Next Article in Journal
Hydrothermally Treated Cement Bypass Dust as a Supplementary Cementitious Material
Previous Article in Journal
The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Burden and School Readiness in an Urban County: Implications for Communities to Promote Healthy Child Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156756
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion

by
Tingting Liu
1,2,3,
Xiaoqi Shen
2 and
Tiansheng Xia
2,*
1
Faculty of Humanities and Arts, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao 999078, China
2
School of Art and Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
3
Guangdong Sustainable Design Innovation Engineering Technology Research Center, Guangzhou 510006, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6756; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156756
Submission received: 16 May 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 22 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Explore Sustainable Development in Multiple Dimensions for Human Well-Being)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The structure and interpersonal interactions of traditional residential communities have also been impacted and recreated as a result of the fast development of urban space and related communities. This study explores the interrelationship between neighborhood social cohesion and the life satisfaction of urban adult residents through the mediating effect of place attachment. A comprehensive theoretical model was constructed to analyze the action mechanism among these variables. Data were collected through an online questionnaire platform (n = 301), and structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed for analysis. The findings revealed a significant positive relationship between neighborhood social cohesion and residents’ place attachment. Place attachment appeared to play a mediating role between neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction, in which place dependence was also a potential effective mediator between the three dimensions of neighborhood social cohesion (neighborliness, sense of community, and neighborhood attractiveness) and life satisfaction. The results suggest that enhancing community cohesion may contribute to urban adult residents’ well-being by strengthening their functional dependence on the community.

1. Introduction

With the acceleration of urbanization in China, urban communities are constantly changing due to the disintegration of the unit system (danwei system, a unique urban social management system in socialist China where work units provided housing and social services), housing marketization, and increased population mobility. Traditional community structures and interpersonal relationships are also impacted and reconstructed in this process [1,2]. The micro-renewal of urban public space (e.g., improvement of green space, pedestrian paths, and public facilities) is a gradual approach to urban renewal [3] that affects the daily life and environment of residents and may also have a profound impact on the social relationships among community members. Studies have shown that rebuilding urban communities is linked to a decline in neighborhood cohesion [4] and that the characteristics of intra-urban migration (e.g., ownership transfer, changes in housing types, and the frequency of intra-urban migration) have a significant impact on different dimensions of community cohesion [5]. However, the utilization of public space in urban areas can lessen alienation among young residents through the development of social trust and reciprocity standards [6]. Urban public spaces are essential for fostering better relationships between neighbors and increasing the well-being of locals.
Urban adult residents (aged 18–60 years) are at a critical life stage characterized by identity transition (e.g., from students to professionals), reconstruction of social networks, and low residential stability [7]. These factors heighten their demands for quality of life, social relationships, and psychological well-being yet simultaneously increase vulnerability to loneliness and social alienation compared to older residents [8,9]. In particular, young inhabitants (aged 18–35 years) often exhibit weak connections to their communities, infrequently interact with neighbors, and seldom participate in local activities, primarily because of demanding work and study commitments. Furthermore, their social networks frequently transcend community boundaries, leading to a lack of focus on relationships inside the community [10]. As important members of the community, young residents have different lifestyles, social habits, and perceptions of the community environment than residents of other age groups [11], which further affects community cohesion. Future generations will increasingly opt to live in metropolitan areas as the world’s and China’s populations age, and in the case of China, the population is aging quickly [12]. Therefore, neighborhood relationships between residents of different age groups must be the focus of urban renewal.
In modern urban society, the weakening of neighborhood relations has become a social problem due to residential mobility and social changes. Previous research on community interactions has primarily examined the elderly [13,14], the immigrant community [5], and other marginalized populations [15]. There are fewer studies on neighborhood community cohesion and life satisfaction among adult groups (especially younger adults). Compared with other groups, young people may be more sensitive to perceived social interaction, environmental changes, and life satisfaction. Therefore, studying their unique psychological and social needs has important theoretical and practical value. This study investigates whether place attachment mediates the effect of neighborhood social cohesion on life satisfaction, with a focus on urban adults. The goal is to integrate the mechanism by which neighborhood social cohesion, place attachment, and their sub-factors jointly affect the life satisfaction of young residents and to provide useful thinking and solutions for building harmonious communities and promoting social stability.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Life Satisfaction

