Attachment to Flyover Country-Author Accepted Manuscript

“This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Community
Development on January 21, 2021 available online:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
To Cite this article:
Dorna Eshrati & Huston Gibson (2021) “Will you stay?” Analysis of place attachment to
flyover country, Community Development, DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 1 of 36
“Will you stay?”
Analysis of place attachment to flyover country
Abstract
Wide eyes, a face of surprise, hesitantly asking: “why here?” This is a typical reaction to new
international students who come to study in the central agricultural region of the U.S. Stereotypical
images have made the central U.S. to be perceived as merely “flyover states” to many people,
and surprising destinations when chosen for study, relocation, or even travel. For many who are
from rural flyover country communities, finding better job opportunities and more diverse options
for living have been convincing enough to move elsewhere, causing considerable population
decline. This paper investigates the concept of place attachment in the State of Kansas, USA and
shows that despite individuals’ emotional bonds to certain aspects of their state, most notably the
communal aspect, most intend to leave to seek opportunities elsewhere. This study unfolds
community attachment factors to an agricultural region and also identifies the types of attachment
people have with it.
Keywords: Place Attachment, Perception, Mobile Attachment, Kansas.
Introduction
In each decade of the second half of the 20th
century, rural counties experienced a significant out-
migration of the younger generation aged 20 to 29 (Johnson, Elder, & Stern, 2005); this has been

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 2 of 36
recognized as the “greatest threat” to non-metropolitan communities by the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA, 2010, n.p.). Kansas (KS), for example, is a state in the midwestern Great
Plains of the United States which has seen a considerable population decline in its smaller towns.
It is the 15th largest state in the US with regards to pure surface area, but in terms of population,
it is only the 33rd most populated. KS growth rate of 0.57% annually ranks it 31st among all 50
states (World Population Review, 2018). Population growth in KS decreased from about 20% to
less than 2% in two time periods of 1980-2010 and 2010-2016 (University of Kansas Institute for
Policy & Social Research, 2017). KS migration rate, or the difference of in-migration and
outmigration, has also decreased steadily from 2011 to 2016 (Governing, 2018). KS now has
more than 6,000 ghost towns and dwindling communities (World Population Review, 2018). Only
two regions in KS (East Central and South-Central regions) have a positive population growth
from 2015 to 2016. The populations in most of the counties in western KS are projected to be less
than 5000 in 2044 (The University of Kansas Institute for Policy & Social Research, 2017).
KS is often known to be “flat and featureless” (Richmond, 1992, p. 1) and neglected due to the
stereotypical image that people have of the central agricultural states (Eshrati, 2018; 2020). Even
for residents of this region, one seldomly hears from the younger generation about their intention
to continue living there; a concept that was traditionally known as “place attachment.” However,
this does not necessarily mean that they do not have emotional bonds to where they live. The
introduction of some concepts like “place as routs” (Gustafson, 2014), “mobile attachment”
(Barcus & Brunn, 2009) or “transitional identity” (Petzen, 2004; Habarakada & Shin, 2018) proves
that “the place of belongingness is becoming increasingly flexible, multidimensional, and complex”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 3 of 36
(Ibid, p.12). Recent studies on the topic show a shift to less static definitions for place attachment
and considering the notion of “mobility” when defining place attachment. “Mobile attachment” has
been conceptualized as emotional connections that are being maintained with places where
people no longer live or where they do not intend to stay. Even though place attachments are
usually taken for granted (Mihaylov & Perkins, 2014), long-lasting literature proves that higher
place attachment would result in more social satisfaction and better social capital (Lewicka, 2011).
Despite being heavily studied, there is a lack of coherence in place-based research, most
evidently in the varieties of definitions and explorations of place-based research. The
observations about the concept of attachment in agriculture-based communities motivated the
authors to conduct this study regarding the type(s) and factors of sense of attachment to a flyover
state like KS among the younger generation. The main research question focuses on if college
students studying in KS feel a sense of attachment to the state, and if so, what factors are shaping
such attachments. The study also seeks to find out the types of attachment the younger
generation has felt toward KS. Thirty-seven (37) students, enrolled in an interdisciplinary regional
and community planning course at Kansas State University, participated in a qualitative study by
completing an in-depth interview and a follow-up reflection paper for which the students were
asked if or how the interview content changed their mind regarding their sense of attachment to
KS. The qualitative methods were used as questions about experience, meaning, and
perspective, from the standpoint of the participants are usually not amenable to counting or
measuring (Hammarberg et al., 2016).

