- Email: [email protected]
Rural small towns: an environmental context for aging
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 151-158, 1988 Printed in Great Britain
0743-0167/88 $3.00 -t 0.00 Pergamon Press plc
Rural Small Towns: an Environmental Context for Aging Paul G. Windley * and Rick J. Scheidtt *Department
of Architecture and $Department of Human Development Family Studies, Kansas State University, U.S.A.
and
Abstract - Following a brief review of sociological and psychological definitions of rurality, this paper illustrates the uses of an empirically-derived taxonomy of environmental perceptions for understanding the rural experiences of older residents of small towns in the midwestern United States. Specifically, variations in perceptions of twelve dimensions of rural environments were examined (1) among older residents of small towns of different sizes (popuIations lOO-500,501-1.500 or X01-2500), and (2) among four groups of older residents (n = 898) displaying differing profiles of subjective social and psychological well-being. Reliable townsize differences in environmental perceptions were found for eight of the 12 environmental attributes. Illustratively, residents of smaller towns reported lower levels of community satisfaction and community invofvement, higher levels of intimacy and consensus on town issues, and fewer barriers to services and activities than residents of larger towns. Reliable differences in environmental perceptions were found for ten of the attributes for older residents differing in well-being. For example, more frai1 residents were less satisfied with their communities, and felt more constricted and isolated by physical barriers and social norms; they were less involved in their communities and less aware of available community services. The advantages of the application of person-environment taxonomies to research and intervention in rural environments are discussed. Chief among these is the re~nement gained in the understanding of individual differences in ecological adaptation.
nitions utilize more objective criteria based on population attributes such as distribution, density and composition (Smith and Parvin, 1974). Physical environmental approaches stress natural and built attributes of terrain (Spaulding, 1981). Subjective approaches are Hydra-headed (Childs and Melton, 1983). Some of these approaches focus upon selfdefining, intuitive criteria (i.e. ‘come on, we al1 know what ‘rural’ means!‘); others emphasize cultural criteria specifying the distinguishing vaiues and attitudes held, by rural residents (Flax et al., 1978), or phenomenological/interpretive criteria dealing with the construction of rural meaning from the actor’s point of view (Falk and Pinhey, 1978). The latter includes identifying rural communities by focusing upon who is rural rather than u&at is rurat (Dillman, 1981). Some of these outlooks reflect paradigmatically irreconcilable approaches to conducting science on rural experiences. There may be other approaches we have failed to mention. The point is that each offers suggestions for capturing not only ‘rural stuff’, but also the ‘right’ rural stuff at that.
Introduction Fifty-six years ago, long before it became fashionable to talk about the ‘right stuff’, Albert Blumen-
thal (1932) authored a book called ~m~~~-~o~~ stuff. The title attempted to capture the ‘traits common to all small towns’ (p. xv), despite differences in modernity. The target of this ‘sympathetic introspection’ into small town life was the little town of ‘Minevilfe’. After 50 years of research on such pseudonymous little towns, we continue our efforts to articulate the ineffable qualities of these environments. We continue to wrangle over ‘rurality’, the central construct, in an attempt to squeeze out the essence of rural experiences, to find the ‘rural stuff of aging. The right rural stuff
When we began our studies of small town Kansas elderly in 1978, the literature was replete with suggestions for defining rurality. This remains true today, of course. Briefly, geodemographic defi151
152
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt
Rural aging researchers are equally as diverse. The conceptual disputes have been accompanied by disagreements regarding the most appropriate way to research rural experiences. For instance, Coward and Lee have advocated an urban-rural comparative research strategy, writing that ‘. . . studies that focus exclusively on the rural elderly will not and cannot add to the knowledge base of the discipline of rural gerontology with respect to the effects of either rural residence or old age’ (1985, p. 17). At the opposite extreme, Rowles believes that an urbanrural comparative framework for understanding rural aging is a ‘dangerous premise’, in that urban preconceptions may blind us to the unique aspects of rural experiences; he believes that the comparative framework reinforces ‘our inability to appropriately define what we mean by rural and to independently conceptualize the notion of rurality’ (1985, p. 331). These paradigmatic differences provide a shaky armature upon which to build a case for the construct validity of rurality. These disagreements extend beyond rural sociology. Childs and Melton’s (1983) recent volume on rural psychology opens with a review of the problems inherent in the lack of standardized conceptual definitions of rural. More pertinent to issues of aging, psychologist Andrew Dibner (1983) concludes that ‘there is little convincing evidence at the time that rurality is a fruitful variable in considering rural aging’ (p. 103). Childs and Melton are cautiously optimistic, arguing that ‘until we have broad data indicating the contrary, it makes sense to behave as if there quite possibly are psychological phenomena common among rural people . . .’ (p. 437). Current paradigmatic outlooks are adopted and evaluated, it seems, according to the principle advocated by Winnie the Pooh: ‘If you believe it, it’s true; if you don’t believe it, then it’s not true’. It is doubtful that differing scientific tribes (e.g. ecological vs phenomenological) will ever be successfully merged, given differences in views of substance and change, the meanings of ‘explanation’ and of ‘fact’ (Overton and Reese, 1973). However, multiple paradigms are fruitful during this relatively youthful phase of the study of rural aging, providing diverse theoretical, methodological, interpretive and interventive approaches. The central value of our current paradigmatic discussions may reside in their catalytic and sensitizing functions; we acknowledge more explicitly the manner in which favored models define meaningful problems for investigation, suggest types of methods for exploring these problems, and provide types of explanations for interpreting the data (Overton and Reese, 1973).
