Place attachment in rural areas: a participatory research project with

young people in Cedar, British Columbia

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van HovenUniversity of Groningen

In the broader context of rural transformation and economic decline, and the socio-economic consequences associated with this, in this paper, we explore favorite/key places of a group of young people in rural British Columbia, and specifically the village of Cedar. We analyze young people’s affective ties to place by describing the meanings places have for them in terms of social relations, physical characteristics and individual aspects such as emotions, memories and imagination (see Altman and Low 1992; Gustafson 2001; Panelli et al. 2007 for more detail). Our data analysis is preceded by an introduction of the local context and broader issues related to the youth and rural change, and the discussion of place-attachment and its importance for young people in rural areas. Cedar1 is a rural village with approximately 3000 inhabitants (BC Stats 2006) lo-cated on the east coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (see figure 1). It is pre-dominantly an agricultural area with many people employed in the forestry sector (McGillivray 2005). Local businesses include a small shopping mall (with a super-market, restaurant, police post, videostore, liquor store, hairdresser, bank, dollar-store and real estate agency, see figure 2) and, more geographically spread out, a few pubs, a second hand shop, a hardware store, a florist and a few petrol stations. Many local people rely on the services in the city of Nanaimo, located 10 kilometers to the North of Cedar. Communities like Cedar, depending largely on one resource, have been under a considerable amount of pressure during the past 20 years. Economic restructuring has resulted in unstable demand and prices for resources, increasing global competi-tion and automation of industries. In addition to the lack of diversity, labor markets in rural areas are often unstable (Halseth and Ryser 2007). In the Cedar area, the closure (and re-opening) of Harmac pulp-mill, the biggest privately owned employer in the regional district signifies this instability. In the spring of 2008, Harmac went bankrupt leaving almost 600 people unemployed (The Vancouver Sun 2009). In the autumn of 2008, the mill started operating again (ibid). People have been required to (re-)adjust their lives to being in and out of paid work. Regional statistics illustrate the

1 Cedar belongs to the district of Nanaimo.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven28

socio-economic consequences many rural communities are facing in the Nanaimo district2 (see also McGillivray 2005: 258 for a more comprehensive overview): the un-employment rate is higher (3,2% as compared to 2,7% for British Columbia); the num-ber of families receiving income assistance is twice that of BC (1,2% compared with 0,6%) and the number of poor households is exceeding the provincial average (22,4% compared to 21,4% for British Columbia) (BC Stats 2006). As a result of such devel-opments, many rural villages in British Columbia have faced economic decline and out-migration of its workforce, especially younger adults (Halseth and Ryser 2007). This, in turn, has lead to a further weakening of rural economies and populations and the closure of service facilities in many small communities, making life in rural areas relatively problematic3,4 (see Meinhard and Foster 2003, Halseth and Ryser 2007).

2 In relation to British Columbia.3 Indeed, the lack of (leisure) facilities, and of transportation to areas which do have these is an

issue for many small communities in Canada and can be traced back to the 1980s when the federal government withdrew from the service sector in small rural areas (Meinhard and Fos-ter 2003). At the beginning of the 1990s, various funding changes and cut-backs occurred also on provincial levels resulting in reduced services in smaller towns and communities (Halseth and Ryser 2007). The end of the 1990s then was marked by an increasing regionalization of services and the concentration of services in regional centers (ibid).

4 In some areas of BC this has led to resource towns being entirely abandoned and turning into ghost towns. On Vancouver Island, however, with a relatively strong tourism industry, some towns have successfully reinvented themselves using this opportunity. For example,

Figure 1. Location of Cedar on Vancouver Island.

Place attachment in rural areas 29

The above statistics somewhat obscure some of the problems for young rural peo-ple in particular. Gledinning et al.’s (2003) research in Scotland implies such prob-lems as follows: many young people experience loneliness and isolation, as well as lack of inclusion in rural communities. A key reason may be transport difficulties, a restricted peer group, and limited leisure opportunities (National Youth Bureau 1990). Glendinning et al. (2003: 141) also found that young people felt uncomfort-able and out of place because they are “extremely visible” within their (small rural) community. “It’s like living in a goldfish bowl” as one of Glendinning et al.’s (2003: 141) respondents reports. In our own study, we encountered similar sentiments. One student noted: “As teenagers, people put more pressure on us, and they portray us as trouble makers. When I walk into stores, I find that people watch me more. Negative news about our lives are more abundant in the media than positive things” (Anon-ymous student, 14-16 years, Cedar Community Secondary School, brainstorming session). Research on Canadian young people in general, too, supports the negative connotations of the rural youth, reporting more drug- and alcohol-related problems than the youth in urban areas (Leatherdale et al. 2007), more drinking and driving accidents (Leadbeater et al. 2008), higher rates of teenage pregnancy (Shoveller et al. 2007), and greater risks of teenage suicide (Leenaars et al. 1998; Masecar 1998). The

Chemainus, “the little town that did”, has displayed its resource-based history in the form of murals.

