**Table 8.**

*Concept allocation model results (fixed effects from GLMM logistic with*

 *RI).* *The Connection between Entrepreneurial Intentions and Community Member Priorities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112287*

mixed-use facilities (AOR = 0.882, p = 0.003). Higher satisfaction with available broadband and cellular/mobile predicts a higher likelihood of interest in a downtown renovation for mixed-use facilities (AOR = 1.088, p = 0.001).

As shown in **Table 8**, among community members with interest: being female increases allocation (AOR = 1.163, p < 0.001); having an undergrad degree or more decreases allocation (AOR = 0.900, p = 0.002); higher resultant self-transcendence decreases allocation (AOR = 0.967, p = 0.001); higher resultant conservation increases allocation (AOR = 1.032, p = 0.007); higher satisfaction with broad-based community services decreases allocation (AOR = 0.948, p = 0.005); higher satisfaction with family-oriented community services increases allocation (AOR = 1.062, p = 0.003); higher importance of family-oriented community services decreases (AOR = 0.913, p < 0.001); and a higher degree of perceived behavioral control increases allocation to a downtown renovation (AOR = 1.054, p = 0.002).

*Community health center*. **Table 7** reveals that minority status is a significant predictor for increased interest in a community health center (AOR = 1.311, p = 0.002). Furthermore, lower satisfaction with and a higher perceived importance of available family-oriented community services are associated with a greater likelihood of interest in a community health center (AOR = 0.811, p < 0.001) and (AOR = 1.185, p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, higher satisfaction with and lower perceived importance of available broadband and cellular/mobile predict a higher likelihood of interest in a community health center (AOR = 1.104, p < 0.001) and (AOR = 0.923, p = 0.010), respectively. A greater perceived importance of broad-based community services predicts a higher likelihood of interest in a community health center (AOR = 1.154, p = 0.001), whereas a greater perceived importance of the economic environment predicts a lower likelihood of interest in a community health center (AOR = 0.848, p = 0.001).

As shown in **Table 8**, among community members with interest, being female increases allocation (AOR = 1.155, p < 0.000) and higher perceptions of the importance of the economic environment reduces allocation to a community health center (AOR = 0.929, p = 0.001).

*Adding gigabit fiber to a downtown area.* **Table 7** illustrates that interest in installing gigabit fiber in a downtown area is influenced by several factors. Females in the community are less likely than males to show interest in this development (AOR = 0.758, p < 0.001). Conversely, community members with at least an undergraduate degree are more likely to express interest compared to those with less education (AOR = 1.410, p < 0.001). Additionally, lower satisfaction with current broadband and cellular/mobile services and higher perceived importance of these services lead to a higher likelihood of interest in adding gigabit fiber to a downtown area (AOR = 0.839, p < 0.001) and (AOR = 1.213, p < 0.001), respectively. Interestingly, a higher perceived importance of broad-based community services results in a lower likelihood of interest in adding gigabit fiber to a downtown area (AOR = 0.924, p = 0.048).

As shown in **Table 8**, among community member with interest, higher satisfaction with broadband and cellular/mobile reduces allocation (AOR = 0.868, p < 0.000), higher perceived importance of broadband and cellular/mobile increases allocation (AOR = 1.179, p < 0.000), higher perceived importance of broad-based community services and family-oriented community services reduce allocation (AOR = 0.919, p < 0.000 and AOR = 0.879, p < 0.000, respectively), and higher perceived importance of economic environment increases allocation to gigabit fiber (AOR = 1.076, p = 0.001).