The confession
of two rural researchers
We must confess that we did not begin our research embroiled in these issues; nor did we have a burning curiosity about ruralness or rurality per se. That is, we were not seeking to explain the degree to which behavioral variations among small town Kansans varied as a strict function of rural residence. We came to rural aging with backgrounds in behavioral ecology and life-span human development. Our joint interests resided in the field of environmentbehavior relations, with particular emphasis in environment-aging relations. We were interested in a rural psychology to the extent that it is concerned with a ‘comprehensive understanding of behavior in a specific environmental context’ (Feimer, 1983, p. 113). We saw an opportunity to fill a gap in the research literature regarding the subjective wellbeing of older small-town residents. (We have contrasted our results with the findings of studies employing similar measures on urban elderly populations, where this was possible. However, comparative motives were not primary for us.) Specifically, we sought (1) to assess the status of subjective social and psychological well-being of older residents of small Kansas communities; (2) to examine the extent to which physical and social environmental factors predict and, perhaps, affect psychological well-being, and (3) to generate some practical recommendations for improving the quality of life of older small town residents in greatest need of professional attention. We were most interested in a holistic focus on aging-environment interactions, an ecological range far wider and certainly different than that implied by the narrower geodemographic (population) focus. Our approach utilized the latter criteria to guide sampling and to interpret contextual influences on the well-being of older rural residents. However, we used a large variety of other predictors of well-being, including physical and psychosocial environmental perception and persona1 attributes of residents. Purpose of the paper
The remainder of this paper will discuss how nearly 1000 older residents across 18 small Kansas towns perceived and evaluated various physical, social and service dimensions of their communities. We will present a taxonomy of environmental dimensions which empirically and quantitatively represents these subjective perceptions and evaluations. We will illustrate the usefulness of this environmental taxonomy for describing differences in environmental perceptions among older residents displaying systematically different profiles of subjective wellbeing. And, despite a growing Zeifgeist against
Aging in Rural Small Towns population criteria, we will present data illustrating reliable differences in environmental perceptions and evaluations exhibited by residents of small communities of different sizes. We will close by discussing the utility of this approach for future research on rural environment-aging relations. A quarter in the dark? Before we present these data, we will give a brief overview of our sampling strategy and a thumbnail sketch of our older residents. First, in order to interview older folks in small towns, we had to locate a sample of smatl communities. We were well aware that small towns in Kansas reside within counties which vary along traditional urban-rurai dimensions. Based upon the work of Smith and Parvin (1974), a county-based index of rurality was employed which was comprised of three components: county population, number of persons employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and a populationproximity ratio. The latter shows for regional influences to occur by summing distances from a given county seat to the county seats of contiguous counties divided by the sum of the populations of these counties. Thus, our county sampling criteria were based upon population density, distribution and composition. Scores on these components were determined for each of 39 counties in eastern Kansas. These were analyzed using a principal components analysis, and index values were derived by summing the weighted factor scores for each component. Thus, the index was useful in ordering the degree of composite county rurality from low to high. At this stage, every community ranging from 100 to 2500 in size within each of the 39 counties were identified. {Thus, we utilized the Census Bureau definition of small town.) A 3 X 3 sampling matrix was formed, consisting of three county rurality index categories (more rural, moderately rural and more urban) cross-classified with three town-size categories (100-500; 501-1500; 1501-2500). Two small towns were purposely selected from each cell, yielding a total of 18 towns. These communities were chosen on the basis of combined criteria of town size and county rurality, rather than geographical representation. All communities were located in the north-eastern portion of the state. A more detailed account of this sampling strategy may be found in Windley and Scheidt (1980). We know that these criteria of rurality are relatively narrow and may fail to capture the ineffable essence of rural stuff. In this sense, our procedure may be
I53
akin to the situation of the person who dropped a quarter in the dark but searched for it under the streetlamp where the light was better. Though imperfect in this sense, these population criteria allowed us to introduce identi~able variation into the sampling procedure, and, as we will illustrate, these criteria of rural variation were systematically linked to systematic differences in environmental perceptions and evaluations. At this point in time, we know of no previous research which may have employed a similar sampling approach in a rural setting. Attempts to differentiate size categories among small towns under 2500 in population are not new, of course. Graham (1981) uses an ‘intuitive’ approach to distinguish hamlets, villages and towns. In his classification scheme, towns are the most urban, identifiable by business districts arranged at right angles; a traffic control light exists at the main intersection of the crossroads in town settings. Villages are less urban, consisting of retail businesses and services laid out in linear fashion along either side of the main road; residential areas may be found in close proximity to this thoroughfare. The most rural category consists of hamlets. Hamlets are similar to villages, though it is difficult to find commercial establishments open for business on Sundays. While towns and villages offer relief for a variety of human needs on Sundays, ‘in hamlets one steps into the nearest cornfield’ (Graham, 1981, p. 59). Though Graham’s scheme may appeal to human experience, we found that it lacked the clarity and good taste of our rurality/town-size sampling framework. SampIing of older residents Two or three local residents in each of the 18 small towns in north-eastern Kansas were enlisted to aid in the study. These persons were invaluable to the conduct of the research. Their service included drawing up lists of all residents aged 45 and older, interview items, setting up initial screening appointments for interviewers and aiding in pubhcity of the study. We selected 1000 community-based elderly judged healthy enough to complete a lib hour standard structured interview. This selection was random within town lists, replacing refusals. Refusals ranged from 0% in two communities to 37% in one town; the average refusal rate was 14% across all 18 communities. Nine hundred and eightynine persons were interviewed by ten interviewers over a nine month period. This represented 38.9% of all available elderly in the 18 towns. All respondents, as well as town panellists, were paid a modest fee for their participation.
Paul G. Windley and Rick 3. Scheidt The demographic characteristics of the total sample did not deviate markedly from the U.S. elderly population as a whole (Cutler and Harootyan, 1975), with the exception of being relatively better educated and extremely white. Thirty percent completed high school and about 16% had either attended or graduated from college. Ninety-nine percent were white. Four out of five were Protestant. Almost two-thirds (64%) were female. Most of the sample (87%) lived in single family housing. Most (61%) resided with someone; this other person was a spouse in 91% of these cases. The average age of the sample was 7.5 years, ranging from 65 to 98 years. Fifty-seven percent were married, with 37% widowed. Only 19% reported working, with most of these (61%) working on a part-time basis. Development of the taxonomy A number of community dimensions failing within two broad environmental domains (i.e. ecological and psychosocial) were first intuitively conceptualized and adapted from the work of Moos (1974), Briff (1970), Steele (1973) and Windley and Scheidt (1980). Items to assess these dimensions were then developed, pre-tested and administered to 989 older residents of the 18 small Kansas towns. Selected items representing the ecological and psychosocial environment domains were factor analyzed (orthogonal rotation) resulting in twelve factors, six for each domain. Items loading 0.40 and above were used to name the factors, were summed, and comprised subject assessment scores on the factors. We will first define briefly the six psychosocial factors followed by the six ecological factors. The psychosocial factors were: contmt&y ~~~u~~~y - assessed perceptions of the degree of autonomy of thought, voice and action (e.g. ‘This is a town where people can say pretty much what they please.‘); community involvement - the degree to which the town encourages older residents to be involved with others in activities (e.g. ‘How much does the community expect you to participate in town meetings?‘); community satisfaction with town resources - opportunities for personal growth and development, and social relations (e.g. ‘How satisfied are you with opportunities to develop friendships with others in this town?‘); ideal community the perceived importance of these latter aspects in the ‘ideal’ community; intimacy consensus - perception of degree of community consensus (e.g. ‘This is a place where almost everyone agrees on town issues and problems’); and isolation/withdrawal the degree to which the town is perceived to foster norms excluding older residents from active participation in town affairs (e.g. ‘This is a place which
expects old people to pull back from a lot of town activities’). The ecological dimensions included: s~t~f~ct~on with dwelling features (e.g. temperature, lighting levels, adequacy of space, housing quality); sensory stimulation, or the amount of awareness of visual, aural and olfactory stimuli in the community (e.g. ‘How often do you hear automobile traffic?‘); community uw~reness, the degree of cognitive differentiation of the community (complexity of one’s ‘cognitive map’ of the town) and awareness of the number of town amenities to be shown a stranger on a hypothetical tour of the town; service accessibility, the perceived distance to the nearest as well as predominantly used town services (higher scores indicate a higher discrepancy between nearest and used services, or greater inaccessibility); environmental constriction, or the degree to which the older respondent was discouraged or prevented from engaging in activities because of physicaf or social barriers in town (e.g. busy streets, lack of sidewalks, excessive noise in meeting places); and service awareness, degree of awareness of availability of 15 services (e.g. grocery store, nutrition sites, clinics or hospital, pharmacy), as well as the frequency of use of each. Apptications of the taxonomy The usefulness of these taxonomies for conceptuafizing further the rural environment is powerfully evident when they are combined. When older persons’ perceptions of environment are examined in light of both individual and environmental factors, the richness and variety of these perceptions can be understood in a meaningful way. In this regard, we will show first how these perceptions vary by town size. This analysis is important because it contradicts the common belief expressed recently by rural researchers that size of community is less important than alternative criteria for uncovering ‘rural stuff’. Secondly, we will examine the variation in community perceptions for different profiles of resident well-being. This analysis suggests the hypothesis that resident perceptions of rurai small towns depend heavily on individual differences in well-being, a concept that encourages a more psychological approach to the study of rurality. Figure 1 shows the variation of perceptions on the twelve environmental attributes by town size. On the whole, profiles for small and large town size categories fluctuated inversely on many dimensions; the medium town size profile showed less fluctuation around the baseline. No town size category showed fluctuations exceeding one SD. on any of the attribute dimensions. Significant town size differ-
155
Aging in Rural Small Towns Small
-
Medium ---Large
.......... ..
