and/or management decisions(Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006; see also Beal 1956; Kaufman 1959).

' Utah was selected because it is a natural amenity-rich state, refiected, in part, by thedominant share-67 percent-of its land base being under federal control by agenciesincluding the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service(Bureau of Land Management 2005),

Profiling Participative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 47

80 percent, is federally owned lands (including Zion National Park,Bryce Canyon National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Dixie NationalForest, and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument) thatcontain mountain peaks, red rock canyons, and scenic high desertlandscapes.**

Early in the study, key informant interviews were conducted in thearea to identify the most pressing problems faced by local residents.This information was then used to help design a household survey thatwas mailed to 2,646 selected property owners. Potential respondentswere drawn from lists of residential property owners provided by eachcounty's tax assessor office. These lists were used to determine whethera property was a seasonal or primary residence. A total of six sequentialmailings were carried out during the spring and summer of 2004following the tailored design method outlined by Dillman (2000).Adjustments to the sample were made for undeliverable surveys, as wellas those sent to ineligible respondents, people unable to participatedue to physical or mental disability, or those on extended travel. Thisresulted in an adjusted sample size of 2,179. In total, 1,409 propertyowners completed and returned the questionnaire, representing anoverall response rate of 64.7 percent. Of the surveys completed andreturned, 573 were from seasonal homeowners (40.7% ofthe sample).Permanent residents accounted for 836 surveys (or 59.3% of the totalsample).

Measurement Approach

Dependent Variable—Community Participation

Community participation was measured by the respondent's level ofactivity in a range of local organizations, activities, and events identifiedthrough a battery of Likert-scale type items (see Table 1 for items).Community participation,^ as measured here, focuses on a general levelof activeness in the community as defined by the community field(Wilkinson 1991). It attempts to capture a broad perspective on

•* Sources: Bureau of Land Management (2005) and State of Utah Governor's Office ofPlanning and Budget (2000).

^ We recognize that participation may be driven by multiple and at times clashingmotivations and goals. However, our intent was not to differentiate between thesedivergent motivations and purposes, but simply to understand who is more or less likely toparticipate. We view community development as a process, one not necessarily tied todirectional intentions such as those associated with either growth promotion orprevention efforts. Community development occurs whenever local actors express sharedinterests in their locality by interacting with each other to address community problems,improve quality of life, and shape future levels of well-being. For further elaboration seeMatarrita-Cascante etal. (2006).

48 Rural Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

Table 1. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Community Participa-tion—Permanent and Seasonal Residents

ItemsPermanent SeasonalResidents Residents

Worked with other local residentsServed as an officer in a community organizationAttended any public meetingServed on a local government commission, committee or boardContacted a public officialServed on a voluntary community service organization

EigenvaluePercent of Variance ExplainedCronbach's Alpha

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

.73

.73

.72

.70

.66

.582.87

47.79.78

.63

.63

.54

.62

.57

.592.15

35.77.61

involvement, one that encompasses an almost altruistic intent toassociate or interact with others. The activities of the community fieldare not reflective of special interests, but rather speak to effortsdesigned to address the larger community good. Such activities aredifferent in both form and structure from those indicated by moreformal measures of activities and memberships.

The community participation measure was created through a factoranalysis of eight items, each of which required a binary response: yes (1)or no (0). These items were listed in a series of statements that askedwhether the respondent "had participated in any of the followingactivities in this community during the past twelve months." The itemswere: (1) attended a local community event (like a school concert,community parade or craft fair); (2) contacted a public official aboutsome issue or problem affecting your community (for example, aboutthe management of public lands or provision of services like fireprotection); (5) worked with other local residents to try and deal withsome community issue or problem; (4) attended any public meeting inthe community (like a school board meeting or federal lands planningmeeting); (5) served as an officer in a community organization; (6)voted in a local election; (7) served on a local government commission,committee, or board; and (8) served on a voluntary community serviceorganization (volunteer fire dept, EMT, etc.).

