Where the sidewalk ends: Perceived and structural place in grandparent caregiver well-being across the rural-urban spectrum

Rural communities are usually classified using structural geographic indicators such as population density and commuting patterns, yet these indicators may not capture how residents experience the places they live. Guided by Fundamental Cause Theory and Place Identity Theory, this study compared how structural and perceived dimensions of place relate to the well-being of grandparents caring for their grandchildren, a growing group of at-risk caregivers. Using cross-sectional data from a national survey of 439 caregiving grandparents in the United States, we estimated structural equation models relating structural rurality (Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes), community economic distress (Distressed Communities Index), reported travel time to community resources (Scott Resource Accessibility Index), and perceived rurality to caregiver well-being, with three caregiver resources and appraisals modeled as intervening variables: financial well-being, resilience, and caregiver ambivalence. Consistent with Fundamental Cause Theory, financial well-being and caregiver ambivalence were the most consistent correlates of mental and physical health outcomes. Perceived rurality was associated with the caregiving context over and above structural classification. Grandparents who perceived their communities as more rural reported lower financial well-being, lower resilience, and less caregiver ambivalence. Community economic distress was associated directly with depressive and anxiety symptoms, whereas structural rural classification alone showed minimal associations with caregiver outcomes. The sample was predominantly White, highly educated, financially secure, and located in metropolitan zip codes, so these findings describe variation in perceived place within a largely metropolitan sample rather than the circumstances of rural grandfamilies. Because the data are cross-sectional, all estimates describe associations rather than effects. These findings support the notion that perceived rurality captures aspects of advantage and disadvantage that structural classifications miss, and they warrant further investigation of both structural and subjective dimensions of place in research on family caregiving across the rural-urban spectrum.