*Adding more Computers and Meeting Spaces in the Public Library (Public Library Hub)*. As shown in **Table 7**, community members with an undergraduate degree or more formal education are more likely to be interested in adding more computers and meeting spaces in the public library than community members with less formal education than an undergraduate degree (AOR = 1.254, p = 0.001). Community members that perceived a greater impact of COVID-19 on the health of their community are more likely to be interested in adding more computers and meeting spaces in the public library than community members that perceived a lower impact of COVID-19 on the health of their community (AOR = 1.086, p = 0.005). Community members with higher satisfaction with available broadband and cellular/mobile predict a higher likelihood of interest in adding more computers and meeting spaces in the public library (AOR = 1.091, p = 0.000). Community members with higher perceived importance of family-oriented community services are more likely to be interested in adding more computers and meeting spaces in the public library (AOR = 1.185, p = 0.000).

As shown in **Table 8**, among community members with interest in adding more computers and meeting spaces in the public library, being female increases allocation (AOR = 1.130, p = 0.003) whereas community members with higher perceived importance of the economic environment and community members with more positive attitudes about being an entrepreneur reduce allocation.

*Early College Credit and Vocational Programs for High School Students*. As shown in **Table 7**, community members with at least an undergrad degree (AOR = 1.264, p = 0.0002) are more likely to express interest. Increased satisfaction with broadband and cellular/mobile (AOR = 1.122, p < 0.000) and higher perceptions of the importance of economic environment (AOR = 1.116, p = 0.008) and family-oriented community services (AOR = 1.242, p < 0.001) increase the likelihood to express interest. Stronger perceptions of entrepreneurial social norms (AOR = 1.067, p = 0.006) increase the likelihood of interest, but stronger entrepreneurial intentions decrease the likelihood of interest in early college credit and vocational programs (AOR = 0.894, p < 0.001).

As shown in **Table 8**, among community members with interest, females are predicted to allocate more resources (AOR = 1.142, p < 0.001). Stronger perceptions of the health impact of COVID (AOR = 0.955, p = 0.003) reduce allocation. Increased importance of broad-based community services decreases allocation (AOR = 0.934, p < 0.001) but increased importance of the economic environment increases allocation (AOR = 1.08, p < 0.001). And higher entrepreneurial intentions decrease allocation to early college credit and vocational programs (AOR = 0.954, p = 0.001).

*Co-Working and Startup Working Space for Entrepreneurs*. As shown in **Table 7**, female community members are less likely than males to have interest in co-working and startup working spaces (AOR = 0.677, p < 0.001). Having an undergraduate degree or more increases the likelihood of interest (AOR = 1.246, p < 0.001). Higher satisfaction with broadband and cellular/mobile (AOR = 1.066, p = 0.003) and having higher perceptions of the importance of the economic environment (AOR = 1.221, p < 0.001) increase the likelihood of interest. Having higher entrepreneurial attitudes (AOR = 1.099, p < 0.001) and stronger entrepreneurial intentions (AOR = 1.099, p < 0.001) increase the likelihood of interest in co-working and startup working spaces.

As shown in **Table 8**, among community members with interest, stronger perceptions of the health impact of COVID on the community decrease allocation (AOR = 0.942, p = 0.002). Higher perceptions of the importance of the economic environment increase allocation (AOR = 1.119, p < 0.001) but higher perceptions of

the importance of family-oriented community services decrease allocation (AOR = 0.899, p < 0.001). And stronger entrepreneurial intentions increase allocation (AOR = 1.083, p < 0.001) to co-working and startup working spaces.

#### **9. Discussion**

This study demonstrates that the degree of interest and willingness to invest resources in diverse community development projects is associated with various factors such as the individual identities, personalities, personal values, and satisfaction levels of community members with the assets available in their community. Additionally, entrepreneurship exhibits both positive and negative associations with different project concepts. **Tables 7** and **8** provides a summary of the relationships between various community capitals and systems, in terms of their impact (positive or negative) on the interest and willingness to allocate resources toward these concepts.

The associations among the factors and interest in community development projects demonstrate consistent patterns, irrespective of the degree of urbanization or rurality, as measured in the current study. However, these findings do suggest that the interrelationships among communities might influence these processes.