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 4 of 36
The findings can strengthen the theoretical discussion regarding the importance of mobile
attachment for future community development discourse in rural areas. The results of this study
can benefit community developers and planning practitioners, educators, policymakers, and local
leaders about the reasons for which younger people migrate from agricultural communities. They
also can obtain knowledge and identify individuals with strong attachments in order to engage
them in the future of rural agricultural-based communities. In addition, the research highlights the
importance of considering the different types of attachment, most importantly mobile attachment,
in rural communities as people could feel a strong attachment to their place but have no desire to
stay long term.
Literature Review
The connections humans establish with their environment has considerable significance in place-
making. The course textbook of the students (research participants) in this study, Chen et al.
(2013) Introduction to Cities: How Place and Space Shape Human Experience, argues that “the
places we are from constitute an important part of who we are” (p. 14) and “have the power to
shape human lives” (Ibid, p. 26). Likewise, in The Phenomenon of Place, Norberg-Schulz believes
that “the child gets acquainted with environment, and develops perceptual schemata which
determine all future experiences” (1996, p. 424). In other words, people define themselves with
places that they have deep emotional and psychological ties to (Convery et al., 2012, p. 1).
The psychological concept of spatial identity was first introduced in 1978 by Harold Proshansky
who “conceptualizes place-identity as a specific component (subidentity) of each individual's self-

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 5 of 36
identity” (1978, p. 147). Place attachment is defined as the “bonding of people to places” based
on which they prefer to spend most of their time in those places (Devine-Wright, 2007; Low &
Altman, 1992; Werner et al., 1993). Steele (1981) considers the sense of attachment as
meanings, symbols, and qualities that people associated with an area that can be perceived
individually or collectively in a conscious or an unconscious way. He argued that when people
feel attached to a certain place, they consider that place as a part of their own identity and respect
the space. Although the relationship between the two concepts of place-attachment and place
identity is not exactly defined yet, it is widely believed that place attachment is an affective-
emotional bond with the place one lives in, while place identity is a self-concept of personal identity
to the place one belongs to (Droseltis & Vignoles, 2010; Hern ández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace,
& Hess, 2007; Lewicka, 2010).
Despite being heavily studied, there is a lack of coherence in place-based research most
especially in the varieties of definitions and explorations of the concept of place attachment. David
Hummon (1992) introduced five ranges for attachment which are proved by Lewicka (2011; 2012)
in quantitative researches. Two of the categories revolve around “traditional” and “active”
attachments, which are identified respectively based on a habitual and intentional desire to live in
a place. More recent definitions for place attachment have shifted from a fixed feeling toward a
long-term residence to a more flexible one considering feelings of a mobile person. “Place as
roots” versus “place as routs” is what Gustafson (2014, pp. 38-39) introduced to highlight
respectively places as where we rooted versus places as “meaningful expressions of a person’s

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 6 of 36
individual trajectory and identity, by representing personal development, personal achievement,
and personal choice rather than roots and continuity.”
Barcus and Brunn (2009) expand the effects of the differences in mobility on the attachment
people have toward places in a study on attendees of family reunions in eastern Kentucky. They
categorized their participants into three groups: “rooted in place”, “tied to place,” and “mobile but
attached.” “Rooted” people have strong positive relations with their communities and remain in
place by choice, while those who are just “tied to place” have weaker bonds with negative feelings
toward their home places. The last group who have “mobile attachment” are those who had left
their home place but maintain their emotional connections with that place. Thoedori and Theodori
(2015) investigate how community attachment, sense of community, and education aspiration
may influence Texan youths’ intentions to stay or migrate away from their rural home
communities. They reinforce the importance of mobile attachment as those students with the
intention to leave “are nor necessary less attached or committed to their home communities than
students who stay; moreover, they are nor all lost, never to return” (Ibid, p. 388).
Considering mobility in relation to attachment to place has also been argued in other studies.
Petzen (2004), for instance, considered the notion of “transitional identity” of place in studying
people who have grown up away from the supposed “homeland,” but in actuality, do not feel much
connection to it. Habarakada and Shin (2018) in a study regarding transnational religious place-
making also prove that “the place of belongingness is becoming increasingly flexible,
multidimensional, and complex” (2018, p. 12). All these studies show that there is not one fixed
definition that can describe different kinds of attachment people have to place.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 7 of 36
Familiarity with a place can lead to “deep care and concern for that place” that fulfills basic human
needs (Relph, 1976, p. 37). These “positive experienced bonds” (Brown & Perkins, 1992, p. 2) to
where we live or to certain aspects of it results in an increased level of community action
(Theodori, 2004; Theodori, 2018) to preserve, protect, or improve communities (Manzo & Perkins,
2006). David McMillan and David Chavis (1986) identified four key elements contributing to a
strong sense of community including membership, social interaction, integration, and shared
emotional connection.
The sense of place plays an important role in the future of living spaces especially in rural areas
where a decreasing sense of attachment, caused mainly by globalization, education process and
mass media, can threaten the survival of communities. In fact, in many places, the process of
schooling actually encourages many youths to reject their home communities and to look
elsewhere for the good life depicted by media advertisers and the entertainment industry
(Gruenewald & Smith, 2008, pp. xv-xvi).
In his book, Learning to leave: The irony of schooling in a coastal community, Michael Corbett
(2007) explores such problematic connection between education and migration in rural
communities. He explains that if education is to be democratic and serve the purpose of social
and cultural elevation, then it must adapt to the specificity of its locale, rather than devaluing rural
areas and their communities. Place-based or place-conscious education can contribute to the
production of educational discourses and practices that explicitly examine the place-specific
nexus between environment, culture, and education” (Gruenewald, 2003, p. 10), and be
implemented as a community-based effort to “reconnect the process of education, enculturation,