Psychosocial
Figure
Ecotoglcal
/architectural
1. Mean score profiles on psychosocial and ecological/architectural attributes by town size category (*P < 0.05).
ences were found for eight of the twelve attributes. Within the psychosocial domain, since larger communities offered more opportunities for social and civic involvement, as well as a greater number of community services than did smaller communities, it is not surprising that residents of larger towns perceived more resident involvement and experienced greater satisfaction with their communities than did residents of smaller towns. Older persons in smaller towns attached less importance to physical and social amenities as characteristics of ideal communities. Although this dimension assessed the importance of community features under ideal hypothetical conditions, it is probable that residents’ responses reflected more accurately the importance attached to environmental amenities currently available in their present communities; that is, residents of smaller towns may have ‘adjusted’ to living with fewer town amenities. Given the greater likelihood for diversity of viewpoints in towns with larger populations, we were not surprised when residents of smaller towns viewed their communities as more intimate and at a higher level of consensus on town issues than did residents of larger towns. Within the ecological domain, the almost negligible (but still significant) differences in satisfaction with dwelling features is likely explained by the lack of variability in housing type throughout our sample (almost 87% lived independently in single-family dwellings). We cannot explain the slightly higher scores on sensory stimulation among residents of small towns. Speculation might argue that in small towns, where less
overall stimulation is expected, it is more noticed when it does occur. The differences in mean scores for community awareness are not surprising in retrospect since larger towns are more likely to possess a greater number of amenities to show a stranger, resulting in more complex cognitive maps. Finally, mean differences for environmental constriction may be explained by greater population density, increased traffic and greater traveling distances in larger as opposed to smaller towns. As these factors increase, older people are more likely to perceive their greater inhibiting influence. These profiles argue that town size continues to provide a meaningful way to discriminate among perceptions of community. Because it is still unknown what specific elements constitute the ‘active ingredients’ within the town size phenomenon, it should be analyzed more closely. It seems likely that this more refined examination will determine the significance of such geodemographic variables as the distribution of people, services and facilities, and the social composition of communities in understanding towns of various sizes. It is clear from our findings that discernible and important differences in perception of community can be identified for older residents of towns smaller than the traditional urban-rural population cut-off of 2500 employed by several governmental agencies in the United States. Thus, this refinement should also examine these variables in communities with populations below 2500.
156
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt Frail I------.
Disengaged Partially Fully
engaged
Psychos&al
Figure 2.
engaged
-_-_-_.. . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . *... ..
Physical
Mean score profiles on psychosocial and ecological attributes by wellbeing type (* P < 0.05).
Figure 2 shows perceived environment profiles on the twelve dimensions for four groups of older residents displaying different patterns of well-being. These four groups were selected from a larger eightgroup taxonomy of well-being derived through second-order factor analysis. Briefly, high-low splits were determined for three second-order factors: mental and physical health, contact with others, and activity participation; thus all possible combinations yielded the eight-group taxonomy. Subjects in the ‘frail’ group were lower on all three factors, while those in the ‘fully engaged’ group were higher. The ‘partially engaged’ respondents were higher in both mental and physical health and activity participation but lower in contact with others. The ‘disengaged’ subjects were higher in physical and mental health but reported lower levels of social contact and activity involvement. A detailed account of these profiles is offered in Scheidt (1984). A general comparison of group profiles in Fig. 2 shows the environmental perceptions of the frail and the disengaged as fluctuating more from the mean of the standard score distribution than those of the partially and fully engaged. Partially and fully engaged individuals shared similar perceptions of many aspects of the environment, differing only in satisfaction with dwelling features. Fully engaged older residents were significantly more satisfied with their homes than were the partially engaged, who
were fess socially active than were the fully engaged. In general, the environmental views of the frail and the disengaged tended to be more similar to one another than to those of the other two groups. The frail and disengaged differed significantly from the partially and fully engaged in four dimensions; specifically, they reported that their communities encouraged significantly lower involvement and isolation/withdrawal of older residents. They were significantly less attuned to everyday sensory stimuli and held more simplistic ‘cognitive maps’ of their towns than did the partially and fully engaged. These differences are logical, given their lower levels of community involvement. A more detailed appreciation of the configuration of environmental perceptions of each group requires examination of the pattern of environmental scores within each profile. For illustrative purposes, we will focus on the data for the frail elderly, who exhibited worse mental and physical health, as well as a relatively isolated social lifestyle, and thus, is the group most likely to become a target of interventive efforts. On the psychosocial dimensions, the frail elderly exhibited the lowest community involvement scores, differing significantly from the partially and fully engaged, though not from the disengaged. The frail perceived fewer pressures on them to participate in
Aging in Rural Small Towns town-related activities, had less knowledge of the way policy decisions in town were made, and believed that their opinions carried little weight in influencing policy matters affecting older citizens. These frail elderly were also the most dissatisfied with their communities. This dissatisfaction extended across opportunities for mutual relations with others, opportunities for personal growth and development and town amenities. Their ratings of the importance of these attributes in an ideal community indicate that the frail perceived a ‘discrepancy between their evaluations of their ‘actual’ town and what they might ideally desire. Finally, this more frail group perceived their communities as fostering significantly greater isolation and withdrawal of older citizens. In this context, the frail reported that people in their towns tended to be judged more for their instrumental value than for their personal attributes. They also saw their towns as being more ‘youth oriented’, and reported that ‘people tend to keep to themselves’, and that ‘neighbors do not expect much help from one another’. The negative cast of their perceptions extended across the ecological dimensions of the environment also. Perhaps because of their increased vulnerability to environmental factors, the frail residents were significantly more dissatisfied than were all other older residents with all aspects of their homes. Due to their lower activity participation and mobility, the frail, along with the disengaged, reported a significantly lower awareness of sights, sounds and smells (sensory stimulation) typical of everyday life in their small towns, and presented more simplistic depictions of the features of their towns (community awareness). For example, the frail and disengaged indicated fewer places that they would show a stranger on a hypothetical town tour (which constituted part of community awareness assessment), and the length of their tours were significantly shorter, even with town size controlled. The frail reported significantly greater inaccessibility to community services; that is, on the average, the 15 services they reported actually using were at greater distances than the ones they reported as closest to them. Interestingly, they reported a significantly larger number of physical and social barriers impeding their mobility than did the other three groups. They complained to a greater extent about the lack of adequate street lighting, walking distance, lack of available rides, hazardous routes and busy streets. They were relatively well informed about the existence of specific services in their communities (service awareness); they also used in-town services significantly more frequently than the disengaged, and almost as much as the two more active com,munity groups (partially and fully engaged).