Factor analysis was used to identify any underlying dimensionsamong these eight items. Results suggested a single dimension with sixitems. Two items were not used in the analysis (attended a localcommunity event and voted in local election) because their incorpo-ration resulted in reduced reliability, reflecting the fact that they failedto help differentiate among the respondents. Table 1 shows factor

Profiling Participative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 49

loadings of these items for both types of residents. Reliability analysisproduced alpha values of .78 for permanent residents and .61 forseasonal residents.^ The resulting multiple-item measure yieldedaverage values that ranged from 0 to 1, where a higher numberdescribed a more participative resident. This measure was thendichotomized to reflect low levels of participation (values ranged from0 to .50) and high levels of participation (from .51 to 1) for itsapplication in discriminant analysis. Community participation, asmeasured here, reflects respondents' engagement in behaviors andactions that are focused explicitly on locality-relevant issues andinterests that extend beyond the specialized, individualistic intereststhat might be tapped by assessing involvement in recreational groups,social clubs, and the like. As such, this measure is consistent with thenotion of participation in the community field, as opposed to moregeneralized social interactions and involvement.

Independent Variables

Sododemographics. Following earlier studies (Brown, Geertsen, andKrannich 1989; Goudy 1977, 1990; Luloff 1998; Theodori 2004) annualhousehold income, level of formal education, size of community livedin the most before age 16, employment status, and religious affiliationwere included as sociodemographic variables in the analysis. Incomewas categorical and coded into eight categories: 1 = less than $15,000, 2= $15,000 to $24,999, 3 = $25,000 to $34,999, 4 = $35,000 to $49,999, 5= $50,000 to $74,999, 6 = $75,000 to $99,999, 7 = $100,000 to$149,999, and 8 = $150,000 or more. Education had six categories: 1 =less than high school degree, 2 = high school degree or GED, 3 = somecollege, 4 = 2 year technical or associate degree, 5 = 4 year collegedegree, and 6 = advanced degree. Size of community lived in the mostbefore age 16 was measured with a five category scale: 1 = largemetropolitan city (over 100,000 population), 2 = medium size city(25,000 to 99,999 population), 3 = smaller city (5,000 to 24,999), 4 =small town or village (2,500 to 4,999), and 5 = the rural area or smalltown (under 2,500). Employment status was measured as a dichotomy(1 = employed, 0 = other). Religious affiliation was also coded as adichotomy, reflecting the fact that 72 percent of the permanent and 50percent of the seasonal respondents reported affiliation with theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS; also known as

^ The seasonal resident alpha value was marginally smaller than the normally used .65value. It was used here to maintain the ability to use the same items as in the permanentresidents scale.

50 Rural Sodology, Vol. 73, No 1, March 2008

Table 2. Factor Loadings for Items Measuring Perceived CommunityAttachment—Permanent and Seasonal Residents

Items

Feel community is a real home to mePeople would go out of way to helpFeeling of acceptance in communityFeeling of belonging in communityMost people in community can be trusted

EigenvaluePercent of Variance ExplainedCronbach's Alpha

Permanent Residents

.88

.86

.86

.84

.813.61

72.30.90

Seasonal Residents

.85

.82

.83

.81

.793.37

67.35.88

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Mormons). This variable was coded 1 = LDS, 0 = other affiliation or noreligious preference.^

Length of residence. For permanent residents, length of residence wasmeasured by the number of years that an individual lived in thecommunity. For seasonal residents, length of residence was measured asthe numbers of years she/he had owned a seasonal residence in thecommunity.

Community attachment and involvement in specialized local organiza-tions. Five dimensions of community attachment and involvement inlocal organizations were examined. Perceived community attachmentwas measured by a five item Likert scale (see Table 2 for items).Responses ranged on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = stronglyagree. All five items were found to be highly correlated and were usedin both the permanent and seasonal groups of residents. Factorloadings exceeded .81 for permanent residents and .79 for seasonalresidents (see Table 2). Reliability analysis assessing the extent towhich the items in the summated scale were interrelated yielded analpha value of .90 for permanent residents and .88 for seasonalresidents.