The inclination toward downtown renovation for mixed-use facilities is positively correlated with agreeableness, but negatively associated with resultant selftranscendence. Conversely, neither of these personality traits exhibits any significant correlation with interest in the development of a community health center or the addition of Gigabit fiber. Furthermore, the satisfaction levels with broadband and cellular/mobile services exhibit a connection with the interest in downtown renovation for mixed-use facilities.

Minority status is positively linked to interest in a community health center. Nevertheless, the level of interest is also related to the satisfaction levels and perceived significance of various community assets. Specifically, a decreased satisfaction level and a heightened perception of the importance of family-oriented community services are associated with an increased interest in a community health center. Interestingly, a heightened satisfaction level and a decreased perception of the importance of broadband and cellular/mobile services are also connected to interest in a community health center.

The findings emphasize the significance of incorporating the opinions and viewpoints of local individuals while pursuing sustainable community development, aligning with the SLED model. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that decisionmaking concerning community development is influenced by both the emotional perspectives of community members and their rational evaluation of the effectiveness of the available assets in their community. Additionally, the relative impact of these emotional and rational decision-making drivers differs depending on the context of the decision being made.

Entrepreneurship and its antecedents are associated with all the concepts tested, and critically, positively for some and negatively for others. Not surprisingly, higher entrepreneurial intentions predict higher interest in and willingness to allocate resources to co-working and startup working space for entrepreneurs but are not predictive for community health centers. Additionally, stronger entrepreneurial attitudes predict a lower likelihood of interest in community health centers. Similarly, stronger entrepreneurial social norms reduce the predicted degree of resource

allocation among those with interest. The results presented in this study strengthen the intricate comprehension of the interplay among community, personality, and satisfaction/importance variables in community economic development, as highlighted in the SLED and ABCD frameworks. These frameworks concentrate on individuals, relationships, and organizations to enhance decision-making for community development. This research has demonstrated that personality traits also impact the connections people establish, their incentives for engaging with others, and the categories of activities they participate in, with community development being one, but by no means the only, such activity.

This paper has also demonstrated that entrepreneurship has some, albeit limited, potential as means for community members to participate in some community development efforts, but it cannot be the only strategy utilized. Some community development targets, like health centers, public library hubs, high educational programs either do not connect with entrepreneurship or connect negatively.

Although community-level characteristics had a minimal impact on development project preferences, with distance from an urban center leading to decreased support for the broadband intervention, their inclusion in this study is significant and extends beyond the ABCD and SLED frameworks, highlighting the connections between communities. A crucial aspect of ABCD is community formation through interaction. The proximity of a community to an urban center, where assets, resources, and services are typically centralized, can make individuals feel as connected to the center as to their own community, thus reducing the sense of lacking resources. Population size and density can also enhance interaction opportunities, enabling different types of development activities and increasing the assets available. In contrast, communities that are distant from urban centers or have low population densities and scattered individuals face greater challenges in fostering interaction among community members, leading to gaps in agreement on investments in improvement. The models and data presented in this study only partly validate this assumption, suggesting the need for further research on community distance from major urban metropolitan areas, community identity, and gaps in satisfaction and importance to be undertaken. **Table 9** simplifies the presentation of our interest and allocation results by mapping of capitals to systems.



*The Connection between Entrepreneurial Intentions and Community Member Priorities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112287*

*Caption: Community Development Concept Key.*

*S1, Downtown Renovation for Mixed Use Facilities (Built Environment).*

*S2, Community Health Centers (Health System).*

*S3, Gigabit Fiber Broadband Downtown (Communications System).*

*S4, Adding more Computers and Meeting Spaces in the Public Library (Civic System).*

*S5, Early College Credit and Vocational Programs for High School Students (Education System).*