It is apparent that these older small-town residents not only exhibited systematic differences in patterns of well-being, but also appeared to reside in systematically differing perceptual environments. It is difficult to postulate a causal relationship between personal well-being and environmental perception at this point. However, the well-being taxonomy and the twelve environmental dimensions afford the opportunity to assess more precisely the nature of these person-environment relationships. Conclusions
As we mentioned earlier, our intention was to demonstrate the validity of an empirical approach for the study of perceptions of rural small towns as held by older residents. We will not argue that the approach we have taken is superior to other approaches; each tack has its own advantages and drawbacks. However, our data have taught us a number of important things about older persons’ perceptions of small towns, two of which will be mentioned briefly. First, the rural elderly are not a socially homogenous segment of society. Even in many of our smallest communities, considerable diversity in both wellbeing types and in environmental outlooks was found among older residents. This diversity calls for a more studied and fine-tuned approach by both researchers and practitioners alike. For example, social programs targeted toward increased community involvement among urban elderly may likely not apply en masse to small communities; or, housing programs tailored to the frail group in one small town may not be transferable to the frail group in another small town. In a more theoretical vein, it may be important to consider the observation made by Costa and McCrae (1980) that negative evaluations of the environment may be less reflective of one’s state of need deprivation than of one’s personality. For some frail elderly, for instance, general dissatisfaction with features of the psychosocial, physical and service environments may arise from life-long negative configurations of personality traits, which Costa and McCrae term ‘neuroticism’. Such traits are associated generally with low morale. Further research is needed to clarify for this diverse segment of the population the conditions under which perceptual outcomes are targeted more appropriately at the individual or at the environmental level. Beyond the individual community, the taxonomic dimensions that we have employed may not classify adequately the social, psychological or environmental attributes of rural populations in other geographical locales. It is reasonable to expect that elderly people living in small towns in other
158
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt
regions of the country would display different environmental perceptions along different taxonomic dimensions. Raw questionnaire items used in the present study might be administered to elderly residents in different geographical regions (both urban and rural) and then be factor analyzed by region. These factor structures might then be compared for similarities and differences. This type of comparison would discourage the natural tendency to overgeneralize perceptions and definitions of rurality. Secondly, we argue for a more committed effort to the development of both person and environment taxonomies. We believe this development to be fundamental to the further conceptualization and definition of rural environments, because it leads to the description of both people and settings as perceived and, eventually, to the specification of their relationships. This process will enrich our theoretical understanding of environment-behavior transactions by establishing causal relationships that permit prediction, and thus the identification of avenues where social and physical intervention may be most fruitful. The success or failure of interventionists depends on their ability to predict outcomes on the basis of specific environmental and personal initiatives. This requires the knowledgeable selection and the accurate measurement of appropriate outcomes to be effected by specific interventions. Our taxonomies are insufficiently developed to enable us to predict and measure at this level. However, we believe that both theory and practice have been improved somewhat by this more refined understanding of individual differences in ecological adaptation: References Blumenthal, A. (1932) Small-Town Stuff. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds) (1983) Rural Psychology. Plenum Press, New York. Coward, R. and Lee, G. (eds) (1985) The Elderly in Rural Society: Every Fourth Elder. Springer, New York.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1980) Still stable after all these years: personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In Life-Span Development and Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 66-103, Baltes, P. and Brim, 0. (eds). Academic Press, New York. Cutler, N.E. and Harootyan, R.A. (1975) Demography of the aged. In Aging and Social Issues Woodruff, D. and Birren, J.E. (eds). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Dibner, A. (1983) Is there a psychology of the rural aged? In Rural Psychology, pp. 95-112, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Dillman, C. (1981) More on identifying the rural community: how about ‘who’ is rural rather than ‘what’ is rural? Rural Psychology, pp. 113-149, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Falk, W. and Pinhey, T. (1978) Making sense of the concept of rural and doing rural sociology: an interpretive perspective. Rliral Sociology 43, 547-558. Feimer, N. (1983) Environmental perception and cognition in rural contexts. In Rural Psychology, pp. 113-149, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Flax, J., Ivens, R., Wagenfeld, M. and Weiss, R. (1978) Mental health and rural America: an overview. Community Mental Health Review 3, 3-15.
Graham, J. (1981) Identifying the rural community (and what to expect when you find one). The Rural Sociologist I, 58-59.
Overton. W. and Reese, H. (1973) Models of development: methodological implications. In Life-Spun Development Psychology: Methodological Issues Nesselroade, J.R. and Reese, H.W. (eds). Academic Press, New York. Rowles, G. (1985/86) Review of the elderly in rural society: every fourth elder. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 22, 329-331. Scheidt, R.J. (1984) A taxonomy of well-being for smalltown elderly: a case of rural diversity. The Gerontologist 24, 84-90.
Scheidt, R. and Windley, P. (1987) Environmental perceptions and patterns of well-being among older Americans in small rural towns. Comprehensive Gerontology
1, 24-29. Smith, B. and Parvin, D. (1974) Comparative levels of rurality. Faculty series. No. FS74-2 Agricultural Economics. University of Georgia, Athens. Spaulding, I. (1981) Verstehen and the rural-urban theme. The Rural Sociologist 2, 384-390. Windley, P.G. and Scheidt, R.J. (1980) The well-being of older persons in small rural towns: a town panel approach. Educational Gerontology 5, 355-373. Windley, P. and Scheidt, R. (1985) Taxonomy and environment-aging interaction: a case for small town diversity. Journal of Rural Studies 1. 297-305.