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 8 of 36
and human development to the well-being of community life. It introduces children and youth to
the skills and depositions needed to regenerate and sustain communities” (Gruenewald & Smith,
2008, pp. xv-xvi) and is “a win-win strategy for maximizing the potential academic and civic
benefits of schooling” (Bartsch, 2008, p. 83).
Brown and Schafft (2011) argue that if we want to foster resilience and well-being in a diverse
range of types of rural communities, then a systematic and far-reaching commitment by
policymakers is needed. They state that “we can either facilitate the transfer of remaining capital
from rural to urban areas or we can choose to build sustainable rural communities and economies
that provide a high standard of living and social wellbeing” (Brown & Schafft, 2011, p. 230).
There is a growing increase in rural-out migration. By considering the different types of attachment
people may have, this study seeks to unfold the types of attachment professionally minded young
adults have with the state they study within. Also, it was intended that research participants get
exposed to place-based education by participating in the research and reflecting on their type of
attachment to the state that they are studying in.
Methods
Approach
Thirty-seven (37) students, enrolled in an interdisciplinary regional and community planning
course at Kansas State University, participated in a qualitative study by completing an in-depth
interview and a follow-up reflection paper for which the students were asked if or how the interview

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 9 of 36
content changed their mind regarding their sense of attachment to KS. The qualitative methods
were used in this study as questions about experience, meaning and perspective, from the
standpoint of the participants are usually not amenable to counting or measuring (Hammarberg
et al., 2016). Quantitative data presented is for context purposes.
Recruitment and Sampling
According to the nature of qualitative research, the study sample size was not determined from
the beginning; sampling was based on who enrolled in an interdisciplinary undergraduate regional
and planning course in the College of Architecture, Planning & Design, at Kansas State University
in Spring 2018, and volunteered to have their interviews included in the study findings. Thirty-
seven (37) students participated in this research. This group of students was chosen to participate
due to the interdisciplinary nature of the course, the relevancy of the topic to the course content,
and the fact that these students while not meant to statistically represent the demographics of KS,
do collectively provide a snapshot into the window of professionally minded young adults’
perceptions of place attachment.
Data Collection
The method used for data collection for this study was face-to-face interviews with the
participants, regarding their sense of attachment to KS, as well as a follow-up one-page reflection
paper. The overall process was part of a Sense of Place (SOP) activity for the course. Being part
of the study was optional; however, all students volunteered to participate.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 10 of 36
Each interview lasted between 10 and 20 minutes. By the conclusion of the interviews, a level of
saturation was reached to draw findings for discussion. The interview questions were about the
following elements:
• If the student grew up in KS or not;
• If they felt an attachment to KS;
• If they considered a typical Kansan to be attached to KS; and
• The things that they liked about KS.
In the follow-up reflection paper, students were asked if or how the interview content changed
their minds regarding their sense of attachment to KS.
Analysis
All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Analyzing the interviews and the
reflective essays were completed in three phases: data reduction, data display, conclusion
drawing, and verification. For data reduction, interviewees’ answers were summarized; one
expression was selected for synonyms used in the answers to ease data categorizing. The
interview transcripts and the reflection papers were analyzed through a thematic process. The
analyzed data showed both a connection to the literature of mobile attachment as well as
identification of the factors shaping the attachment to a flyover state like KS. These themes
constituted the axes of our qualitative research, to understand the participants’ perception of KS.
To increase the trustworthiness of the observer triangulation and member checking were
employed analysis (Lietz & Zayas, 2010). For triangulation, both of the researchers were actively
involved in data analysis. Also, the first draft of the analysis was presented to all the participants

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 11 of 36
to corroborate the findings. In addition, reflexivity was practiced (Wu et al., 2016) to ensure that
researchers carefully consider, and articulate to the reader, the choices at each stage of the
research process and that they also consider alternative perspectives (Barrett et al., 2020).
Human Subjects
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Kansas State University. No
specific data that threaten the participants' confidentiality was collected. The interviewees were
asked for permission of recording the interviews with only the aim of transcription by the
researcher. The participants' names or any other identifying information were not associated with
the audio, audio recording, transcript, or oral and written products resulting from the study. Only
the researchers had permission to listen to the recordings. The recording files were erased once
the transcriptions were checked for accuracy. The participants signed the written consent form
agreeing to the conditions mentioned above.
Findings
Participants’ Characteristics
Of the 37 participants, 60% (23 participants) were from KS. The rest were either out-of-state or
international students from Missouri (5), Colorado (2), Ohio (1), Washington (1), Texas (1), China
(2), Nigeria (1), and the Czech Republic (1). The average number of years participants had lived
in KS was 13 with 25 years as the maximum and 6 months as the minimum duration of living in
KS. 84% of the participants were between 18 to 23 and (31 students) and the rest were older than
23 years. 46% of the students were female and 54% were male, but there was no clear difference