The next three measures referred to involvement with specialized,locally dedicated organizations or events as defined by special-interestsocial fields (Wilkinson 1991). These measures indicated specificconcerns and/or motives for involvement as opposed to the moregeneralized measure our dependent variable attempts to capture. Thiswas achieved by grouping these questions in the survey instrument

Utah's residents are predominantly members of the LDS church. The Association ofStatisticians of American Religious Bodies (2000) reported that 80 percent of the state'sadherents to religions in Utah were members of the LDS church in 2000 and that 66percent of the state's residents belonged to the LDS church.

Profiling Partidpative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 51

Table 3. Regression Diagnostics Testing for the Presence of CoUin-earity between Three Commiuiity Attachment/Involvement Dimensionsand Community Participation

Tolerance for Variance inflationindividual variables factors (VIF)

Level of involvement 0.62 1.61Number of organizations 0.53 1.88Hours participating 0.49 2.06

under a heading that emphasized specific locally relevant involvementin organizations or activities. These measures were retrieved from thefollowing questions: (1) "In general, how would you describe your levelof involvement in community or local area activities or events?" Therewere four response categories: 1 = not active at all, 2 = not very active, 3= somewhat active, and 4 = very active. (2) "Overall, to how manycommunity clubs, civic groups, or other non-religious local organiza-tions do you belong?" A box was provided which asked the respondentto fill in the number of such clubs, civic groups, or other localorganizations. (3) "On average, about how many hours do youordinarily spend per month attending meetings or taking part inorganized activities with community or local area clubs, groups, orother non-religious organizations when you are in Southern Utah?"There were four response categories: 1 = less than one hour permonth, 2 = 1-4 hours per month, 3 = 5-10 hours per month, and 4 =more than 10 hours per month.

Because special-interest fields and community fields are related toeach other, we would expect to find an association between measures ofthem—here, between community participation and our measures ofcommunity involvement (level of activity, number of groups, andnumber of hours). Regression diagnostics was performed on themeasures of community attachment and local involvement to deter-mine whether collinearity among these variables might produce biasedanalytic results when they were all included as independent variables topredict community participation. Tolerance and variance inflationfactor (VIF) values suggested that collinearity was not an issue (seeTable 3).

Community sentiment was assessed with the following question:"Suppose that for some reason you had to move away from thiscommunity. How sorry or pleased would you be to leave?" Responseswere measured with a five category scale: 1 = very pleased to leave, 2 =somewhat pleased to leave, 3 = it wouldn't make any difference one wayor the other, 4 = somewhat sorry to leave, and 5 = very sorry to leave.

52 Rural Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

Community satisfaction and sodal interaction. "Global" communitysatisfaction was measured using a single questionnaire item tbat askedfor tbe respondent's overall level of satisfaction witb tbe community.Tbis was measured witb a five category scale that ranged fromcompletely satisfied (5) to completely dissatisfied (1).

Respondents' levels of interaction within personal social networkswere measured by questions tbat asked about primary grouprelationsbips (Goudy 1977), including frequency of interaction witbfriends, family members, and neigbbors. Eacb category of frequency ofcontact (friends, family, and neigbbors) was measured witb an eigbtcategory ordinal response scale: 1 = rarely or never, 2 = about once ayear, 3 = several times a year, 4 = about once a montb, 5 = severaltimes a montb, 6 = about once a week, 7 = several times a week, and 8= daily.

Data Analysis

Earlier work found tbat permanent residents were more participativetban seasonal residents (Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006). It was alsofound that income, education, size ofcommunity lived in before age 16,religious affiliation, lengtb of residence, level of involvement, numberof organizations tbe respondent belongs to, number of boursparticipating in activities, and frequency of interaction witb neigbborswere significant predictors of permanent residents' levels of communityparticipation. We used tbese cbaracteristics to develop a profile ofactive residents in tbese soutbern Utab communities.

For tbat purpose, we used discriminant analysis to interpret groupdifferences and classify cases into groups based on tbe cbaracteristicstbat defined a participative resident. Tbis analysis sorted permanentresidents by tbeir level of activity. We tben applied tbis discriminantfunction to the seasonal residents. Tbus, we were able to determinewhetber a consistent set of cbaracteristics was associated witbparticipative citizens regardless of tbeir permanent or seasonal status.In tbe final part of tbis analysis, a comparison between tbose identifiedas being participative residents from botb groups was conducted.

