Place attachment and community dependence across the rural-urban spectrum: A digital engagement perspective on young adults

Öz

This study investigates how place attachment (PA) and community dependence (CD) vary between rural and urban young adults, with a specific focus on the moderating role of digital engagement. A stratified random sample of young adults (18–30) participated in an online survey across rural (n = 245) and urban (n = 219) settings. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated the multidimensional measurement model. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and multi-group moderation analyses were employed to examine the influence of sociodemographic variables and digital engagement on cognitive, affective, and evaluative dimensions of PA and CD. Rural youth reported significantly stronger levels of PA and CD across all subdimensions. Digital engagement selectively moderated the link between evaluative attachment and evaluative dependence, suggesting that symbolic ties to place may be more vulnerable to attenuation in digitally intensive lifestyles. Length of residency and migration background emerged as significant positive predictors of spatial belonging, while gender and education showed no consistent effects. The results inform community-based planning strategies by emphasizing the need for hybrid interventions that integrate digital routines with localized efforts to strengthen place attachment and community infrastructure. Context-sensitive approaches can help foster youth engagement and long-term spatial belonging in both rural and urban settings. This study contributes to place attachment literature by empirically testing a multidimensional model that incorporates digital behaviors into spatial belonging frameworks. The findings highlight the differentiated nature of spatial belonging and offer a timely empirical lens on youth-place relations in a digitally transforming world.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Place attachment
• Community dependence
• Young adults
• Rural-urban differences
• Structural equation modeling (SEM)
• Digitalization

Destekleyen Kurum

Yildiz Technical University

Proje Numarası

SBA-2023-5360

Etik Beyan

The study fully complied with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the X University Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: 2022.10). Participants were informed of their rights, including anonymity, voluntary participation, and the ability to withdraw from the study at any point without any negative consequences. All data were collected anonymously and used exclusively for academic purposes. No IP addresses or digital footprints were collected during the survey, ensuring complete anonymity and compliance with ethical data handling standards.

Dijitalleşme bağlamında gençlerin yere aidiyeti ve topluluğa bağlılığı: Kırsal-kentsel farklılıklar

Öz

Bu çalışma, yere aidiyet (YA) ve topluluk bağlılığının (TB) kırsal ve kentsel genç yetişkinler arasında nasıl farklılaştığını incelemekte ve özellikle dijitalleşmenin bu ilişkideki düzenleyici rolüne odaklanmaktadır. Genç yetişkinden oluşan tabakalı rastgele bir örneklem, kırsal (n = 245) ve kentsel (n = 219) yerleşimlerde çevrim içi anket yoluyla çalışmaya katılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (CFA), çok boyutlu ölçüm modelini doğrulamıştır. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (YEM) ve çok gruplu moderasyon analizleri, sosyodemografik değişkenler ile dijitalleşmenin bilişsel, duygusal ve değerlendirici YA ve TB boyutları üzerindeki etkisini incelemek amacıyla uygulanmıştır. Kırsal gençler, tüm alt boyutlarda anlamlı biçimde daha yüksek düzeyde yere aidiyet ve topluluk bağlılığı bildirmiştir. Dijitalleşme, değerlendirici aidiyet ile değerlendirici bağlılık arasındaki ilişkiyi seçici biçimde modere etmiştir; bu da, mekâna yönelik sembolik bağların dijital yoğun yaşam tarzlarında daha kırılgan olabileceğini göstermektedir. İkamet süresi ve göçmenlik geçmişi, yere aidiyetin anlamlı pozitif yordayıcıları olarak ortaya çıkarken, cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeyinin tutarlı etkileri gözlemlenmemiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, dijital alışkanlıklarla bütünleştirilen yerel çabaları içeren hibrit müdahalelerin yere aidiyet ve topluluk bilincini güçlendirmek adına önemli olduğunu ortaya koymakta; bu sayede topluluk temelli planlama stratejilerine katkı sağlamaktadır. Bağlam duyarlı yaklaşımlar, hem kırsal hem de kentsel ortamlarda gençlerin katılımını, sosyal sürdürülebilirliği ve toplumsal dirençliliği teşvik edebilir. Bu çalışma, dijital davranışları yere aidiyet kuramlarına entegre eden çok boyutlu bir modeli ampirik olarak test ederek yere aidiyet literatürüne katkı sağlamaktadır. Bulgular, yere aidiyetin farklılaşan doğasını vurgulamakta ve dijital dönüşüm sürecindeki genç-mekan ilişkilerine dair güncel ve ampirik bir bakış sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yere aidiyet
• Topluluk bağlılığı
• Dijitalleşme
• Genç yetişkinler
• Kırsal-kentsel farklılıklar
• Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (SEM)

Destekleyen Kurum

Yildiz Technical University

Proje Numarası

SBA-2023-5360

Etik Beyan

The study fully complied with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Yildiz Technical University Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: 2022.10). Participants were informed of their rights, including anonymity, voluntary participation, and the ability to withdraw from the study at any point without any negative consequences. All data were collected anonymously and used exclusively for academic purposes. No IP addresses or digital footprints were collected during the survey, ensuring complete anonymity and compliance with ethical data handling standards.