Figure 2: Cedar shopping center.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven30

above findings resonate with conclusions by Newnham et al. (2008: 31) who state that the “characteristics of rural communities have the potential to create a risk” to psychological and physical health of young people during their important develop-mental stage.5 In sum, statistical, scientific and anecdotal evidence suggest that young rural people often feel dislocated and alienated from village life and, consequently, find it difficult to develop affective ties to places (see also Matthews et al. 2000). However, it is exactly these affective ties between people and places that hold a potential to sup-port and strengthen a person’s psychological well-being and health (see Bonnes and Bonaito 2003).6 Positive bonds between people and places can motivate individuals to be involved in local life, foster care about the society in general and people’s im-mediate environment in particular and can eventually lead people to commit per-sonal resources to a place (Pretty et al. 2003; Altman and Low 1992). Evans (2007) maintains that such commitment is what makes communities strong and healthy. Derr (2002) defined place attachment and place identity as crucial factors influenc-ing young peoples’ preferences for remaining in their community of origin. Based on such claims, understanding and facilitating place attachment could be relevant for small rural communities struggling with out-migration of younger adults.

Place attachment and young people

Places, the physical and social context in which people spend their daily lives, are sources of personal identity and strong emotions/feelings evoked in people. Through their experiences in/with specific places people develop a connection with and feel-ings towards those locations (Shamai and Israel 1991). Such feelings, translated into affective ties (both positive and negative), are referred to as place attachment (Alt-man and Low 1992).7 The main characteristic of the concept of place attachment is defined by Hidalgo and Hernández (2001: 274) as “the tendency of the individual to maintain closeness” to places s/he has an affective relationship to.8 The relationship

5 In spite of the uncertainties of living in rural areas for the working population, research else-where emphasises the qualitites of the rural for other population groups, most notably chil-dren (see, for example, Glendinning et al. 2003). Rural areas are considered safe for children; they have more freedom to develop, their being in nature is good for their health and they are supported by close-knit rural communities (Abbott-Chapman 2006).

6 Moreover, physical places, especially places one is attached to, are found to be defining factors of an individuals identity. Twigger-Ross et al. (2003) found that people derive much of the sense of who they are and much of their self-esteem from their group memberships or place belongings.

7 See also Pretty et al. (2003) or Lewicka (2011) for a comprehensive overview of different defini-tions (and definition difficulties) of place attachment.

8 Environmental psychologists use Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory to compare place attach-

Place attachment in rural areas 31

itself comprises bonds with both, physical as well as social aspects of a place (see Altman and Low 1992). Physical aspects of places provide opportunities for desired activities and, in that way, become associated with positive emotions and experienc-es.9 People also develop emotional bonds to places because of their relations to and meetings with other people (e.g. friends, family, local community). That kind of an attachment, developed in interaction with others, implies a deeper psychological and emotional investment within a setting, and can develop into place identity (Twigger-Ross et al. 2003). The place attachment literature makes assumptions about the relative importance of life experiences (and thus a person’s age), the range and extent of activities in and interaction with place, and power relations pertaining to defining and controlling place. This literature is therefore more focused on the attachment of places by adults rather than young people. For example, the legal and societal status of adulthood affords adults more influence, a greater voice and more freedom of action in the use of places (and the definition of barriers to places) (Hay 1998). As a dominant group, adults define places and narratives about places (Larsen 2004). This affords them more opportunities to develop a positive and caring attachment to places. In ‘pro-tecting’ adult places, symbolic and physical mechanisms of exclusion, such as signs in shops (or the “mosquito”,10 to prevent a notable presence of teenagers in stores), parks or on the streets, young people’s presence and behavior is controlled. In so do-ing, young people are denied the same opportunities to develop affective ties with place. However, some authors have illustrated that youth young people have different narratives about place than adults and this merits our attention. Place attachment is often associated with longer periods of stay during which bonds can be developed via (repeated) experiences and events in people’s lives that are connected to particular locales (see Rubenstein and Parmalee 1992). Abbott-Chapman (2006) argues that ex-periencing place and creating memories of place are important as they link personal past and present with a sense of who people are. In that sense, attachment to one place is relative to the experience of other places (ibid). Post (2008), however, found that an intense experience of short duration can facilitate strong and long lasting at-tachment to places which people have not necessarily visited frequently or spent a lot of time in. Such short yet intense experiences are more likely associated with young people. Because young people operate more in “the present and immediate future”

ment to a child’s attachment and desire to remain close to their mother (see Bonnes et al. 2003).9 That kind of attachment is also called place dependence or functional attachment (see Vaske

& Korbin 2001).10 A high-pitched sound device, audible only to young people, used in shops, on the street out-

side shops and cafes, or in residential areas. Also called “anti-teen device” as its sound puts the youth off from gathering in areas in the vicinity of the Mosquito and therefore it helps to disperse groups of young people (Times Online 2009).