Findings

Tbe initial discriminant analysis found tbat participative permanentresidents bad bigber levels of involvement in special interestcommunity activities, higber incomes, lived longer in the area, andspent more bours participating in local events. They also belongedmostly to non-LDS cburcbes, bad more education, belonged to more

Profiling Partidpative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 53

Table 4. Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients for PermanentResidents

Discriminant Function

Income ,277Education .163Size ofcommunity lived in before age 16 .079Religious affiliation —.195Length of residence .234Level of involvement in specialized organizations .658Numbers of specialized organizations belonged to .159Hours participating in local activities .222Frequency of interaction with neighbors .124

Standardized coefficients.

specialized local organizations, interacted more witb tbeir neigbbors,and were reared in smaller towns tban less participative permanentresidents.^

Tbe canonical discriminant function testing bow well tbe discrimi-nant model as a wbole fit tbe data (Klecka 1980) indicated tbat tbediscriminant function for permanent residents explained about 35percent of tbe variation in community participation (canonicalcorrelation = .59; eigenvalue = .54). Tbe measure of discriminationbetween group differences over tbe discriminating variables alsoattained statistical significance (Wilk's Lambda = .65; x^ = 294; df =9; sig = .000).

The contribution of each independent variable to this function isshown in Table 4. For tbe permanent residents, level of involvement inspecialized local activities bad tbe greatest discriminating ability,followed by income, lengtb of residence, and number of boursparticipating in specialized local activities.

Tbe discriminant function correctly classified 69.3 percent of tbe lowparticipative permanent residents, and 81.6 percent of tbe participativepermanent residents (Table 5). Tbis suggests tbat tbis set of cbaracter-istics was more informative for identifying bigb participative tban lowparticipative permanent residents. Overall, 527 cases of 693 werecorrectly classified among tbe permanent residents. Tbus, • tbediscriminant function increased classification accuracy by 47 percentwhen compared witb tbe marginal values of participative and non-participative permanent residents.

Of these discriminanat coefficients, only the size of community reared in failed tosignificantly contribute (p < .05) to a dummy-variable regression analysis (data notshown).

54 Rural Sodology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

Table 5. Classification

Community Participation

Count Low ParticipationHigh Participation

Percent Low ParticipationHigh Participation

Results for Permanent

Predicted Group

LowParticipation

21770

69.318.4

Residents (N

Membership

HighParticipation

96310

30.781.6

= 693)

Total

313380

100.0100.0

Because tbis model worked fairly well in differentiating bigh from lowparticipative permanent residents, it was used to determine participa-tion levels for seasonal residents. Tbe results (see Table 6) indicatedtbat seasonal participative residents bad higher levels of involvement inspecial interest groups, were members of more local specializedorganizations, interacted more witb tbeir neighbors, mostiy belongedto non-LDS cburcbes, but spent fewer bours participating in localevents tban less participative residents. In addition, tbey owned tbeirseasonal bome longer, grew up in a small town prior to age 16, hadlower incomes and more education.^

Tbe discriminant function for seasonal residents explained 23.5percent (canonical correlation = .49; eigenvalue = .31) of theassociation between tbe groups and the discriminant function. Themeasure of discrimination between group differences over tbediscriminating variables attained statistical significance (Wilk's Lambda= .77; x^ = 110.40; df = 9; sig = .000).

Tbe contribution of eacb independent variable witb tbe function issbown in Table 6. As was tbe case for permanent residents, level ofinvolvement in specialized local activities bad tbe greatest discriminat-ing ability. However, for seasonal residents, tbe numbers of specializedorganizations to wbicb a respondent belonged and tbe frequency ofinteraction witb neigbbors were the next most important discrimina-tors.

Tbe membersbip classification (Table 7) indicated tbat 84.8 percentof tbe seasonal residents initially categorized as low participative werecorrectly classified. In addition 51.6 percent of tbe seasonal residentstbat were categorized as bigh participative were correctly categorized.