Kaynakça

1. Anton, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 451461. [CrossRef]
2. Başaran, B. (2024). Determining the factors affecting the ICT use of Turkish students attending PISA-2018: Multilevel profile analysis approach. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 1853318560. [CrossRef]
3. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2017). Understanding the cognitive, affective and evaluative components of social urban identity: Determinants, measurement, and practical consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 138153. [CrossRef]
4. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Rubio, M. Á. (2021). Local place identity: A comparison between residents of rural and urban communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 242252. [CrossRef]
5. Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259-271. [CrossRef]
6. Casakin, H., Hernández, B., & Ruiz, C. (2015). Place attachment and place identity in Israeli cities: The influence of city size. Cities, 42(b), 224230. [CrossRef]
7. Dost, G., & Mazzoli Smith, L. (2023). Understanding higher education students' sense of belonging: A qualitative meta-ethnographic analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(6), 822849. [CrossRef]
8. Dyrting, S., Taylor, A., & Shalley, F. (2020). A life-stage approach for understanding population retention in sparsely populated areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 80, 439451. [CrossRef]

9. Ergün, I., (2022). The Psychological Meaning of Home for the Migrant Live-in Domestic Workers: Istanbul. Online Journal of Art and Design, 10(4), 123.
10. Gieling, J., Vermeij, L., & Haartsen, T. (2017). Beyond the local-newcomer divide: Village attachment in the era of mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 55, 237247. [CrossRef]
11. González-Leonardo, M., López-Gay, A., Newsham, N., Recaño, J., & Rowe, F. (2022). Understanding patterns of internal migration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Population, Space and Place, 28, e2578. [CrossRef]
12. Gustafson, P. (2014). Place attachment in an age of mobility. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 37-48). Routledge.
13. Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., & Ruiz, C. (2014). Theoretical and methodological aspects of research on place attachment. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 125-137). Routledge.
14. Kapucu, N., Ge, Y., Rott, E., & Isgandar, H. (2024). Urban resilience: Multidimensional perspectives, challenges and prospects for future research. Urban Governance, 4(3), 162179. [CrossRef]
15. Kiviaho, A., & Einolander, J. (2023). Digital transformation, well-being and shrinking communities: Narrowing the divides between urban and rural. Heliyon, 9(8), e18801. [CrossRef]
16. Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: Role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 381395. [CrossRef]
17. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207230.
18. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1-12). New York: Plenum Press. [CrossRef] / [CrossRef]
19. Lu, C. F., Lin, L. Z., & Yeh, H. R. (2018). Exploring the linkage effects of place attachment in rural areas using the fuzzy analytic network process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 461478. [CrossRef]
20. Markoç, İ. (2017). Konut kullanıcısı hareketliliğinde kalite ve memnuniyet değerlendirmesi: Sarıgöl konut dönüşüm alanı [Doctoral dissertation]. Yıldız Technical University.
21. Markoc, I. (2019). Twitter in the context of Oldenburg's Third Place Theory. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 7989. [CrossRef]
22. Markoç, İ. (2020). Kadının sosyal medya kullanımı ve sosyal yaşama katılımında konutun rolü: Bağcılar, İstanbul. Eksen Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 2641.
23. Markoc, I. (2025), The digitalization tendency of young adults: differences by living environment, gender and education. Online Information Review, 49(1), 136163. [CrossRef]
24. Markoc, I. & Sari Haksever, T. (2019). An Investigation of the Sense of Place Attachment According to the Age Groups, KIE Congress Proceedings, Gaziantep.
25. Markoc, I., & Cinar, C. (2017). Reading Housing Satisfaction Parameters Over Housing Mobility in the Redevelopment Process: Sarigol, Istanbul, Türkiye, Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 120. [CrossRef]
26. Markoc, I., & Sarı Haksever, T. (2021). Young Adults' Sense of Belonging in the Context of SNSs and Cyberspace Usage: Istanbul, Türkiye, International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 11(2), 112. [CrossRef]
27. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 359389. [CrossRef]
28. Șerban, Adina Marina and Moxon, Dan and Potočnik, Dunja and Pasic, Lana and Ștefan, Veronica (2021) An overview of social inclusion, digitalisation and young people. In: Young people, social inclusion and digitalisation: emerging knowledge for practice and policy. Youth Knowledge (27). Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp. 923.
29. Tartaglia, S. (2006). A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1), 2536. [CrossRef]
30. Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E. (2000). Urbanization and community attachment in rural areas. Society & Natural Resources, 13(5), 399420. [CrossRef]
31. Tönnies, F. (1957). Community & society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). Transaction Publishers.
32. Trąbka, A., Klimaviciute, L., Czeranowska, O., Jonavičienė, D., Grabowska, I., & Wermińska-Wiśnicka, I. (2022). Your heart is where your roots are? Place attachment and belonging among Polish and Lithuanian returnees. Comparative Migration Studies, 10(29), 116. [CrossRef]
33. Turkish Statistical Institute [TurkStat]. (2023). Address Based Population Registration System Results, 2022. News Bulletin No. 49685, February 6, 2023.
34. Vogiazides, L., & Kawalerowicz, J. (2023). Internal migration in the time of Covid: Who moves out of the inner city of Stockholm and where do they go? Population, Space and Place, 29, e2641. [CrossRef]