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 12 of 36
in replies between genders. Participants were mostly studying majors related to environmental
design and planning in the College of Architecture, Planning and Design, with the majority
pursuing a degree in architecture. However, there were several students from other majors across
various colleges at Kansas State University too, such as public relations, political science,
elementary education, and civil engineering. Figure 1 shows the participants’ academic majors.
Figure 1. Participants Major Diversity, Graph.
None of the participants chose to study in KS for the sake of KS. But because of preferring to pay
the in-state tuition fee, quality of programs offered by the university and being close to family. To
explain why they selected to stay in KS, an example of a typical answer was:
“I didn’t consider [going to an out-of-state school] not because I love KS so much but because I
did not have enough money to pay for the tuition.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 13 of 36
A little more than half (56%) of students who grew up in KS considered going to school in another
state. All non-Kansan students considered going to another school except for one exchange
student who chose K-State because of his/her home university partnership with Kansas State
University.
Attachment to Home Towns in Kansas
Of the 37 participants, 60% were from KS. When describing their hometowns, mostly negative
adjectives such as “small,” “in decline,” and “not welcoming to change” were used:
“My hometown is pretty small. It’s a small town south of Kansas City. It has a population of 4500
people. So pretty small. It had one grocery store. We have a few fast-food places like Pizza Hut
and Sonic. It is one of the few places that McDonald’s has ever closed down in the entire world.
There is like one high school, one elementary school, and one kindergarten.”
“It’s a small town, about 2500 people. It’s kind of declining at the moment. It’s kind of declining
over the years unless about the 70s and 80s. It’s really a nice town. Everyone comes together
whenever there is an issue; had a tornado a few years ago and everyone worked together to
rebuild, clean up and everything. But it does have its issues. No one is really open to change or
anything like that; kind of like small-town-KS kind of thing. I think it’s just old people.”
Only being “growing” and referring to chain stores as a sign of development were mentioned to
describe the positive aspects of KS towns. However, the more intangible part of community living

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 14 of 36
in KS was widely acknowledged by participants. Participants who were from KS frequently refer
to “family,” “people,” and “school and community activities” positively.
“Six years ago, my brother had cancer. The whole town came together, we had a fundraiser at
Pizza Hut which is like the main place to eat . . . they sold out and it really helped a lot. They did
fundraisers and all kinds of things to help when we needed it.”
The “you-know-everybody type of feeling” was among the main reason they feel attached to the
communal aspect of their hometowns. Other aspects that young college students feel attached to
in their hometowns are their family house, schools, churches, landscape, local food, sports teams
and athletic clubs.
“The place that I spent time, my house, the church that I go to back there; these are the only
things I feel attached to.”
The art culture of Lucas, KS and the history of Kansas City, KS were mentioned but only once
each by two students when describing their attachment to their hometowns. It is worth mentioning
that one international student’s language about her/his small hometown in the Czech Republic
was totally different than that of the students form KS:
“[My hometown in the Czech Republic] is quite a small city especially for someone from the US.
Even [though] it’s small, we have lots of good cultural events and things to do. So, it’s not boring
or anything.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 15 of 36
There is only one example of such attachment described with details by a student from KS when
asked what the student liked about his/her hometown, Clay Center, KS:
“A lot of. There are some parks and stuff that have been around for a long time. There is a park
with a military tank in it. I used to play on that a lot. So, I am pretty attached to that. And our zoo.
We have a zoo there.”
To summarize, 22% of the Kansan students felt no attachment or emotional bonds to the towns
that they grew up in. However, 78% of them claimed that they were attached to certain aspects
of their hometowns. Their attachment to their hometowns ranged from “I do feel loyal to KC, KS”
to long pauses and hesitantly saying that they have some sort of attachment. Their emotional
bonds were more related to people than the physical aspects of KS towns.
Attachment to Kansas
In contrast to hometowns, almost all the students who are from KS claimed that they feel attached
to the state of KS. We asked students about what they would miss the most if they were not able
to be in KS for a long time. Family and the people of KS, likewise that of hometowns, were among
the most repeated answers, mentioned by 18 participants. Slightly more than half (56%) of the
students who are from KS declared that they have strong connections with Kansan communities,
most notably through churches, schools, sports clubs, and with their neighbors.
Unlike hometowns, students also claimed that they are attached to the more tangible aspects of
the state. Landscape and scenery, food and local restaurants, and the calm, peaceful atmosphere