While the model for participative seasonal residents is significant, the majority of thecoefficients discriminating them from less participative seasonal residents are smaller thanthose associated with the model for participative permanent residents. Level ofinvolvement in specialized groups, number or organizations in special interest groups,and frequency of interaction with neighbors contributed significantly (p < .05) to adummy-variable regression analysis (data not shown).

Profiling Participative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 55

Table 6. Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients for SeasonalResidents

Discriminant Function

Income -.013Education .013Size of community lived in before age 16 .037Religious affiliation —.192Length of residence .116Level of involvement in specialized organizations .732Numbers of specialized organizations belonged to .378Hours participating in local activities —.133Frequency of interaction with neighbors .265

Standardized coefficients.

This suggests that this set of characteristics are better predictors of non-participative than participative seasonal residents. Overall, 303 cases of418 were correctly classified. The discriminant function contributed toa 25 percent increment in classification accuracy when compared withthe marginal values of participative and non-participative seasonalresidents.

Finally, because differences between participative seasonal andpermanent residents existed, a comparison of these groups wasperformed (Table 8). Overall, permanent participative residents hadlower income, were less educated, lived in smaller communities beforeage 16, were more likely to be members ofthe LDS church, lived longerin the community, were more involved in local specialized events, spentmore hours participating in local specialized events or groups,belonged to more specialized organizations, and interacted morefrequently with their neighbors than their seasonal high participativecounterparts. This is consistent with other studies suggesting theimportance of factors such as time lived in the community, local bonds,community involvement and attachment, and prior levels of participa-tion (see Beggs, Hurlbert, and Haines 1996; Goudy 1990; Kasarda andJanowitz 1974).

Table 7. Classincation Results for Seasonal Residents (N = 418)

Community Participation

Count Low ParticipationHigh Participation

Percent Low ParticipationHigh Participation

Predicted Group

Low Participation

2237584.848.4

Membership

High Participation

4080

15.251.6

Total

263155

100.000.0

56 Rural Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

Table 8. Comparison of Seasonal and Permanent Participative Resi-dents

IncomeEducationSize of community lived in before age 16Religious affiliationYears lived/owned seasonal homeLevel of involvement in spec. orgs.Hours participating in local activitiesNumber of spec. orgs. belonged toFrequency of interaction with neighborsN

Seasonal

Mean

5.534.353.030.45

13.68 :2.460.851.454.47

418

S.D.

1.89L401.570.49

11.110.751.020.692.26

Permanent

Mean

4.253.963.690.75

27.893.201.922.515.15

693

S.D.

1.621.341.480.43

20.370.711.611.012.03

Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

Natural amenity-rich areas in the Western United States have beenexperiencing dramatic change during the last 30 years (Fulton, Fuguitt,and Gibson 1997; Johnson 2003; Johnson and Fuguitt 2000). Thischange is often associated with an increased desire to reside, seasonallyor permanently in such areas and is reflected in pockets of growth anddevelopment throughout this region and other rural natural amenity-rich areas in America.

Past research has documented the presence of structural andinteractional differences among seasonal and permanent residents(Matarrita-Cascante et al. 2006). These differences create barriers tocommunication and interaction, both essential elements for successfulcommunity participation. Overall, permanent residents tend to bemore participative than seasonal residents. One way to reduce lowerlevels of community participation is by seeking individuals in thecommunity who remain participative regardless of their residencestatus. A profile of participative residents was established to do this.

Participative residents were more educated, grew up in smaller towns,had lived longer in the community, were affiliated with non-LDSchurches, were more involved in local specialized activities or groups/°belonged to more local specialized organizations, and interacted morefrequently with their neighbors than residents with lower participationlevels. Income and the amount of hours engaged in local specialized

Involvement in specialized groups or organizations could reduce the amount of timeavailable for any individual to invest in general community affairs. These findings suggest,however, the willingness of such residents to offer their time and energy in effortsdesigned to improve overall community quality of life.

Profiling Participative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 5 7

activities or groups differed in the way they were associated withcommunity participation depending on resident type.