Neighborhood social cohesion (NC) refers to the degree of connection and solidarity between groups in a community/society [16] and harmony in the neighborhood network [17]. The three basic dimensions of neighborhood social cohesion are neighborliness (NEI), sense of community (SOC), and attraction to neighborhood (ATTR) [18]. Neighborhood relation factors involve interactions and exchanges between residents, including daily greetings, mutual assistance, and participation in community activities [19]. A sense of community relates to a person’s sense of belonging and connection to their neighbors, as well as their sense of being a part of the community relationship [20]. This feeling usually stems from sharing the community’s values and goals, as well as trust and respect for community members. Neighborhood attraction reflects an individual’s positive evaluation and attraction to the community in which he or she lives [21]. Neighborhood social cohesion encompasses social relationship attributes such as community trust, sense of belonging, and willingness to help each other, defined as the presence of social characteristics [22] such as trust, support, and social norms. Intergroup contact theory [23] argues that meaningful interactions between individuals from different backgrounds help reduce stereotypes and prejudices between groups and promote cooperation and the achievement of common goals. Communities with strong social cohesion can create coordinated actions and networks for collective interests [24].
Life satisfaction (LS) is an indicator of well-being, referring to an individual’s perception of how happy their life is and how well their current situation meets their needs [13]. It can be described as people’s cognitive evaluation or response to their own lives [25]. Communities with high social cohesion may be beneficial to the well-being of residents [26]. Neighborhood social cohesion is related to mental health and well-being. The benefits of neighborhood cohesion on health have been shown, and it is positively correlated with daily positive affect [27]. Studies have shown that neighborhood relationships can be a core source of support and meaning in adults’ lives [28]. Connections, mutual respect, and trust among neighbors are all considered indicators of perceived neighborhood social cohesiveness. These factors may be considered a type of social support, and by making health information and services more accessible, they may positively impact health outcomes and overall well-being [29]. In addition, neighborhood attractiveness is generally related to factors such as the community’s natural environment, safety, convenient facilities and services, and community culture [30]. These factors continue to attract residents to the community [31]. The attractiveness of the neighborhood environment can significantly improve residents’ happiness and life satisfaction [32,33]. In summary, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1: 
Neighborhood social cohesion is positively correlated with life satisfaction of urban adult residents.
H1a: 
Neighborliness is positively correlated with life satisfaction.
H1b: 
A sense of community is positively correlated with life satisfaction.
H1c: 
Attraction to the neighborhood is positively correlated with life satisfaction.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Place Attachment