0743-0167/88 $3.00 -t 0.00 Pergamon Press plc
Rural Small Towns: an Environmental Context for Aging Paul G. Windley * and Rick J. Scheidtt *Department
of Architecture and $Department of Human Development Family Studies, Kansas State University, U.S.A.
and
Abstract - Following a brief review of sociological and psychological definitions of rurality, this paper illustrates the uses of an empirically-derived taxonomy of environmental perceptions for understanding the rural experiences of older residents of small towns in the midwestern United States. Specifically, variations in perceptions of twelve dimensions of rural environments were examined (1) among older residents of small towns of different sizes (popuIations lOO-500,501-1.500 or X01-2500), and (2) among four groups of older residents (n = 898) displaying differing profiles of subjective social and psychological well-being. Reliable townsize differences in environmental perceptions were found for eight of the 12 environmental attributes. Illustratively, residents of smaller towns reported lower levels of community satisfaction and community invofvement, higher levels of intimacy and consensus on town issues, and fewer barriers to services and activities than residents of larger towns. Reliable differences in environmental perceptions were found for ten of the attributes for older residents differing in well-being. For example, more frai1 residents were less satisfied with their communities, and felt more constricted and isolated by physical barriers and social norms; they were less involved in their communities and less aware of available community services. The advantages of the application of person-environment taxonomies to research and intervention in rural environments are discussed. Chief among these is the re~nement gained in the understanding of individual differences in ecological adaptation.
nitions utilize more objective criteria based on population attributes such as distribution, density and composition (Smith and Parvin, 1974). Physical environmental approaches stress natural and built attributes of terrain (Spaulding, 1981). Subjective approaches are Hydra-headed (Childs and Melton, 1983). Some of these approaches focus upon selfdefining, intuitive criteria (i.e. ‘come on, we al1 know what ‘rural’ means!‘); others emphasize cultural criteria specifying the distinguishing vaiues and attitudes held, by rural residents (Flax et al., 1978), or phenomenological/interpretive criteria dealing with the construction of rural meaning from the actor’s point of view (Falk and Pinhey, 1978). The latter includes identifying rural communities by focusing upon who is rural rather than u&at is rurat (Dillman, 1981). Some of these outlooks reflect paradigmatically irreconcilable approaches to conducting science on rural experiences. There may be other approaches we have failed to mention. The point is that each offers suggestions for capturing not only ‘rural stuff’, but also the ‘right’ rural stuff at that.
Introduction Fifty-six years ago, long before it became fashionable to talk about the ‘right stuff’, Albert Blumen-
thal (1932) authored a book called ~m~~~-~o~~ stuff. The title attempted to capture the ‘traits common to all small towns’ (p. xv), despite differences in modernity. The target of this ‘sympathetic introspection’ into small town life was the little town of ‘Minevilfe’. After 50 years of research on such pseudonymous little towns, we continue our efforts to articulate the ineffable qualities of these environments. We continue to wrangle over ‘rurality’, the central construct, in an attempt to squeeze out the essence of rural experiences, to find the ‘rural stuff of aging. The right rural stuff
When we began our studies of small town Kansas elderly in 1978, the literature was replete with suggestions for defining rurality. This remains true today, of course. Briefly, geodemographic defi151
152
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt
Rural aging researchers are equally as diverse. The conceptual disputes have been accompanied by disagreements regarding the most appropriate way to research rural experiences. For instance, Coward and Lee have advocated an urban-rural comparative research strategy, writing that ‘. . . studies that focus exclusively on the rural elderly will not and cannot add to the knowledge base of the discipline of rural gerontology with respect to the effects of either rural residence or old age’ (1985, p. 17). At the opposite extreme, Rowles believes that an urbanrural comparative framework for understanding rural aging is a ‘dangerous premise’, in that urban preconceptions may blind us to the unique aspects of rural experiences; he believes that the comparative framework reinforces ‘our inability to appropriately define what we mean by rural and to independently conceptualize the notion of rurality’ (1985, p. 331). These paradigmatic differences provide a shaky armature upon which to build a case for the construct validity of rurality. These disagreements extend beyond rural sociology. Childs and Melton’s (1983) recent volume on rural psychology opens with a review of the problems inherent in the lack of standardized conceptual definitions of rural. More pertinent to issues of aging, psychologist Andrew Dibner (1983) concludes that ‘there is little convincing evidence at the time that rurality is a fruitful variable in considering rural aging’ (p. 103). Childs and Melton are cautiously optimistic, arguing that ‘until we have broad data indicating the contrary, it makes sense to behave as if there quite possibly are psychological phenomena common among rural people . . .’ (p. 437). Current paradigmatic outlooks are adopted and evaluated, it seems, according to the principle advocated by Winnie the Pooh: ‘If you believe it, it’s true; if you don’t believe it, then it’s not true’. It is doubtful that differing scientific tribes (e.g. ecological vs phenomenological) will ever be successfully merged, given differences in views of substance and change, the meanings of ‘explanation’ and of ‘fact’ (Overton and Reese, 1973). However, multiple paradigms are fruitful during this relatively youthful phase of the study of rural aging, providing diverse theoretical, methodological, interpretive and interventive approaches. The central value of our current paradigmatic discussions may reside in their catalytic and sensitizing functions; we acknowledge more explicitly the manner in which favored models define meaningful problems for investigation, suggest types of methods for exploring these problems, and provide types of explanations for interpreting the data (Overton and Reese, 1973).