By knowing this, we better understand how participative and non-participative residents differ regardless of residence type. The set ofcharacteristics described reflected those who have not only demon-strated a willingness to speak with others but actually do somethingabout local problems. Additionally, they indicated the involvement ofindividuals with local area experiences who are concerned about whathappens in their communities. Such traits are the embodiment ofcentral aspects ofthe definition of community agency. This informationis essential for those seeking individuals willing to actively engage incommunity affairs and is particularly relevant given the broader contextof declining levels of participation typical of many Americancommunities (Putnam 2000).

Community members, organizations, policy planners, and analystscan gain from participative residents' disposition to engage in andinteract with others for the benefit of overall community good. Theinvolvement of active participants, who bring information andknowledge skills based on previous experiences, is essential for well-designed community development efforts to take root. Finally, byknowing which residents are less participative, "they can be purposivelyinvited and encouraged to become actively involved" (Theodori 2004).

Larger and more diverse membership of the local communityparticipating in various actions and activities leads to increasinginteractions that provide the opportunities for building cohesion anda sense of community (McDonough and Vachta 2005). Having peoplecome together to discuss and exchange ideas reduces the gap createdwhen special interest groups compete for local resources andattention. Indeed, the emergence of the community field reflects ashared sense of commitment towards the design and conduct ofbroad, community-wide projects (see Fitchen 1991; Kemmis 1990;Krannich, Petrzelka, and Brehm 2006 for issues related to the failureof the emergence of such a commitment). As a result of theseinteractions, fairer community development processes occur (cf.Schuett and Selin 2002).

As members of a larger body of stakeholders negotiate the path of aspecific project or policy, increased participation empowers thecommunity. Empowerment provides citizens with an authentic voicein decision-making about community direction and the means toachieve their goals (Pigg and Bradshaw 2003:390). As a result,development projects yield better community, economic, environmen-tal, and public health outcomes (Richards and Dalbey 2006).

58 Rural Sodology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

It is important to understand how changing structural andinteractional characteristics affect community participation levels andthe role policy planners can play in this process. Shifts in thesociodemographic composition of the population affect local interac-tion patterns (Berry et al, 1990), This shift can also affect the qualityand quantity of services provided hy a community, how newcomersperceive the community, and how the community perceives them.

Different perceptions can negatively affect communication andinteraction (Burdge 1998), Because structural characteristics of localcitizens are rarely policy malleable they should serve as indicators ofwho is involved in the community and who is not (Brennan and Luloff2007), Process characteristics, on the other hand, tell us more about theways community members interact and communicate with each other(Beal 1956; Kaufman 1959; Wilkinson 1991), Interactional variablesdescribe social processes of communication, association, and actionamong individuals. This characteristic allows interactional variahles tobe viable for change. Better understanding the dynamics of communityinteraction provides a tool for targeting policies and strategies aimed atincreasing levels of local participation.

From an interactional perspective, local interaction and agency areessential to the emergence of community. Any barrier to interactioncreates gaps between individuals, limiting communication and associ-ation. This is often the case when divisions exist among the variousspecial interest fields in a community. Such fields have actors who arelocal residents with specific goals and interests clearly identified withthe locality (Wilkinson 1991:83), These fields emerge as peopleorganize to accomplish specific locally-oriented tasks (Luloff andBridger 2003; Wilkinson 1991), This is the case of economic-based,recreational-based, service-based, health-based, and other local com-munity organizations. In this study, levels of involvement in specializedgroups refiected these special-interest fields.

In contrast, the community field, measured here through communityparticipation, provides a mechanism that links interaction in order toencourage community memhers to share their concerns and needs. Itserves to coordinate and unite the other local social fields and leads tomore community wide efforts. Such interaction refiects a deliberate,focused, and active decision by local residents to take part in purposivecommunity activities (Brennan and Luloff 2007), This materializesthrough increased levels of community participation.

The community field, by cutting across class lines, organized groups,and other entities within the local population, focuses on the generaland common needs of all residents (Brennan and Luloff 2007:5), It

Profiling Partidpative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 59

brings people to the table who are willing to talk and associate withothers in order to formulate solutions to local problems. Thus,increased community participation is essential for maintaining com-munity viability. It also allows communities to protect their interestswhile engaging in development strategies designed to specially focus onlocal needs. As a result, participative residents have the capacity toimprove local well-being from ideas and actions born within thecommunity itself.