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven32

rather than attributing different ideal images of past and future to landscape as do adults, young people, are more likely to become attached to places after a brief but intense experience (Post 2008: 142). Post (2008: 141) argues that young people are better and faster able to become attached, but also detached, from places through their actions and ability to be in the “here and now”. Such intense experiences are facilitated by the imagination of young people which is more closely tied to activity. Post (2008: 143) (drawing on work by Tuan 1977) maintains that “[young people] may look matter of factly on places that to adults are haunted by memories”. Whereas for adults heritage and the past play an important role in their relationship to places, for the youth it is more important to be free to engage in desired activities and have enough room for exploration and discovery.

Approaches to Measuring Place Attachment: Self, others and the environment

In order to explore young people’s place attachment in Cedar, we draw on Gustaf-son’s (2001) model which, in turn, utilises categories used by other authors in meas-uring place attachment (see, for example Relph 1976; Sixsmith 1986; Agnew 1987; Canter 1997; Manzo and Perkins 2006; Panelli et al. 2007). Gustafson (2001) explores place attachment around three dominant categories: “self”, “others” and “the envi-ronment” (see figure 3).

Others

Self

Environment

Relations & meetings; inclusion & exclusion; authority & transgression

Familiarity & change (life-path, memories, experiences); retreat (privacy); self-expression (agency)

Physical (natural & built-up) environment; opportunities/lack of opportunities

Figure 3: Meanings of place (after Gustafson 2001).

Place attachment in rural areas 33

The category “self” refers to the personal aspects of place, to familiarity, memo-ries, experiences, privacy, retreat and self-expression. Gustafson (2001) associates the “self” with places that over a period of time become a source of self-identification for people (see also Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996). Identifying oneself with a particular place requires continuity, knowledge of and familiarity with a place. But once it hap-pens, such places of self-identification are for example used by people for explaining others who they are (Gustafson 2001). The category “self” is also strongly associated with emotion (ibid). In Gustafson’s (2001) study, respondents associated their daily places with emotions such as security and a sense of home. The category “others” summarizes the social aspects of place – the relations and meetings with people as well as issues connected to inclusion and exclusion. The “oth-ers” also indicates distinctive features/properties and behaviour of inhabitants of a particular place (e.g. an area where a lot of immigrants live becomes an “immigrant neighbourhood”) (ibid). The “environment” category encompasses the physical aspects of place together with the “symbolic, historical, institutional and geographical” aspects (Gustafson 2001: 11). It can be illustrative of the opportunities as well as the lack of opportunities that the physical environment provides for certain activities and experiences as well as the (distinctive features of) natural environment itself. The category “environ-ment” also indicates the localization of places in terms of nearness or distance to other places (Gustafson 2001). In the remainder of this paper we briefly outline our approach and research par-ticipants before discussing young people’s place attachment. As noted above, we use Gustafson’s (2001) categories: “self”, “others” and “the environment”. It is impor-tant to emphasize, however, that the multiple meanings of place as expressed by our participants do not exclusively or unambiguously belong to a single category but can rather be illustrated as a relationship between the self, others and the environ - ment.

Methodology

The research adopted a participatory approach using a mix of qualitative methods to explore young people’s place experiences. Video, photography, mental mapping, walking and interviews were used by research participants to communicate their place experiences to the researchers (Trell and van Hoven 2010 for a detailed discus-sion and comparison of the research methods). Such a mix of multiple, qualitative methods is preferred in order to explore different facets of place experiences, to give young people with different skills a chance to find alternative ways of expression (Valentine 2001) and to help them develop and practice new skills (Kellet et al. 2004; Kellet 2005). In addition, with each method, different aspects and details of young people’s places can be revealed to the researchers (see Cele 2006). In this research, our aim was to enable the respondents to participate in the project as co-research-

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven34

ers.11 Using a participatory approach implied that the respondents helped define the focus of the project, formulated questions and lead the process of data collection.

Research group

The research group consisted of four students from Cedar Community Secondary School and the authors of this paper. At the time of carrying out the research, the four students – Shaleeta, Kevin, Ryan and Evan – were 17 years old and attended the 11th grade in Cedar Community Secondary School. All of the students were born and raised on Vancouver Island although Shaleeta and Evan had moved around different cities before settling in Cedar. Three of the respondents were male and one female, none of them represented an ethnic minority. Shaleeta was working part time dur-ing the whole school-year, the rest of the students had a summer job and, during school time, were occasionally employed by local businesses. Ryan was the only one living with both parents, the other students were either living with their mother and a stepfather (Shaleeta and Kevin) or with relatives (Evan). Evan and Shaleeta moved to Cedar only in grade 10 whereas Ryan and Kevin had been living in (the vicinity of) Cedar their whole life.