The confession
of two rural researchers
We must confess that we did not begin our research embroiled in these issues; nor did we have a burning curiosity about ruralness or rurality per se. That is, we were not seeking to explain the degree to which behavioral variations among small town Kansans varied as a strict function of rural residence. We came to rural aging with backgrounds in behavioral ecology and life-span human development. Our joint interests resided in the field of environmentbehavior relations, with particular emphasis in environment-aging relations. We were interested in a rural psychology to the extent that it is concerned with a ‘comprehensive understanding of behavior in a specific environmental context’ (Feimer, 1983, p. 113). We saw an opportunity to fill a gap in the research literature regarding the subjective wellbeing of older small-town residents. (We have contrasted our results with the findings of studies employing similar measures on urban elderly populations, where this was possible. However, comparative motives were not primary for us.) Specifically, we sought (1) to assess the status of subjective social and psychological well-being of older residents of small Kansas communities; (2) to examine the extent to which physical and social environmental factors predict and, perhaps, affect psychological well-being, and (3) to generate some practical recommendations for improving the quality of life of older small town residents in greatest need of professional attention. We were most interested in a holistic focus on aging-environment interactions, an ecological range far wider and certainly different than that implied by the narrower geodemographic (population) focus. Our approach utilized the latter criteria to guide sampling and to interpret contextual influences on the well-being of older rural residents. However, we used a large variety of other predictors of well-being, including physical and psychosocial environmental perception and persona1 attributes of residents. Purpose of the paper
The remainder of this paper will discuss how nearly 1000 older residents across 18 small Kansas towns perceived and evaluated various physical, social and service dimensions of their communities. We will present a taxonomy of environmental dimensions which empirically and quantitatively represents these subjective perceptions and evaluations. We will illustrate the usefulness of this environmental taxonomy for describing differences in environmental perceptions among older residents displaying systematically different profiles of subjective wellbeing. And, despite a growing Zeifgeist against
Aging in Rural Small Towns population criteria, we will present data illustrating reliable differences in environmental perceptions and evaluations exhibited by residents of small communities of different sizes. We will close by discussing the utility of this approach for future research on rural environment-aging relations. A quarter in the dark? Before we present these data, we will give a brief overview of our sampling strategy and a thumbnail sketch of our older residents. First, in order to interview older folks in small towns, we had to locate a sample of smatl communities. We were well aware that small towns in Kansas reside within counties which vary along traditional urban-rurai dimensions. Based upon the work of Smith and Parvin (1974), a county-based index of rurality was employed which was comprised of three components: county population, number of persons employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and a populationproximity ratio. The latter shows for regional influences to occur by summing distances from a given county seat to the county seats of contiguous counties divided by the sum of the populations of these counties. Thus, our county sampling criteria were based upon population density, distribution and composition. Scores on these components were determined for each of 39 counties in eastern Kansas. These were analyzed using a principal components analysis, and index values were derived by summing the weighted factor scores for each component. Thus, the index was useful in ordering the degree of composite county rurality from low to high. At this stage, every community ranging from 100 to 2500 in size within each of the 39 counties were identified. {Thus, we utilized the Census Bureau definition of small town.) A 3 X 3 sampling matrix was formed, consisting of three county rurality index categories (more rural, moderately rural and more urban) cross-classified with three town-size categories (100-500; 501-1500; 1501-2500). Two small towns were purposely selected from each cell, yielding a total of 18 towns. These communities were chosen on the basis of combined criteria of town size and county rurality, rather than geographical representation. All communities were located in the north-eastern portion of the state. A more detailed account of this sampling strategy may be found in Windley and Scheidt (1980). We know that these criteria of rurality are relatively narrow and may fail to capture the ineffable essence of rural stuff. In this sense, our procedure may be
I53
akin to the situation of the person who dropped a quarter in the dark but searched for it under the streetlamp where the light was better. Though imperfect in this sense, these population criteria allowed us to introduce identi~able variation into the sampling procedure, and, as we will illustrate, these criteria of rural variation were systematically linked to systematic differences in environmental perceptions and evaluations. At this point in time, we know of no previous research which may have employed a similar sampling approach in a rural setting. Attempts to differentiate size categories among small towns under 2500 in population are not new, of course. Graham (1981) uses an ‘intuitive’ approach to distinguish hamlets, villages and towns. In his classification scheme, towns are the most urban, identifiable by business districts arranged at right angles; a traffic control light exists at the main intersection of the crossroads in town settings. Villages are less urban, consisting of retail businesses and services laid out in linear fashion along either side of the main road; residential areas may be found in close proximity to this thoroughfare. The most rural category consists of hamlets. Hamlets are similar to villages, though it is difficult to find commercial establishments open for business on Sundays. While towns and villages offer relief for a variety of human needs on Sundays, ‘in hamlets one steps into the nearest cornfield’ (Graham, 1981, p. 59). Though Graham’s scheme may appeal to human experience, we found that it lacked the clarity and good taste of our rurality/town-size sampling framework. SampIing of older residents Two or three local residents in each of the 18 small towns in north-eastern Kansas were enlisted to aid in the study. These persons were invaluable to the conduct of the research. Their service included drawing up lists of all residents aged 45 and older, interview items, setting up initial screening appointments for interviewers and aiding in pubhcity of the study. We selected 1000 community-based elderly judged healthy enough to complete a lib hour standard structured interview. This selection was random within town lists, replacing refusals. Refusals ranged from 0% in two communities to 37% in one town; the average refusal rate was 14% across all 18 communities. Nine hundred and eightynine persons were interviewed by ten interviewers over a nine month period. This represented 38.9% of all available elderly in the 18 towns. All respondents, as well as town panellists, were paid a modest fee for their participation.
Paul G. Windley and Rick 3. Scheidt The demographic characteristics of the total sample did not deviate markedly from the U.S. elderly population as a whole (Cutler and Harootyan, 1975), with the exception of being relatively better educated and extremely white. Thirty percent completed high school and about 16% had either attended or graduated from college. Ninety-nine percent were white. Four out of five were Protestant. Almost two-thirds (64%) were female. Most of the sample (87%) lived in single family housing. Most (61%) resided with someone; this other person was a spouse in 91% of these cases. The average age of the sample was 7.5 years, ranging from 65 to 98 years. Fifty-seven percent were married, with 37% widowed. Only 19% reported working, with most of these (61%) working on a part-time basis. Development of the taxonomy A number of community dimensions failing within two broad environmental domains (i.e. ecological and psychosocial) were first intuitively conceptualized and adapted from the work of Moos (1974), Briff (1970), Steele (1973) and Windley and Scheidt (1980). Items to assess these dimensions were then developed, pre-tested and administered to 989 older residents of the 18 small Kansas towns. Selected items representing the ecological and psychosocial environment domains were factor analyzed (orthogonal rotation) resulting in twelve factors, six for each domain. Items loading 0.40 and above were used to name the factors, were summed, and comprised subject assessment scores on the factors. We will first define briefly the six psychosocial factors followed by the six ecological factors. The psychosocial factors were: contmt&y ~~~u~~~y - assessed perceptions of the degree of autonomy of thought, voice and action (e.g. ‘This is a town where people can say pretty much what they please.‘); community involvement - the degree to which the town encourages older residents to be involved with others in activities (e.g. ‘How much does the community expect you to participate in town meetings?‘); community satisfaction with town resources - opportunities for personal growth and development, and social relations (e.g. ‘How satisfied are you with opportunities to develop friendships with others in this town?‘); ideal community the perceived importance of these latter aspects in the ‘ideal’ community; intimacy consensus - perception of degree of community consensus (e.g. ‘This is a place where almost everyone agrees on town issues and problems’); and isolation/withdrawal the degree to which the town is perceived to foster norms excluding older residents from active participation in town affairs (e.g. ‘This is a place which
expects old people to pull back from a lot of town activities’). The ecological dimensions included: s~t~f~ct~on with dwelling features (e.g. temperature, lighting levels, adequacy of space, housing quality); sensory stimulation, or the amount of awareness of visual, aural and olfactory stimuli in the community (e.g. ‘How often do you hear automobile traffic?‘); community uw~reness, the degree of cognitive differentiation of the community (complexity of one’s ‘cognitive map’ of the town) and awareness of the number of town amenities to be shown a stranger on a hypothetical tour of the town; service accessibility, the perceived distance to the nearest as well as predominantly used town services (higher scores indicate a higher discrepancy between nearest and used services, or greater inaccessibility); environmental constriction, or the degree to which the older respondent was discouraged or prevented from engaging in activities because of physicaf or social barriers in town (e.g. busy streets, lack of sidewalks, excessive noise in meeting places); and service awareness, degree of awareness of availability of 15 services (e.g. grocery store, nutrition sites, clinics or hospital, pharmacy), as well as the frequency of use of each. Apptications of the taxonomy The usefulness of these taxonomies for conceptuafizing further the rural environment is powerfully evident when they are combined. When older persons’ perceptions of environment are examined in light of both individual and environmental factors, the richness and variety of these perceptions can be understood in a meaningful way. In this regard, we will show first how these perceptions vary by town size. This analysis is important because it contradicts the common belief expressed recently by rural researchers that size of community is less important than alternative criteria for uncovering ‘rural stuff’. Secondly, we will examine the variation in community perceptions for different profiles of resident well-being. This analysis suggests the hypothesis that resident perceptions of rurai small towns depend heavily on individual differences in well-being, a concept that encourages a more psychological approach to the study of rurality. Figure 1 shows the variation of perceptions on the twelve environmental attributes by town size. On the whole, profiles for small and large town size categories fluctuated inversely on many dimensions; the medium town size profile showed less fluctuation around the baseline. No town size category showed fluctuations exceeding one SD. on any of the attribute dimensions. Significant town size differ-
155
Aging in Rural Small Towns Small
-
Medium ---Large
.......... ..