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 16 of 36
of KS are what they would miss if not lived there. As well, half (50%) of out-of-state and
international students had attachments to certain aspects of KS including the friendliness of
Kansans, landscape, weather, and sunset. Only under 22% of non-Kansan students stated that
they have connections with communities in KS which are usually through church and college.
We asked if the interviewees consider other Kansans to be attached to KS. Of those who are from
KS, 41% believed that other Kansans were attached to KS; 23% did not think so, and 36% agree
with the idea to some extent. Some students stated that the attachment that Kansans have is
more because of being used to it rather than an authentic bond:
“I think a lot more people would go if they could get a job. I know a lot of people that are like ‘I
want to get a job in Kansas City because I know that I can get a job there.’ Instead of going out
of their way to go somewhere further. In that case, those people aren’t really like ‘Oh man I love
KS, I want to stay here for my whole life.’ They just are doing this because it’s comfortable and
it’s more secure.”
“With my hometown, a lot of people get like stuck. It’s like the Marion [city in KS] trap. It’s like
when you live there. . . they never think they need to branch out.”
In contrast, a considerable majority of non-Kansans students (86%) perceive people from KS to
be “sharply” attached to KS. One mentioned that “people from western KS are very proud of their
towns.” They generally recognize people who grew up in KS to be “crazy attached to KS,” and “a
huge part of either K-State [Kansas State University] sports or KU [University of Kansas] sports.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 17 of 36
To describe their opinions about connections that Kansans had with their communities, about
80% of students who were from KS differentiated small-town communities from that of bigger
cities of KS. They mentioned that people in small towns are more connected but at the same time
students from the small towns are more eager to leave their hometown versus people living in
bigger cities like Kansas City and Wichita.
60% (22 students) preferred to spend their weekends in the Missouri (MO) side of Kansas City
(KC), the largest city and metropolitan area in the region. Only two, however, mentioned that they
like to spend time on the KS side rather than the Missouri side. The majority preferred to spend
their time in the Missouri side because of having “more attractions” and “more things to do.” For
87% of the students, the state line was not a perceived division:
“It doesn’t really matter to me. I know a lot of people would say things like oh if you are from the
KS side, you can’t say this is yours. I grew up thinking that that was still a part of KS. I just don’t
see the point of like saying oh this is MO, it’s not KS. Because it’s still Kansas City, it has KS in it!
It’s more of KS than anything.”
We asked the participants if they were to describe KS with adjectives, what three they would
choose. The most repeated answer was “flat.” Other selected adjectives were respectively:
“beautiful, windy, rural, quiet, and friendly.” Figure 2 shows the frequency of adjectives mentioned
more than once.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 18 of 36
Figure 2. The Adjectives Mentioned Most by Interviewees to Describe KS, Graph.
90% of the participants said that they refer to KS or a place in KS as being “in the middle of
nowhere” occasionally, frequently, or very frequently. 87% of the interviewees mentioned they
moderately or extremely believed the phrase to be true.
We asked a question regarding the visual perception that participants had of KS. Interviewees
were shown a set of 8 pictures depicting generic natural and man-made landscapes of KS
including rural farm areas, prairie landscapes, large and small cities, urban landscape and
suburban areas. Students were asked to pick two images that they thought embodied their visual
perception of KS. Most students selected images of natural landscapes and farmlands rather than
urban locations. Figures 3 and 4, illustrating a small-town main street and a road with farmland in
the background, were the two most selected images by the participants. Participants had the
following comments about figures 3 and 4 two respectively:

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 19 of 36
“[Figure 3 is] a pretty general look how spot looks within KS. There are some areas that grow, but
it’s like a controlled growth; they are not going to obviously be the next KC, similar to Manhattan.”
“[I choose Figure 4] because that’s like what an overwhelming majority of KS looks like. It’s the
KS that I am used to driving through.”
Figure 3. View from the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Strong City, KS, 2017, Photograph.
Source: Image courtesy of Dorna Eshrati
Figure 4. Lindsborg, KS, 2017, Photograph. Source: Image courtesy of Dorna Eshrati