Data analysis and discussion

Young people and place-attachment in Cedar

Early in the data collection phase it appeared that, although the students had an extensive list of places which they considered meaningful, a number of locations stood out as key places in their local, daily lives. These places can be grouped into two categories: shared key places and individual key places. The first category included Woodgrove Centre (a large mall in Nanaimo) and Cedar Community Secondary School (CCSS), which were considered important and visited by all of the partici-pating students. Shared key places appeared to be most directly connected to the “others” theme in Gustafson’s (2001) model (see figure 2 above). The second category, individual key places, included a wide range of places for “self” and reasons for pre-ferring them related to themes of identity (individual interests), solitude and self-ex-pression. In addition, the very specific physical characteristics of a place emerged as significant. In the following sections we will discuss the students’ key places within the framework of “self,” “others” and “environment” (Gustafson 2001) and explore how different aspects, specific to these categories, can influence young people’s place preferences and attachment to ‘their’ places.

11 The work by Hart (1997) on young people’s participation was used as a guideline in achieving meaningful participation.

Place attachment in rural areas 35

The “Self”: Place attachment in continuity, memories, retreat and self-expression

According to Gustafson (2001), continuity (i.e. length of residence in a place, life-path, frequent visits, memories connected to a place, being able to notice change) is an important aspect connecting a people’s ‘self ’ to places. Indeed, also for our young research participants, certain places appeared to be meaningful because they acted as “bridges to the past” (Manzo, 2005: 78) bringing back memories. The quotes by young people below illustrate that both continuity and long-term interaction as well as shorter, but intense, place experiences were relevant for the respondents’ psycho-logical well-being and sense of self. Manzo (2005) argues that places can provide an anchor point and stability within the changing world (and changing rural communi-ties). Losing a loved place then can have a great impact on people’s mental well-being that can be compared to the feelings evoked by loss of a beloved one (Twigger-Ross et al. 2003). Both aspects were found in our data. Throughout the project, the students’ narrations implied a familiarity with even the smallest details of “their” places. For example Ryan (male, 17) knew exactly how high the water in his favorite childhood place, the creek, would rise in spring. And Kevin (male, 17), demonstrated how small, seemingly insignificant objects in his house, where he had lived for 17 years, were able to bring back memories:

“Got the bathroom […] I like this room. […] And there, these things have actually been here since I was 4. There’s killer whales up there. I’ve been here since I was 4, that’s pretty cool” (Kevin, narrating his movie).

However, over longer periods of time, (familiar) places tend to change. Whether due to external factors or conscious efforts of local people, through changes, places acquire new meanings and new ties with places may be formed (Gustafson 2001). For instance, the favourite childhood place of Ryan, the creek, changed as the forest around it was logged just before the start of our project:

“The creek is an area where, when I was a little kid, we used to go to swim, and it’s really like a social place where I really used to love to go until they started logging all the forest around it. […] They came to log our forest and, literally overnight, there was just…tons of trees gone from the area […] the entire forest around my living area that I grew up with is gone” (Ryan, discussing the mental map and video).

The changes within his favourite and familiar place, which he had no power to pre-vent, were sources of negative emotions for Ryan. As a result, Ryan’s previous favour-ite place lost its meaning. An important bridge to the past was severed. In Evan’s case, it was not the length of time spent at a place that facilitated a change in “self” but a shorter, intense and positive experience. Evan (male, 17) had lived in

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven36

22 different places and gone to 11 different schools.12 In Cedar, Evan lived with his aunt and uncle and intended to graduate at this school. Evan comments:

“I have moved around a lot, and I haven’t gotten a chance to be very social. [..] And coming to Cedar... I finally have sort of a cohesion where I can say, you know, this is me, I have something to identify myself with” (Evan, student-led interview).

Findings from our research also suggest that certain places, objects, activities, times of day or combination thereof become meaningful for the youth specifically because they provide an opportunity for reflection and solitude but also a time and context to be independent and in control (see Hay 1998). Such places appeared to be mostly pri-vate and contained meaningful activities and objects. In these places young people could express themselves freely, “be themselves” (Abbot-Chapman 2006: 12) or “do whatever we want” (Shaleeta, female, 17). In fact, young people appeared to appreci-ate and feel the strongest emotional connection, a sense of possession and attach-ment, towards such places within their daily lives. That resonates with the findings of Abbott-Chapman (2006: 15) who concluded that young people are more drawn by quiet and private “green retreats” where they can reflect on their lives and relax than by noisy and crowded spaces. Whether it’s taking a walk to the city at night (Sha-leeta), climbing on top of the school roof (Kevin) or gluing a monkey-pen to one’s bedroom door (Evan) such moments of “self” and places or objects associated with them were loaded with positive meaning within the everyday landscape as the quotes by Kevin and Shaleeta below illustrate:

“And this [school roof], this is my favorite spot to be. […] I just love this place. I love Cedar, a lot, especially up here, it’s great” (Kevin, narrating his movie).

“I used to want to go on walks late at night and it’s the easiest time to go is... at night when nobody’s around, when nothing’s happening, you can just go on a walk and think and do whatever you want” (Shaleeta, peer-led interview).