Psychosocial
Figure
Ecotoglcal
/architectural
1. Mean score profiles on psychosocial and ecological/architectural attributes by town size category (*P < 0.05).
ences were found for eight of the twelve attributes. Within the psychosocial domain, since larger communities offered more opportunities for social and civic involvement, as well as a greater number of community services than did smaller communities, it is not surprising that residents of larger towns perceived more resident involvement and experienced greater satisfaction with their communities than did residents of smaller towns. Older persons in smaller towns attached less importance to physical and social amenities as characteristics of ideal communities. Although this dimension assessed the importance of community features under ideal hypothetical conditions, it is probable that residents’ responses reflected more accurately the importance attached to environmental amenities currently available in their present communities; that is, residents of smaller towns may have ‘adjusted’ to living with fewer town amenities. Given the greater likelihood for diversity of viewpoints in towns with larger populations, we were not surprised when residents of smaller towns viewed their communities as more intimate and at a higher level of consensus on town issues than did residents of larger towns. Within the ecological domain, the almost negligible (but still significant) differences in satisfaction with dwelling features is likely explained by the lack of variability in housing type throughout our sample (almost 87% lived independently in single-family dwellings). We cannot explain the slightly higher scores on sensory stimulation among residents of small towns. Speculation might argue that in small towns, where less
overall stimulation is expected, it is more noticed when it does occur. The differences in mean scores for community awareness are not surprising in retrospect since larger towns are more likely to possess a greater number of amenities to show a stranger, resulting in more complex cognitive maps. Finally, mean differences for environmental constriction may be explained by greater population density, increased traffic and greater traveling distances in larger as opposed to smaller towns. As these factors increase, older people are more likely to perceive their greater inhibiting influence. These profiles argue that town size continues to provide a meaningful way to discriminate among perceptions of community. Because it is still unknown what specific elements constitute the ‘active ingredients’ within the town size phenomenon, it should be analyzed more closely. It seems likely that this more refined examination will determine the significance of such geodemographic variables as the distribution of people, services and facilities, and the social composition of communities in understanding towns of various sizes. It is clear from our findings that discernible and important differences in perception of community can be identified for older residents of towns smaller than the traditional urban-rural population cut-off of 2500 employed by several governmental agencies in the United States. Thus, this refinement should also examine these variables in communities with populations below 2500.
156
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt Frail I------.
Disengaged Partially Fully
engaged
Psychos&al
Figure 2.
engaged
-_-_-_.. . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . *... ..
Physical
Mean score profiles on psychosocial and ecological attributes by wellbeing type (* P < 0.05).
Figure 2 shows perceived environment profiles on the twelve dimensions for four groups of older residents displaying different patterns of well-being. These four groups were selected from a larger eightgroup taxonomy of well-being derived through second-order factor analysis. Briefly, high-low splits were determined for three second-order factors: mental and physical health, contact with others, and activity participation; thus all possible combinations yielded the eight-group taxonomy. Subjects in the ‘frail’ group were lower on all three factors, while those in the ‘fully engaged’ group were higher. The ‘partially engaged’ respondents were higher in both mental and physical health and activity participation but lower in contact with others. The ‘disengaged’ subjects were higher in physical and mental health but reported lower levels of social contact and activity involvement. A detailed account of these profiles is offered in Scheidt (1984). A general comparison of group profiles in Fig. 2 shows the environmental perceptions of the frail and the disengaged as fluctuating more from the mean of the standard score distribution than those of the partially and fully engaged. Partially and fully engaged individuals shared similar perceptions of many aspects of the environment, differing only in satisfaction with dwelling features. Fully engaged older residents were significantly more satisfied with their homes than were the partially engaged, who
were fess socially active than were the fully engaged. In general, the environmental views of the frail and the disengaged tended to be more similar to one another than to those of the other two groups. The frail and disengaged differed significantly from the partially and fully engaged in four dimensions; specifically, they reported that their communities encouraged significantly lower involvement and isolation/withdrawal of older residents. They were significantly less attuned to everyday sensory stimuli and held more simplistic ‘cognitive maps’ of their towns than did the partially and fully engaged. These differences are logical, given their lower levels of community involvement. A more detailed appreciation of the configuration of environmental perceptions of each group requires examination of the pattern of environmental scores within each profile. For illustrative purposes, we will focus on the data for the frail elderly, who exhibited worse mental and physical health, as well as a relatively isolated social lifestyle, and thus, is the group most likely to become a target of interventive efforts. On the psychosocial dimensions, the frail elderly exhibited the lowest community involvement scores, differing significantly from the partially and fully engaged, though not from the disengaged. The frail perceived fewer pressures on them to participate in
Aging in Rural Small Towns town-related activities, had less knowledge of the way policy decisions in town were made, and believed that their opinions carried little weight in influencing policy matters affecting older citizens. These frail elderly were also the most dissatisfied with their communities. This dissatisfaction extended across opportunities for mutual relations with others, opportunities for personal growth and development and town amenities. Their ratings of the importance of these attributes in an ideal community indicate that the frail perceived a ‘discrepancy between their evaluations of their ‘actual’ town and what they might ideally desire. Finally, this more frail group perceived their communities as fostering significantly greater isolation and withdrawal of older citizens. In this context, the frail reported that people in their towns tended to be judged more for their instrumental value than for their personal attributes. They also saw their towns as being more ‘youth oriented’, and reported that ‘people tend to keep to themselves’, and that ‘neighbors do not expect much help from one another’. The negative cast of their perceptions extended across the ecological dimensions of the environment also. Perhaps because of their increased vulnerability to environmental factors, the frail residents were significantly more dissatisfied than were all other older residents with all aspects of their homes. Due to their lower activity participation and mobility, the frail, along with the disengaged, reported a significantly lower awareness of sights, sounds and smells (sensory stimulation) typical of everyday life in their small towns, and presented more simplistic depictions of the features of their towns (community awareness). For example, the frail and disengaged indicated fewer places that they would show a stranger on a hypothetical town tour (which constituted part of community awareness assessment), and the length of their tours were significantly shorter, even with town size controlled. The frail reported significantly greater inaccessibility to community services; that is, on the average, the 15 services they reported actually using were at greater distances than the ones they reported as closest to them. Interestingly, they reported a significantly larger number of physical and social barriers impeding their mobility than did the other three groups. They complained to a greater extent about the lack of adequate street lighting, walking distance, lack of available rides, hazardous routes and busy streets. They were relatively well informed about the existence of specific services in their communities (service awareness); they also used in-town services significantly more frequently than the disengaged, and almost as much as the two more active com,munity groups (partially and fully engaged).