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 20 of 36
The images of the urban landscape of the largest cities, Kansas City and Wichita, were chosen
the least number of times by students. There were some interesting comments on the other
images regarding small-town population decline and the emptiness of rural KS. Figures 5 to 7
show these images with students’ comments.
Figure 5. Cottonwood Fall, KS., 2017, Photograph. Source: Image courtesy of Dorna Eshrati. One
student commented on this image in this way: “Smaller towns in KS are dying. It’s a sign of the
times but it’s also kind of sad to see all these town that people grew up in, they have so many
memories there but now it’s at the point where like are population is declining, and young people
are moving out.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 21 of 36
Figure 6. The Konza Prairie Biological Station, Manhattan, KS., 2017, Photograph. Source: Image
courtesy of Dorna Eshrati. One student commented on this image in this way: “It may be a little
cliché, but because I’m an exchange student, everyone told me that there is nothing in KS – and
that’s the picture that is most like it.”
Figure 7. The Konza Prairie Biological Station, Manhattan, KS., 2017, Photograph. Source: Image
courtesy of Dorna Eshrati. One student commented on this image in this way: “I choose this photo
to show outsiders that people do live in KS.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 22 of 36
Despite the general attachment to KS, students mostly expressed a longing to leave. Only 11%
(4 out of 37) of the participants claim to definitely want to stay in the state after graduation. All the
students of this group were from KS. Being close to family is the main reason that these students
do not want to leave:
“I know a lot of people may say when I graduate, I want to get out of KS, I am done with KS. But
I like it here; partially because of having familiarity.”
Even though students referred to certain aspects of KS that they had bonds to but in their answers,
most of them tried to highlight that they do not find such emotional ties to be very strong.
“Nothing [I’m] too attached to. It’s not somewhere where like I feel I have to come back to or I
really want to go back to. If I do end up there, I would be ok there.”
“[long pause] I mean I care for my home church. I definitely have an attachment to the house that
[I] grew up [in]. But I definitely have no interest whatsoever in working or staying in Wichita or
Wichita region. . . where I grew up.”
Only one student, majoring in architecture, mentioned that his/her motivation to stay is to help
his/her hometown develop. When asked if they will stay in KS after graduation, this student
responded:
“Oh, yeah. With architecture, I want to be able to help my city if that makes sense. Being able to
design buildings that people look at in Wichita and like ‘Wow. I like that.’”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 23 of 36
About a fourth (27%) claim that they are open to the idea and would consider staying in KS. On
the other hand, most (62%) of the interviewees were looking forward to leaving. They mentioned
that they “had enough of it” and “want to get out of it and get away from it.” Their main reasons
were finding better job opportunities, being exposed to more diversity, and more exploration
options.
“Honestly, I can’t really go back to a small town with the degree that I’m getting. So, I should
actually go somewhere where I can make a living and not starve. . . and fully utilizing my degree
to its fullest potential.”
Less than a quarter (24%) of college students that are studying in KS are proud of KS to a great
extent. To better understand what it is about KS that students do not feel proud of, we asked them
“if you could change anything in KS, what would you change?” The list mentioned below is among
the most repeated answers.
1. More development (mentioned by 46% of the students);
2. Change in the landscape by making it more diverse;
3. More flexibility to change;
4. More attention to education;
5. Advocating for KS to bring in more outsiders.
These are some quotes from students about their suggested changes for development in KS:

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 24 of 36
“I would change how guarded people are with change and development. Not a lot of people like
to see farmland get developed into and become more urbanized. . . I would like to see more
change to be welcome rather than people be super defensive about it.”
“I believe that KS could become better with time, but the government is not making it easy to
become a desirable place to live. It seems that KS spends all the tax money on the suburban
counties rather than the major cities that need to be built up if KS is ever to grow into a true
community.”
More attention to education and college funds were also a major issue in students’ ideas for KS:
“I wish our state government would be a little more forward-thinking especially with funding for
colleges. . . But there are so many states that like back it up and I feel like if KS did fund its
colleges, then our economy could massively grow. Tech-jobs and all these 21-century jobs would
move to KS. Obviously, agriculture is great. I wouldn’t change that about KS. But I wish there
were other opportunities or other large sectors than agriculture. “
A couple of students would like to advocate for KS by changing how outsiders could possibly view
KS. Two students referred to their personal stories about how people outside KS would perceive
the state.
“I would advocate for KS more just because when I came here, I didn’t know there was like this
town [Manhattan]. KS is like a lot better than a lot of people perceive” (quoted by a student from
Colorado).

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 25 of 36
“Something that makes people think it’s not just a fly-over state, just some attraction that brings
people in. I always get annoyed when people say it’s as flat as a pancake. . . I went to New York
one time and while we were in the Empire State Building, they asked me ‘where are you from?’
And we said KS. And the lady, she is in her 50s, turns to her son and says: ‘these guys are
gunslingers just like in the movies and ride horses.’ She was serious, she thought we still are
cowboys.”
Sense of Place Development in Kansas
In their reflection papers, students regularly mentioned their lack of experience in thinking about
KS. The majority of students indicate that participating in the Sense of Place (SOP) activity had
changed their viewpoints regarding their sense of attachment to KS. Some students admitted that
they have never thought about their relations with KS before:
“The questions at the interview were ones that I can honestly say I would have never thought of.”
That is probably why students had difficulties describing their attachment to KS. Long pauses
following with phrases like “let’s see”, “god”, “hmmm”, “Look at this”, “Oh, man”, “oh my”, and “oh
boy, this is hard” were used frequently when students were asked to describe KS with 3
adjectives. In the follow-up reflection paper, students referred to the difficulty that they had with
this question:
“Maybe it was because I am terrible at quick answer activities, or maybe it was because I had
never thought of KS so objectively before.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 26 of 36
“I didn’t want to pick words that would be the stereotypical Kansan, but I didn’t really know much
else.”
Some students also mentioned how this short exercise made them “reconsider and reexamine”
their beliefs about KS and “look at KS in a way” they “have not before.”
“I now have a much stronger sense of place in my hometown and my actual home. I suppose I
always had those feelings about my home but never really thought about them before, but this
exercise brought them to life.”
“I had never really said it aloud until I had this interview, but I really wish I could live in KS.”
Place-based education is needed to promote youths’ sense of attachment to KS, at least for the
time that they choose to stay in the state. Service learning, community-based action research,
and school-community collaboration can offer direction toward this aim. As claimed by the
interviewees, even a short survey can change younger generations’ attitudes toward KS in a
positive way:
“KS is home, and [the SOP Activity] helped me think [through] the most pressing questions I have
ever considered about home. My sense of place, even though questioned, was strengthened as
a result of this process.”
“It took 8 minutes of [a] questionnaire on a Wednesday afternoon for me to realize that I really do
identify with Wichita. I had never thought about how my ideas of where I am from shapes who I
am.”