The “Others”: Place attachment in relations and meetings, exclusion and inclusion

The “others’” or the social dimension of place attachment characterized by relations and meetings, in our study were predominantly young people’s friends and peers. However, adults with whom the youth share their everyday places with have an in-fluence on how young people experience and relate to their places. For our research participants, sharing places with adults sometimes manifested as experiences of exclusion, other times as inclusion. The local Cedar Community Secondary School

12 This was due to his mother’s medical condition.

Place attachment in rural areas 37

(CCSS) and Woodgrove Center (the shopping mall in Nanaimo) were identified by young people of our study as key places for meeting and creating relations with the “others.”

The local schoolIn small rural areas such as Cedar, with hardly any places for young people to social-ize, school plays a key role in young people’s daily lives. The school (in addition to the students’ homes) is a place where the biggest part of a young people’s day is spent. The relationship between CCSS and the students is an interesting one and contrasts find-ings from other research projects (see Langhout 2004, Faircloth and Hamm 2005), where school was experienced by the youth as a place of constant power struggles, surveillance and control. CCSS is described by the students as one of their favorite places because of its relaxed atmosphere, the presence of their friends and the “laid back” teachers (Ryan, male, 17). CCSS appears as an inclusive place within which it is easy to interact and where students often have a say in the way things are done, i.e. can exercise some influence. The findings suggest that adults – the friendly teachers – and their attitude to-wards the students have the greatest positive influence on the students’ experiences of their school. Good teacher-student relations contribute to the students’ experi-ences of school as a “really nice comfortable place” (Kevin), “open and accepting” (Shaleeta), “relaxed and laid back” (Ryan) and “pretty neat and social” (Evan). All of the students describe their teachers as “friendly”, “understanding” or “supportive”. Ryan explains in a student-led interview that the teachers are ”like family almost” and make him feel “at home”. We noted above that place can facilitate change in the “self”. The relaxed atmos-phere of CCSS was experienced as a facilitator of positive changes for Evan and Sha-leeta and manifested itself (already after a short period of stay in Cedar) in terms of “opening up” and “becoming more social”:

“I used to be a complete social introvert and Cedar’s [CCSS] really broadened me out, so. Yes,... school’s definitely had a huge impact on my life” (Evan, peer-led interview).

The regional mallIn the North-American context, malls in general are considered to be key places for the youth for meeting friends and peers, being together and ‘hanging out’. Malls are argued to have replaced many public places and their functions in the USA as well as Canada during the past decades (Shepherd 1998). For young people, malls are particularly important as places that offer a weatherproof environment in which it is possible to see different people, get in touch with global consumer culture and prac-tice predefined social roles (ibid). For the youth in small rural areas regional centers usually offer possibilities to meet other young people. Nanaimo city, the regional

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven38

centre closest to Cedar, has no compact city centre which would facilitate interaction between people. The absence of a centre magnified the importance and impact of lo-cal malls on young people’s daily lives. The fact that Woodgrove mall was frequently visited (despite the distance – approximately 20 kilometres from Cedar) and consid-ered a key place by all of our research participants reiterates the importance of the theme “others” for young people. For example, Ryan explains his reasons for visiting the Woodgrove mall as follows:

“Well a lot of the time it’s like more of a social hangout place. I don’t really go there much to buy much” (Ryan, mental maps discussion).

Indeed, social psychologists argue that friendship orientation, trying on new identi-ties and roles and seeking affirmation from friends, peaks in mid-adolescence sur-passing the influence of parents who are seen as symbols of control and limitations (see, for example, Crosnoe, 2000). Locations which facilitate such opportunities be-come key places. Even though informal and formal control measures also exist at the local school (e.g. in the form of the school regulations and teacher supervision), this was not noted as an issue which impacted young people’s overall positive experiences. However, de-spite predominantly positive experiences at Woodgrove mall, students occasionally felt excluded and constrained by adult behavior and formal control measures such as security guards and surveillance cameras (see also Panelli et al. 2002). It is interest-ing to note in this context that the students themselves conducted interviews during our project with the manager of the shopping center, a security guard, shopkeepers and different visitors to explore adult perspectives on young people in the mall. In the project evaluation the students positively commented on the fact that this had given them a broader perspective on youth-adult interaction, when compared with their incidental encounters. From the above, it appears that social aspects of place can be relevant for the well-being and development of young people. In the next section we will turn to exploring the importance of physical aspects of place, or the “environment”.