It is apparent that these older small-town residents not only exhibited systematic differences in patterns of well-being, but also appeared to reside in systematically differing perceptual environments. It is difficult to postulate a causal relationship between personal well-being and environmental perception at this point. However, the well-being taxonomy and the twelve environmental dimensions afford the opportunity to assess more precisely the nature of these person-environment relationships. Conclusions
As we mentioned earlier, our intention was to demonstrate the validity of an empirical approach for the study of perceptions of rural small towns as held by older residents. We will not argue that the approach we have taken is superior to other approaches; each tack has its own advantages and drawbacks. However, our data have taught us a number of important things about older persons’ perceptions of small towns, two of which will be mentioned briefly. First, the rural elderly are not a socially homogenous segment of society. Even in many of our smallest communities, considerable diversity in both wellbeing types and in environmental outlooks was found among older residents. This diversity calls for a more studied and fine-tuned approach by both researchers and practitioners alike. For example, social programs targeted toward increased community involvement among urban elderly may likely not apply en masse to small communities; or, housing programs tailored to the frail group in one small town may not be transferable to the frail group in another small town. In a more theoretical vein, it may be important to consider the observation made by Costa and McCrae (1980) that negative evaluations of the environment may be less reflective of one’s state of need deprivation than of one’s personality. For some frail elderly, for instance, general dissatisfaction with features of the psychosocial, physical and service environments may arise from life-long negative configurations of personality traits, which Costa and McCrae term ‘neuroticism’. Such traits are associated generally with low morale. Further research is needed to clarify for this diverse segment of the population the conditions under which perceptual outcomes are targeted more appropriately at the individual or at the environmental level. Beyond the individual community, the taxonomic dimensions that we have employed may not classify adequately the social, psychological or environmental attributes of rural populations in other geographical locales. It is reasonable to expect that elderly people living in small towns in other
158
Paul G. Windley and Rick J. Scheidt
regions of the country would display different environmental perceptions along different taxonomic dimensions. Raw questionnaire items used in the present study might be administered to elderly residents in different geographical regions (both urban and rural) and then be factor analyzed by region. These factor structures might then be compared for similarities and differences. This type of comparison would discourage the natural tendency to overgeneralize perceptions and definitions of rurality. Secondly, we argue for a more committed effort to the development of both person and environment taxonomies. We believe this development to be fundamental to the further conceptualization and definition of rural environments, because it leads to the description of both people and settings as perceived and, eventually, to the specification of their relationships. This process will enrich our theoretical understanding of environment-behavior transactions by establishing causal relationships that permit prediction, and thus the identification of avenues where social and physical intervention may be most fruitful. The success or failure of interventionists depends on their ability to predict outcomes on the basis of specific environmental and personal initiatives. This requires the knowledgeable selection and the accurate measurement of appropriate outcomes to be effected by specific interventions. Our taxonomies are insufficiently developed to enable us to predict and measure at this level. However, we believe that both theory and practice have been improved somewhat by this more refined understanding of individual differences in ecological adaptation: References Blumenthal, A. (1932) Small-Town Stuff. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds) (1983) Rural Psychology. Plenum Press, New York. Coward, R. and Lee, G. (eds) (1985) The Elderly in Rural Society: Every Fourth Elder. Springer, New York.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1980) Still stable after all these years: personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In Life-Span Development and Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 66-103, Baltes, P. and Brim, 0. (eds). Academic Press, New York. Cutler, N.E. and Harootyan, R.A. (1975) Demography of the aged. In Aging and Social Issues Woodruff, D. and Birren, J.E. (eds). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Dibner, A. (1983) Is there a psychology of the rural aged? In Rural Psychology, pp. 95-112, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Dillman, C. (1981) More on identifying the rural community: how about ‘who’ is rural rather than ‘what’ is rural? Rural Psychology, pp. 113-149, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Falk, W. and Pinhey, T. (1978) Making sense of the concept of rural and doing rural sociology: an interpretive perspective. Rliral Sociology 43, 547-558. Feimer, N. (1983) Environmental perception and cognition in rural contexts. In Rural Psychology, pp. 113-149, Childs, A. and Melton, G. (eds). Plenum Press, New York. Flax, J., Ivens, R., Wagenfeld, M. and Weiss, R. (1978) Mental health and rural America: an overview. Community Mental Health Review 3, 3-15.
Graham, J. (1981) Identifying the rural community (and what to expect when you find one). The Rural Sociologist I, 58-59.
Overton. W. and Reese, H. (1973) Models of development: methodological implications. In Life-Spun Development Psychology: Methodological Issues Nesselroade, J.R. and Reese, H.W. (eds). Academic Press, New York. Rowles, G. (1985/86) Review of the elderly in rural society: every fourth elder. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 22, 329-331. Scheidt, R.J. (1984) A taxonomy of well-being for smalltown elderly: a case of rural diversity. The Gerontologist 24, 84-90.
Scheidt, R. and Windley, P. (1987) Environmental perceptions and patterns of well-being among older Americans in small rural towns. Comprehensive Gerontology
1, 24-29. Smith, B. and Parvin, D. (1974) Comparative levels of rurality. Faculty series. No. FS74-2 Agricultural Economics. University of Georgia, Athens. Spaulding, I. (1981) Verstehen and the rural-urban theme. The Rural Sociologist 2, 384-390. Windley, P.G. and Scheidt, R.J. (1980) The well-being of older persons in small rural towns: a town panel approach. Educational Gerontology 5, 355-373. Windley, P. and Scheidt, R. (1985) Taxonomy and environment-aging interaction: a case for small town diversity. Journal of Rural Studies 1. 297-305.