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 27 of 36
Conclusion
This study shows that even though less than a quarter (24%) of sampled college students studying
in KS are proud of KS to a great extent, they are attached to certain aspects of their living
environment and communities in KS. The more intangible aspects like family and communal lives
were more appreciated by them than the physical aspects of KS or towns in KS. The factors
shaping students’ attachment were primarily their neighbors, church, school, and sports
communities. Concurrently, the thing they most strongly desired to be altered in KS was the extent
of physical development.
To answer the research question regarding the types of attachment younger generations felt
about KS, the following conclusions are drawn:
• Under 19% of the participants (7 non-Kansans) had no attachment to KS.
• About 70% of them refer to their attachment to being mobile as “KS would always have a
place in their hearts,” but they do not necessarily want to stay in KS in the long-term.
• Only 11% (4 out of 37) of the participants had tied attachment to KS and claimed to
definitely want to stay in KS after graduation.
All of the participants who were open to the idea of living in KS (38%) considered moving to big
cities of KS like KC or Wichita for their future lives. The main reasons for those who do not see
their future in staying in KS were finding better job opportunities and seeking more diverse options
for living. Such findings are supported by the State of Kansas Board of Regents data that claim

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 28 of 36
only less than half of the 2017 graduates — 45.8 percent — got jobs in KS post-graduation. That
reflects a steady decline from 54 percent of 2009 grads who reported staying in KS.
To answer the research question of whether college students studying in KS feel attached to KS,
it is necessary to tie back the findings to literature and reconsider how place attachment is defined.
If attachment to a place means declared intention to continue being in that place, then about 90%
of our participants are not attached to KS. But if we consider the more diverse range of attachment
to a place, then all of the Kansan college students are attached to KS because they maintain
emotional bonds with certain aspects of KS, whether it’s the community, the environment, or some
combination of various aspects. Even though about 81% of them did not want to stay, they did
have mobile attachment to the state. This was mentioned directly in some of the participants’
opinions about KS:
“My sense of place towards KS is more in the way of a trunk of a tree from which to branch out
instead of the old-fashioned belief of staying in your hometown and growing it.”
“While I have never imagined KS as my ultimate destination, I know that KS will always have a
special place in my heart and will always be something that I can come back to.”
Strengthening the attachment between citizens and places will play an important role in the future
of KS. State planners and policymakers have an opportunity to invest in children and the younger
generations by giving them the opportunity to rethink the unique aspects that KS offers them
growing up. This can help them “get a better idea of KS and what it means” to them and perhaps
what it could mean to their children one day. Simple and short programs can make young Kansans

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 29 of 36
“take a step back” and ask themselves what they like about the state, and alternatively what they
might desire to change and/or improve for an enhanced quality of life.
This study not only unfolds the community attachment factors to agricultural areas but also
identifies that even though younger generations may not have a tied attachment to their rural
home places, they do feel a strong mobile attachment to them. The findings strengthen the
theoretical discussion regarding the importance of mobile attachment for future community
development discourse in rural areas.
Future Research Directions
This study focuses on Kansas, with a targeted sample of students; findings provide a snapshot
into the thinking of professionally-oriented young adults in “fly-over” country. Community
developers, planners, and local leaders should not overlook the different types of attachment. If
states, regions, and localities are going to meaningfully attempt to attract and retain young talent
in areas facing growing rural out-migration, a more nuanced understanding of place-based
research is warranted; including not only broader samples, but more importantly, increased clarity
of definitions of place, identity, and attachment. This information is also important to help guide
the future of students studying at place-based institutions, such as a state university. We advocate
for future research to further pursue such avenues in the Midwestern United States and beyond.
References
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. Plenum.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 30 of 36
Barrett, A.; Kajamaa, A.; & Johnston, J. (2020). How to … be reflexive when conducting
qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13133
Bartsch, J. (2008). Youth as resources in revitalizing communities. In Gruenewald D. A., Smith
G. A. (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 65-84)
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low
(Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279-304). Plenum.
Brown, D. L. & Schafft, K. A. (2011). Rural people and communities in the 21st Century:
Resilience and transformation. Polity Press.
Chen, X., Orum, A. M., & Paulsen, K. E. (2013). Introduction to cities: How place and space
shape human experience. Wiley-Blackwell.
Convery, I., Corsane, G., & Davis, P. (2012). Introduction: Making sense of place. In D. J.
Timothy (Ed.), Making sense of place: Multidisciplinary perspectives. The Boydell Press.
Corbett, M. J. (2007). Learning to leave: The irony of schooling in a coastal community.
Fernwood Pub.
Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Reflections on place attachment and favourite places. IAPS Bulletin,
31, 6-8. https://www.udc.es/dep/ps/grupo/bulletin/bulletin31.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 31 of 36
Droseltis, O., & Vignoles, V. L. (2010). Towards an integrative model of place identification:
dimensionality and predictors of intrapersonal-level place preferences. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30 (1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.006
Eshrati, D. (2018). Type versus stereotype: An analysis of international college students’
perceptions of US cities and public spaces. ArchNet International Journal of Architectural
Research 12 (2), 263-280. http://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1630.
Eshrati, D. (2020). Never too many parks: The history of Kansas pleasure grounds (1850-1920).
K-REx: Kansas State University Research Exchange. https://hdl.handle.net/2097/40547
Governing. (2018). State Migration Rates, Net Totals: 2011-2016.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-migration-rates-annual-net-migration-
by-state.html
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational
Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local
diversity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844
Habarakada, S., & Shin, H. (2018). Transnational religious place-making: Sri Lankan migrants’
physical and virtual Buddhist places in South Korea. Space and Culture, 22(4), 474-488.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218760489