The “Environment” Place attachment in place-specific opportunities/limitations

The relevance of the physical environment for people’s place-experiences refers to the important role places play in providing conditions that support intended activities (Brown and Raymond 2007). Gustafson (2001) found that places that support desired activities are often perceived as positively meaningful. Below, the opportunities that the physical environment in Cedar creates for young people and the ways physical characteristics of place can facilitate place attachment, will be discussed. As discussed above, the setting of our study (Cedar village) can be characterized as predominantly natural environment. It is a rural area which the students described

Place attachment in rural areas 39

as “rocks and trees, rocks and trees, more rocks and trees” (Kevin, discussion during the planning of the student-led walk). Cedar provides countless opportunities for outdoor activities and recreation. The interests, personalities and life-paths of young people were decisive factors in whether such an environment was experienced as full of opportunities or, on the contrary, full of constraints. In that way, the environment theme appeared to be strongly connected to people’s “self”. For example in the case of Kevin, who is highly active, the physical characteristics of Cedar were enabling him to pursue desired activities like climbing, mountain biking and running. Kevin and Ryan had the following discussion while explaining their mental maps:

Kevin: “Anyway, there’s forest and stuff [in Cedar] that I like to go to and climb trees. Yeah, and I love climbing, A LOT” Ryan: “He’s like a monkey, he just likes climbing, as long as I’ve known him, since grade 8”Kevin: “Yeah, I’m highly active, I love to climb, I love heights, that’s why I climb”.

Clark and Moss (2001) argued that the importance of the physical environment and paying attention to details change with age and are dominant in childhood. In our project, this appeared to be the case as well. Ryan and Kevin, the only ones who had childhood experiences with and memories of Cedar, were also the only ones who val-ued the physical characteristics of the area and experienced it as full of possibilities. For example, in his movie, Kevin continuously stresses the role of natural charac-teristics and scenery of Cedar as factors influencing his preferences and attachment:

“See, this is why I love this place, it’s got nice scenery. There’s the swamp there. Little bird over there, that’s always nice. Just a nice area. I love it out here in Cedar. I love Cedar” (Kevin, narrating his movie).

Furthermore, very specific natural features were considered important by Ryan and Kevin in their activities and experiences of Cedar. For example water (ocean, river, creek, swamp) featured often among the meaningful places of Kevin and Ryan. For Kevin, the swamp in Cedar was connected with his childhood “I actually used to come out here in a little tub” (explained during the walk). For both, Ryan and Kevin, Nanaimo river symbolized friends and fun summer activities which made it an im-portant place for them “it’s another place where we like to go for I don’t know basic-ally just swim, jump off the cliffs, whatever” (Ryan, mental maps discussion). For Kevin, the ocean was connected to his hobby, dragonboating, being active and sport-ive “I love the ocean”. Incidentally, the findings from our study resonate with the findings of Kaivola and Rikkinen (2004) in Finland who argue that teenagers have a high level of appreciation of natural sites with water. Similarly, Abbot-Chapman (2006) found that teenagers’ favorite places often include places with water because they afford popular and desired activities such as fishing, sailing or swimming.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven40

Evan and Shaleeta, who had spent less than two years in Cedar did not have any special feelings towards the natural environment. They experienced it rather as a limitation and concluded that they “never actually do anything in Cedar” (Evan) and that “the only time I ever do anything is like in town [Nanaimo]” (Evan), referring to the possibilities that the built-up environment in the city offers for their needs. In this paper, we examined place attachment of young people in Cedar, a small rural area in British Columbia, Canada. We explored narratives about key places for young people and their reasons for preferring those places, in order to understand different dimensions of place attachment for young people. Young people’s reasons for preferring their key places appeared to be connected to both, social and physical characteristics of places, and, in addition, influenced by an individual’s personality, interests and experiences i.e. personal aspects connected to places (see also Gustaf-son 2001). The findings suggest that places become meaningful for young people first of all because of the social interaction they facilitate. Relationships and interaction with ‘others’ help people try on different social roles and make and re-make them-selves, hence the relevance of places for meeting “others”, who are in the process of forming their identities and discovering the “self” (Manzo 2003). In a small community, the possibilities for interaction are limited for the youth. The results of our study imply that young people in rural areas may become more attached to regional centers with more possibilities for creating new relations and meeting people. Such places provide more opportunities for young people for meet-ing people who “share their ideas” or “have things in common”. Places shared with others, however, can also be controversial places for the youth. For example although entertainment and shopping venues (e.g. Woodgrove mall in our study) are valued by young people for socialization, meeting friends, seeing other people and being seen, they may also experience such places as restrictive (see also Abbott-Chapman 2006). In the literature, a pre-requisite of place attachment is connected to the possibility to exercise power and influence in certain settings (Hay 1998). In shared settings, it becomes apparent who does or does not have the power to claim space for their intended activities. Adults, as the powerful group in society, are able to enforce cer-tain rules, meanings and values on commercial and public space that can clash with young peoples’ activities or views. Therefore, even though the regional centers and shopping malls are relevant for young people, in order to be themselves and make their own space they have to carve out alternative places within their daily land-scape. In line with the findings of Abbott-Chapman (2006) the results of our study indi-cate that natural environments in particular offer young people the possibility for having a place for taking time out, doing nothing and being away from adult super-vision. “Green retreats” were experienced by the youth as places in which they are in charge, places where they can choose to be alone or with selected friends, in activities or doing nothing (Abbot-Chapman 2006: 10). Whereas the school and the mall i.e.