*S6, Co-Working and Startup Working Space for Entrepreneurs (Business System).*

*I+/, Predicts Higher/Lower Interest.*

*A+/, Predicts Great/Lower Allocation among Those with Interest.*

#### **Table 9.**

*Mapping capitals to systems.*

#### **10. Limitations**

There are limitations to the present study that should be acknowledged. The data collection process was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, making it difficult to include small-town and rural communities in the sample, despite the outreach methods we employed, as discussed earlier. Although we utilized social media, phone calls to community leaders, and electronic fliers, future research should aim to conduct more in-person outreach in selected communities to ensure that marginalized community members, who may have faced systemic barriers and inequalities, are better represented. This deeper human-centered engagement would help establish greater trust with the community and allow researchers to connect with members in places where they physically gather, such as places of worship, town squares, and public parks, enabling both social networking and intercept interviewing to increase randomness of participation, and would complement the electronic outreach methods used during the pandemic. Furthermore, the present study operationalized the degree of urbanity/rurality using only three measures: community population size, population density, and distance from one of the five major metropolitan areas in the state. Future research should consider selecting variables that capture variation across the urban-rural continuum, including spatial, cultural, ecological, and demographic factors, to test which variables best explain the processes being studied. In addition, our analysis had limited representation of gender and racial/ethnic identities due to the COVID-19 restrictions on our ability to field the survey, which effectively limited nonbinary gender and black and brown participants. Future research should enhance equity in sampling.

#### **11. Conclusions**

The present analysis underscores the intricate interplay of community characteristics, individual values and personality types, and community members' perceptions of satisfaction and importance regarding various assets available in the community. These factors have varying impacts on interest in different community development concepts, emphasizing the need to consider local community perspectives and approach development as a system of subsystems. Different community development concepts serve different community segments by enhancing or expanding different subsystems, presenting opportunities for practical interventions within the community development process. The results highlight the importance of human-centered, participatory processes in guiding further interactions between experts and community members. Specifically, they suggest the need to identify groups in the community who may be most affected by the choice of one intervention over another and to facilitate community dialogs in areas where further discussion and deliberation are necessary. Such dialogs could take the form of round tables, town halls, workshops, and other similar initiatives.

The first practical intervention aims to identify community members who are most interested in a particular type of community development project. This helps in determining the target audience for outreach and involving them further in the development process. The study results for the Community Health Center project intervention revealed that minority status played a significant role in predicting support for the intervention. Minorities were found to be more supportive of the project than white community members, which is reasonable given the historical disparities in healthcare provision along racial lines. Such concerns over inclusion and exclusion are common in various community development processes and should prompt researchers and practitioners to examine the representation of voices and perspectives in decision-making processes. Success in such projects depends on engaging a diverse range of community members in decision-making through outreach.

The second type of intervention aims to identify and target specific areas where community preferences and priorities require further discussion and deliberation. For instance, the study found that support for the broadband project intervention declined among respondents living farther away from urban centers, despite its significance in promoting community well-being and economic growth. In this case, organizing a round table discussion where experts and members from other communities that implemented broadband projects can share their experiences can benefit the community. Such a dialog can help community members become aware of the challenges and unknowns related to the project while fostering collaboration and forming relationships that can guide the community development process.

#### *The Connection between Entrepreneurial Intentions and Community Member Priorities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112287*

Both types of interventions require a participatory approach to research, which involves engaging community members in discussions with policymakers, development professionals, and researchers from the outset of planning and deliberation. This process allows for input from all parties and facilitates the emergence of a design that reflects the needs and desires of the community [30, 31].

To engage communities and promote implementation, entrepreneurship and its underlying factors have been found to have a positive association with interest in and willingness to invest in certain systems, such as education, business, and the built environment. However, this connection has a negative correlation with other systems, including community health, communications, and civic systems.

As we analyzed community development priorities across different regions of a large U.S. state, we discovered, perhaps surprisingly, that there are more similarities than differences between urban and rural residents. Interestingly, preferences regarding economic and quality-of-life development choices were not determined solely by urban or rural identity but were influenced by a complex set of factors. Economic development professionals must recognize this complexity in their communities when assessing available options for the betterment of the entire community's well-being.
