Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected world

Georgina G. Gurney; Jessica Blythe; Helen Adams; W. Neil Adger; Matthew Curnock; Lucy Faulkner; Thomas James; Nadine A. Marshall

doi:10.1073/pnas.1712125114

Edited by Anthony J. Bebbington, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved August 10, 2017 (received for review July 11, 2017)

Article Figures & SI

Figures

Tables

Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

Fig. 1.
Results from cluster analysis showing classification of respondents (n = 5,403) based on three dimensions of place attachment. (A) Dendrogram reveals respondents form four distinct clusters, representing four emergent communities based on place attachment. Height refers to dissimilarity based on Euclidean distance. (B) Spider diagrams show mean level of indirect place dependence (IPD), direct place dependence (PD), and place identity (PI) per cluster. Cluster names are based on type of place attachment as indicated by the level of each attachment dimension. High values on spider diagram axes represent high levels of the relevant place attachment indicator.
Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

Fig. 2.
Distribution of communities of use between emergent communities of place attachment identified in the cluster analysis.
Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

Fig. 3.
Distribution of pooled location communities between emergent communities of place attachment identified in the cluster analysis. Given that the distribution of stakeholders between clusters does not significantly differ among the 12 local communities of location (Table S2), data were pooled to ease interpretation.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table S1.

χ² Tests of difference in distribution of respondents among communities of place attachment between pairs of resource user communities

Community	Residents	Indigenous residents	Tourism operators	Commercial fishers
Residents
Indigenous residents	19.627 (2.1e-4)
Tourism operators	57.231 (2.3e-12)	15.779 (0.001)
Commercial fishers	64.750 (5.7e-14)	27.334 (5.1e-6)	8.707 (0.033)
Tourists	332.370 (2.2e-16)	117.540 (2.2e-16)	240.190 (2.2e-16)	226.630 (2.2e-16)

The χ² statistic and P value (in parentheses) are shown. Bolded values are significant at 0.005 (Bonferroni adjusted P value).

View popup

Table S2.

χ² Tests of difference in distribution of respondents among communities of place attachment between pairs of residential locations communities

Location community	CY	D	C	CC	H	T	BB	W	M	CC2	G	B	N
Cape York (CY)
Douglas (D)	2.295 (0.513)
Cairns (C)	1.657 (0.646)	6.524 (0.089)
Cassowary Coast (CC)	0.106 (0.991)	1.634 (0.712)	0.588 (0.898)
Hinchinbrook (H)	0.186 (0.979)	1.957 (0.581)	2.924 (0.404)	0.365 (0.953)
Townsville (T)	1.687 (0.639)	6.231 (0.101)	1.616 (0.655)	0.386 (0.934)	3.315 (0.345)
Bowen-Burdekin (BB)	2.541 (0.468)	0.317 (0.957)	10.993 (0.012)	1.686 (0.640)	1.702 (0.636)	12.090 (0.007)
Whitsundays (W)	0.832 (0.842)	1.228 (0.746)	10.590 (0.014)	0.397 (0.941)	0.898 (0.826)	10.913 (0.012)	2.055 (0.561)
Mackay (M)	3.662 (0.301)	7.425 (0.059)	3.748 (0.289)	1.354 (0.720)	5.040 (0.169)	5.576 (0.134)	13.536 (0.004)	15.313 (0.002)
Capricorn Coast (CC2)	2.547 (0.467)	4.939 (0.176)	5.128 (0.163)	1.229 (0.754)	3.175 (0.365)	7.792 (0.051)	8.880 (0.031)	10.642 (0.014)	1.906 (0.592)
Gladstone (G)	2.799 (0.424)	7.551 (0.056)	0.934 (0.817)	0.878 (0.853)	4.448 (0.217)	1.339 (0.719)	13.029 (0.005)	11.944 (0.008)	1.424 (0.699)	4.055 (0.256)
Burnett (B)	3.716 (0.294)	8.225 (0.042)	2.728 (0.435)	1.235 (0.745)	5.399 (0.145)	4.213 (0.239)	15.032 (0.002)	16.435 (9.2e-4)	0.386 (0.943)	3.599 (0.308)	0.522 (0.914)
National (N)	17.068 (4.9e-4)	29.047 (2.2e-6)	29.493 (1.7e-6)	4.814 (0.184)	21.630 (7.8e-5)	66.375 (2.5e-14)	53.425 (1.5e-11)	81.595 (2.2e-16)	34.752 (1.4e-7)	62.932 (1.4e-13)	18.595 (3.3e-4)	28.814 (2.4e-6)
International (I)	71.749 (1.8e-15)	101.400 (2.2e-16)	148.610 2.2e-16)	23.838 (4.9e-4)	82.297 (2.2e-16)	275.530(2.2e-16)	159.001 (2.2e-16)	222.860 (2.2e-16)	194.501 (2.2e-16)	247.210 (2.2e-16)	127.150 (2.2e-16)	182.910 (2.2e-16)	154.330 (2.2e-16)

The χ² statistic and P value (in parentheses) are shown. Bolded values are significant at 0.0005 (Bonferroni adjusted P value). Note that all pairwise comparisons that involved respondents from the Cassowary Coast community were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations to account for the low sample size of this community. Nevertheless, pairwise tests involving the Cassowary Coast community should still be interpreted with caution.