Place attachment in rural areas 41

the places to meet “others” were reported by our research participants as meaningful for everybody, the depth and intensity of the bond between students and places that provided possibilities for being alone and reflecting on the world i.e. places for “self” appeared to be much greater. Life-paths, childhood experiences and memories con-nected to places contributed to young people’s valuation of the local natural environ-ment. In conclusion, our study, although limited in scope, suggests that place attach-ment can contribute to young peoples’ well-being and satisfaction and that both, places for interaction and places for solitude are necessary to maintain that well-be-ing. But more extensive research should be undertaken to understand young peoples’ motivation to leave or stay in their community of residence and for finding possibil-ities to improve psychological and physical well-being of the (rural) youth.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the International Council for Canadian Studies (ICCS), the Association for Canadian Studies in The Netherlands (ACSN), Groningen Universiteits Fund (GUF), the Faculty of Spatial Sciences (FRW) at the University of Groningen and the Canadian Studies Centre at the University of Gron-ingen for their financial support to this research project. The authors are particu-larly grateful to the principal of Cedar Community Secondary School, mrs. Susann Young, and the research participants Ryan, Shaleeta, Kevin and Evan for their help and cooperation. We would also like to thank Tamara Kaspers-Westra for her help with the map of Vancouver Island.

References

Joan Abbott-Chapman, “Time out in “green retreats” and adolescent wellbeing”, Youth Studies Australia, 25(4) (2006), 9-16.

JohnA. Agnew, Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society, Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987.

Irwin Altman and Setha M. Low eds, Place Attachment, New York: Plenum Press, 1992.BC Stats 2006 http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/, 8.08.2009.Evans Bethan, “Geographies of Youth/Young People”, Geography Compass, 2(5) (2008), 1659-1680.M. Bonnes, T. Lee and M. Bonaiuto eds, Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues, Alder-

shot: Ashgate, 2003.John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1: Attachment, New York: Basic Books, 1969.Gregory Brown and Christopher Raymond, “The relationship between place attachment and

landscape values”, Applied geography, 27(2) (2007), 89 -111.David Canter, “The facets of place”, in Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design,Vol. 4:

Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization, eds G. T. Moore and R. W. Marans, New York: Plenum, 1997, 109-147.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven42

Sofia Cele, Communicating place. Methods for understanding children’s experience of place, Stock-holm: Stockholm University, 2006.

Alison Clark and Peter Moss, The Mosaic Approach and Research with Young Children, National Children’s Bureau, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001.

Victoria Derr, “Children’s Sense of Place in Northern New Mexico”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22 (2002), 125-137.

Beverly Faircloth and Jill Hamm, “Sense of Belonging Among High School Students. Represent-ing 4 Ethnic Groups”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4) (2005), 293-309.

James J. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.Maria Vittoria Giuliani, “Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment”, in Psychological Theories

For Environmental Issues, eds M. Bonnes, T. Lee and M.Bonaiuto, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 137-170.

Anthony Glendinning, Mark Nuttall, Leo Hendry, Marion Kloep and Sheila Wood, “Rural com-munities and well-being: a good place to grow up?”, The Sociological Review, 51(1) (2003), 129-156.

Per Gustafson, “Meanings of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualizations”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 (2001), 5-16.

Greg Halseth and Laura Marie Ryser, “The Deployment of Partnerships by the Voluntary Sector to Address Service Needs in Rural and Small Town Canada”, Voluntas (Journal of the Inter-national Society for Third Sector Research), 18 (2007), 241-265.

Roger A. Hart, Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizenz in Community Development and Environmental Care, New York and London: Unicef and Earthscan Publications Limited, 1997.

Robert Hay, “A rooted sense of place in cross-cultural perspective”, Canadian Geographer, 42 (1998), 245–266.

Carmen M. Hidalgo and Bernardo Hernández, “Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (2001), 273-281.

Gill Jones, and Lynn Jamieson, Young People in Rural Scotland : Getting Out and Staying On, CES Briefing, 13, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1997.

Taina Kaivola and Hannele Rikkinen, “Recreation, free-time activities and space related experi-ences of Finnish Young people”, in Young people, leisure and place: cross-cultural perspectives, eds M. Robertson and M. Williams, New York: Nova Science Publisher Inc, 2004, 115-127.

Mary Kellett, How to Develop Children as Researchers. A Step-by-Step Guide to Teaching the Re-search Process, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2005.

Mary Kellett, Ruth Forrest, Naomi Dent and Simon Ward, “Just teach us the skills please, we’ll do the rest: empowering ten-year-olds as active researchers”, Children & Society, 18 (2004), 329-343.

Regina Day Langhout, “Facilitators and Inhibitors of Positive School Feelings: An Exploratory Study”, American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2) (2004), 111-127.

Soren C. Larsen, “Place Identity in a Resource-Dependent Area of Northern British Columbia”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94 (4) (2004), 944-960.