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 32 of 36
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use
them and how to judge them, Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498-
501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Place attachment
and place identity in natives and no-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27(3), 310-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003
Barcus, H. R., & Brunn, S. D. (2009). Towards a typology of mobility and place attachment in
rural America. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 15(1/2), 26-48.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41446817
Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment. local sentiment and sense of place identity in
natives and non-natives. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253-
277). Plenum Press.
Hummon, D. (2014). Place attachment in the age of mobility. In L. C. Manzo, & P. Devine-
Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 37-
48). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203757765
World Population Review. (2018). Kansas Population.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/kansas-population/

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 33 of 36
Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Stern, M. (2005). Attachments to family and
community and the young adult transition of rural youth. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 15(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00088.x
Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place
scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
Lewicka, M. (2010). On the Varieties of People's Relationships with Places: Hummon's
Typology Revisited. Environment & Behavior, 43(5), 676-709.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364917
Lewicka, M. (2014). In search of roots, memory as enabler of place attachment. In L. Manzo, &
P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and
applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203757765
Lietz, C. A., & Zayas, L. E. (2010). Evaluating Qualitative Research for Social Work
Practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188-202. https://doi.org/10.18060/589
Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place
Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning
Literature, 20(4), 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 34 of 36
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Mihaylov, N., & Perkins, D. D. (2014). Community Place Attachment and Its Role in Social
Capital Development. In L. Manzo, & Devine-Wright Patrick (Eds.), Place Attachment:
Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203757765
Norberg–Schulz, C. (1996). The phenomenon of place. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.), Theorizing a New
Agenda for Architecture. an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. Princeton
Architectural Press.
Petzen, J. (2004). Home or homelike? Turkish queers manage space in Berlin. Space and
Culture, 7(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331203256851
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The City and self-Identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147-
169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002
Relph, E. (1980). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
Richmond, R. W. (1992). Kansas, a pictorial history. University Press of Kansas.
Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. CBI Publishing Company.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 35 of 36
The State of Kansas Board of Regents. (2019). Percentage of graduates employed in Kansas
and average wages by sector and award type.
https://submission.kansasregents.org/ibi_apps/bip/portal/KHERS
The University of Kansas Institute for Policy & Social Research. (2017). Kansas Statistical
Abstract 2016. http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah
Theodori, A. E., & Theodori, G. L. (2015). The influences of community attachment, sense of
community, and educational aspirations upon the migration intentions of rural youth in
Texas. Community Development, 46(4), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2015.1062035
Theodori, G. L. (2004). Community attachment, satisfaction, and action. Community
Development, 35(2), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330409490133
Theodori, G. L. (2017). Reexamining the associations among community attachment,
community-oriented actions, and individual-level constraints to involvement. Community
Development, 49(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2017.1391307
United States Department of Agriculture. (2010). Rural youth employment.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/youth.html
Werner, C. W., Altman, I., Brown, B. B., & Ginat, J. (1993). Celebrations in personal
relationships: a transactional/dialectic perspective. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social context and
relationships: Understanding relationship processes series, Vol. 3 (pp.109-138). Sage.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1874452
Page 36 of 36
Wu, S., Wyant, D. C., & Fraser, M. W. (2016). Author guidelines for manuscripts reporting on
qualitative research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(2), 405-425.
https://doi.org/10.1086/685816

Attachment to Flyover Country-Author Accepted Manuscript

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Attachment to Flyover Country-Author Accepted Manuscript

Similar to Attachment to Flyover Country-Author Accepted Manuscript (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Attachment to Flyover Country-Author Accepted Manuscript