ReferencesAnderson, R, 1970. "Our Educational Model of Participation," The Journal of the

Community Development Society 1:79-88,Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, "Utah State Membership

Report," Retrieved March 7, 2007 (http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp).

Axelrod, M. 1956. "Urban Structure and Social Participation." American Sociological Review21:13-18.

Babchuk, N. and A. Booth, 1969. "Voluntary Association Membership: A LongitudinalAnalysis." American Sociological Review 34:31-45.

Beal, G. 1956. "Additional Hypothesis in Participation Research". Rural Sociology 21:249-56.

Beale, C. and K Johnson. 1998. "The Identification of Recreation Counties inNonmetropolitan Areas of the USA." Population Research and Policy Review 17:37-53.

Beggs, J., J. Hurlbert, and V. Haines. 1996. "Community Attachment in a Rural Setting: ARefinement and Empirical Test of the Systemic Model." Rural Sociology 61:407-26.

Berry, H., R. Krannich, and T. Greider. 1990. "A Longitudinal Analysis of Neighboring inRapidly Changing Rural Places." Journal ojRural Studies 6:175-86.

Brown, R., H.R. Geertsen, and R. Krannich. 1989. "Community Satisfaction and SocialIntegration in a Boomtown: A Longitudinal Analysis." Rural Sociology 54:568-86.

Brehm, J., B. Eisenhauer, and R. Krannich. 2004. "Dimensions of Community Attachmentand their Relationship to Well-Being in the Amenity-Rich Rural West." Rural Sociology69:405-29,

Brennan, M. and A.E. Luloff. 2007. "Exploring Rural Community Agency Differences inIreland and Pennsylvania." Journal of Rural Studies 23:52-61.

Burdge, R. 1998. A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment. Revised Edition.Middletown, WI: Social Ecology Press.

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. "Chapter 1, Purpose and Need." Pp. 1-12 in DraflUtah Land Use Plan Amendment For Fire and Fuels Management Environmental Assessment.Retrieved March 7, 2007 (http://www.ut,blm.gov/fireplanning/draftlupea/chapterl.pdf).

Cheers, B. and A.E. Luloff. 2001. "Rural Community Development." Pp. 129-142 inRurality Bites, edited by S. Lockie and L. Bourke. Australia: Pluto Press.

Claude, L., J.C. Bridger, and A.E. Luloff. 2000. "Community Well-Being and LocalActiveness." Pp. 39-45 in Small Town and Rural Economic Development: A Case StudiesApproach, edited by P. Schaeffer and S. Loveridge. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Doak, S, and J. Kusel. 1996. "Well Being in Forest Dependent Communities, Part II: ASocial Assessment Focus," Pp, 375-400 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report toCongress, Status of Sierra Nevada. Vol. II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for ManagementOptions. Davis, CA: Wildland Resources Center,

60 Rural Sodology, Vol. 73, No. 1, March 2008

Fitchen, J, 1991, Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity, and Survival in RuralAmerica. Boulder, CO: Westview,

Freudenburg, W,, L. Bacigalupi, and C, Young, 1982, "Mental Health Consequences ofRapid Growth; A Report from the Longitudinal Study of Boom Town Mental HealthImpacts," /oMraa/ of Health and Human Resources Administration 4:334-52,

Fulton, J,, G, Fuguitt, and R, Gibson, 1997, "Recent Changes in Metropolitan-Nonmetro-politan Migration Streams," Rural Sodology 62:363-84,

Graber, E, 1974, "Newcomers and Old-Timers: Growth and Change in a MountainTown," Rural Sociology 39:504-13,

Greider, T,, R, Krannich, and H, Berry, 1991, "Local Identity, Solidarity, and Trust inChanging Rural Communities," Sociological Focus 24:263—82,

Goudy, W, 1977, "Evaluations of Local Attributes and Community Satisfaction in SmallTowns," Rural Sociology 42:371-82.