Place attachment in rural areas 43

Bonnie J. Leadbeater, Kathleen Foran, and Aidan Grove-White, “How much can you drink before driving? The influence of riding with impaired adults and peers on the driving behaviors of urban and rural youth”, Addiction, 103 (2008), 629-637.

Scott T. Leatherdale, David G. Hammond, Murray Kaiserman and Rashid Ahmed, “Marijuana and tobacco use among young adults in Canada: are they smoking what we think they are smoking?”, Cancer Causes Control, 18 (2007), 391-397.

Antoon A. Leenaars, Susanne Wenckstern, Isaac Sakinofsky, Ronald J. Dyck, Michael J. Kral and Roger C. Bland, Suicide in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Maria Lewicka, “Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years”, Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 31(3) (2011), 207-230.

Lynne C. Manzo, “For Better or Worse: Exploring the Multiple Dimensions of Place Meaning”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1) (2005), 67-86.

Lynne C. Manzo and Douglas D. Perkins, “Neighborhoods as Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning”, Journal of Planning Litera-ture, 20(4) (2006), 335-350.

David Masecar, “Suicide prevention in rural communities: designing a way forward”, in Suicide in Canada, eds A.A.Leenars et al., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, 242-255.

Hugh Matthews, Mark Taylor, Kenneth Sherwood, Faith Tucker and Melanie Limb, “Growing-up in the countryside: children and the rural idyll”, Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (2000), 141-153.

Brett McGillivray, Geography of British Columbia. People and landscapes in transition, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.

Agnes G. Meinhard and Mary K. Foster, “Differences in the response of women’s voluntary or-ganizations to shifts in Canadian public policy”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3) (2003), 366-396.

National Youth Bureau, Deprivation in Rural Areas: Young People’s Perspectives, Leichester: Na-tional Youth Bureau, 1990.

Karyn Newnham, Candice Boyd, Krystal Newnham, Kristy Francis and Damon Aisbett, “Experi-ence of place for adolescents in rural Australia”, Rural Social Work & Community Practice, 13(1) (2008), 31-45.

Ruth Panelli, Karen Nairn and Jaleh McCormack, (2002) ‘“We make our own fun”: reading the politics of youth with(in) community’, Sociologia Ruralis, 42(2) (2002), 106-130.

Ruth Panelli, Samantha Punch and Elsbeth Robson, Global Perspectives on Rural Childhood and Youth, New York: Routledge, 2007.

Chris Post, “Modifying sense of place in a federal company town: Sunflower Village, Kansas, 1942 to 1959”, Journal of Cultural Geography, 25 (2) (2008), 137-159.

Grace H. Pretty, Heather M. Chipuer and Paul Bramston, “Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (2003), 273–287.

Edward Relph, Place and Placelessness, London: Pion Press, 1976.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven44

Robert L. Rubenstein and Patricia A. Parmalee, “Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly”, in Place Attachment, edes I. Altman and S. Low, New York: Plenum Press, 1992, 139-165.

Shmuel Shamai, “Sense of Place: and Empirical Measurement”, Geoforum, 22(3) (1991), 347-358.Steven L. Shepherd, “Mall Culture”, The Humanist, November/December (1998), 40-41.Jean Shoveller, Joy Johnson, Ken Prkachin and David Patrick, ‘“Around here, they roll up the side-

walks at night”: A qualitative study of youth living in a rural Canadian community’, Health & Place, 13 (2007), 826-838.

Mark Shucksmith, Polly Chapman and Gill M. Clark, Rural Scotland Today: The Best of Both Worlds?, Avebury: Aldershot, 1996.

Mark Shucksmith, “Young People and Social Exclusion in Rural Areas”, Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (1) (2004), 43-59.

Judith Sixsmith, “The meaning of home: an exploratory study of environmental experience”, Jour-nal of Environmental Psychology, 6 (1986), 281–298.

Times Online, “Kids’ commissioner calls for ban on Mosquito, ultrasonic anti-teen device”, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3356157.ece, 27.07.2009.

Elen-Maarja Trell and Bettina van Hoven, “Making sense of place: exploring creative and (inter)active research methods with young people”. Fennia, 188 (1), 91-104.

Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

Claire Twigger-Ross, Marino Bonaiuto and Glynis Breakwell, “Identity Theories and Environ-mental Psychology”, in Psychological Theories For Environmental Issues, eds M. Bonnes, T. Lee and M.Bonaiuto, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 203-233.

Gill Valentine, “At the drawing board: developing a research design”, in Qualitative Methodolo-gies for Geographers. Issues and Debates, eds M. Limb and C. Dwyer, London: Arnold, 2001, 41-54.

The Vancouver Sun, http://www.vancouversun.com/Harmac+little+mill+that+could/1333193/story. html., 28.08.2009.

Jerry J. Vaske and Katherine C. Kobrin, “Place attachment and environmentally responsible be-havior”, The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4) (2001), 16-21.