, 1990, "Community Attachment in a Rural Region," Rural Sociology 55:178—98,Hahn, A, 1970, "Citizens in Local Politics: Nonparticipation and 'Unrepresentation',"

The Joumai of the Community Development Society 1:63—74,Johnson, K, 2003, "Unpredictable Directions of Rural Population Growth and

Migration," Pp, 19—31 in Challenges for Rurat America in the Twenty-First Century, editedby D, Brown and L, Swanson, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press,

Johnson, K, and C, Beale, 1994, "The Recent Revival of Widespread Population Growth inNon-Metropolitan Areas of the United States," Rural Sociology 59:655-67,

Johnson, K, and G, Fuguitt, 2000, "Continuity and Change in Rural Migration Patterns,1950-1995," Rural Sociology 65:27-49,

Kasarda, J,D, and M, Janowitz, 1974, "Community Attachment in Mass Society," AmericanSociological Review 39:328-39,

Kaufman, H,F, 1959, "Toward an Interactional Conception of Community," Social Forces38:8-17,

Kemmis, D, 1990, Community and the Politics of Place. Norman, OK: University of OklahomaPress,

Klecka, W, 1980, Discriminant Analysis. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

Krannich, R,, P, Petrzelka, and J, Brehm, 2006, "Social Change and Weil-Being in WesternAmenity-Growth Communities," Pp, 311-31 in Population Change and Rural Society,edited by W, Kandel and D, Brown, Dordretch, Netherlands: Springer Publishers,

Luloff, A,E, 1998, What Makes a Place a Community. The Fifth Sir John Quick BendigoLecture, Bendigo, Australia La Trobe University,

Luloff, A,E, and J, Bridger, 2003, "Community Agency and Local Development,"Pp. 203-13 in Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D,Brown and L, Swanson, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press,

Matarrita-Cascante, D, 2005, "Factors Associated with Community Participation inWestern Communities," Master's thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, PA,

Matarrita-Cascante, D,, A.E, Luloff, D,R, Field, and R, Krannich, 2006, "CommunityParticipation in Rapidly Growing Communities," Thejoumal of the Community DevelopmentSociety 37:71-87,

McDonough, M, and K, Vachta, 2005, "Community Empowerment and the UrbanForest," Pp, 228-48 in Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land, edited by R,Lee and D, Field, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press,

McGranahan, D, 1999, Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. AgriculturalEconomic Report 781 Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture,

Pigg, ICE, and T, Bradshaw, 2003, "Catalytic Community Development," Pp, 385-396 inChallenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D, Brown and L,Swanson, Lfniversity Park, PA: Penn State University Press,

Putnam, R, 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community. NewYork, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Profiling Partidpative Residents — Matarrita-Cascante and Luloff 61

Richards, L, and M. Dalbey. 2006. "The Critical Role of Citizen Participation," The Journalofthe Community Development Society 37:18-32,

Schuett, M. and S. Selin. 2002. "Profiling Collaborative Natural Resource Initiatives andActive Participants." Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 19:155-60.

Smith, M. and R. Krannich. 2000. "Culture Clash Revisited: Newcomer and Longer-TermResidents' Attitudes Toward Land Use, Development, and Environmental issues inRural Communities in the Rocky Mountain West." Rural Sociology 65:396-421.

State of Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2000. "Federal Land Payments inUtah." Retrieved March 7, 2007 (http://www.govemor.utah.gov/dea/Library.html).

Theodori, G. 2000. "Levels of Analysis and Conceptual Clarification in CommunityAttachment and Satisfaction Research: Connections to Community Development."The Journal of the Community Development Society 31:35-58.

. 2004, "Community Attachment, Satisfaction, and Action." The Journal of theCommunity Development Society 35:73—86,

Wilkinson, K.P, 1991. The Community in Rural America. Middletown, WI: Social EcologyPress.

Wright, C. and H, Hyman. 1958, "Voluntary Association and Membership of AmericanAdults: Evidence from National Surveys." American Sodological Review 23:284-94,

Zimmer, B. and A. Hawley. 1959, "The Significance of Membership in Association."American Sociological Review 65:196-201.