Place attachment (PA) explains the relationship between people and places and “the cognitive or affective connection between an individual and a specific environment” [34], focusing on an individual’s emotional identification with the physical environment and functional dependence. Its two main dimensions are emotional and functional. The emotional dimension is regarded as “place identity” (PI) [35], and the functional dimension is “place dependence” (PD) [36]. Place identity refers to an individual’s sense of identification with a place, which involves the integration of an individual’s self-concept with a particular place [37]. This sense of identity is based on the emotional connection between the individual and the place and the contribution of the place to the individual’s self-identity. It can be understood as how individuals define themselves through their connection with a place and how this place reflects and shapes their identity [38]. Individuals’ perceptions of their surroundings and the emotional bonds they form through their actions, attitudes, values, and beliefs are referred to as self-identity [35]. Although both the sense of community and the place identity of neighborhood social cohesion involve a sense of belonging, the former reflects the social connectedness of the residents, while the latter emphasizes the integration of the individual’s self-identity with the physical environment. Place dependence focuses more on functional connections [39], specifically, the degree to which an individual depends on a place, based on its ability to meet the individual’s needs and desires, and the key needs of each resident, such as experience or activity needs [40]. Dependence can be reliance on specific environmental features, such as natural resources, activity opportunities, or other place attributes that help achieve personal goals [41].
Place attachment is frequently studied as a mediator in research; for example, as a mediator in the relationship between urban green spaces and health [42], environmental stressors and happiness [43], local social identity and happiness [44], and national identity and tourist loyalty [45]. Place attachment is an emotional and functional connection between an individual and a specific environment. Research has shown that neighborhood social cohesion has a positive effect on place attachment [46]. Neighborhoods with strong social cohesion tend to provide more social support and positive interactions, which can enhance residents’ sense of identity and dependence on the community. Individuals are more bonded to their places of residence, where they can foster social bonds and collective ideals [47]. A more expansive social network inside the community can boost the sense of social cohesiveness within the neighborhood, which in turn promotes happiness and a sense of place-specific attachment [46]. It has been noted that neighborhood relationships, ownership status of the residential environment (community sense), and perceived community safety (neighborhood attractiveness) have a direct positive impact on place attachment [48]. The availability and attractiveness of community space are crucial for people to develop a sense of attachment [43]. Additionally, place attachment is empirically associated with health and well-being. Higher community attachment leads to better perceived happiness [49]. When residents feel more trust, respect, support, and satisfaction in their neighborhoods, they are more likely to develop an attachment to the community, and this sense of attachment can, in turn, improve their life satisfaction. In summary, this study proposes the following additional hypothesis:
H2: 
Neighborhood social cohesion is positively related to place attachment.
H2a: 
Neighborliness is positively related to place identity.
H2b: 
Neighborliness is positively related to place dependence.
H2c: 
A sense of community is positively related to place identity.
H2d: 
A sense of community is positively related to place dependence.
H2e: 
Attraction to neighborhood is positively related to place identity.
H2f: 
Attraction to neighborhood is positively related to place dependence.
H3: 
Place attachment is positively related to life satisfaction.
H3a: 
Place identity is positively related to life satisfaction.
H3b: 
Place dependence is positively related to life satisfaction.

2.3. Research Models and Hypotheses

Based on the existing literature, we proposed three main hypotheses and eleven sub-hypotheses, as previously described (Figure 1).

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Using an online survey on the Questionnaire Star platform, we circulated the questionnaire link via social media platforms (WeChat, Weibo Community, and Douban). A total of 314 potential respondents voluntarily accessed the link, with 301 (or 95.86% of the respondents) providing complete and valid responses. To assess the statistical validity of the study, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 software to determine the minimum effect size that could be detected with the current sample size (n = 301). With a significance level of α = 0.05, statistical efficacy of 80% [50], and the number of predictor variables = 10 (with the addition of irrelevant variables), the minimum effect size of f2 = 0.06 (R2 = 5.7%) was calculated, whereas the actual variance explained by the dependent variable in the actual model was R2 = 52.8%, which was much higher than the minimum detectable effect size; the current sample size is sufficient to support the testing of the research hypothesis. The participants in this study were urban adults defined as those aged 18 to 65 by the World Health Organization but under 60 as per China’s pertinent legislation [6]. Since the questionnaire was pushed through social platforms, the age structure of users in the main distribution channels resulted in a high proportion of participants aged 18–25. The researchers collected additional questionnaires from the 36–60 age group through stratified sampling, but due to the low online participation of this age group, the final effective sample still showed a young demographic. Although the 18–25 age group accounted for a large proportion of the sample, this distribution feature is consistent with the mobility characteristics of China’s urban youth population. Young groups are more likely to be in the early adoption phase in a new community, which has research value for the discussion of neighborhood cohesion, place attachment, and life satisfaction in the context of urban micro-renewal. In all, 68.20% of the participants were female, and 31.80% were male. The participants’ demographic data are displayed in Table 1. Given the convenience sampling method and geographic concentration (64.12% from Guangdong), findings should be interpreted as context-specific insights.

3.2. Instrument

The study’s questionnaire consists of three sections. Demographic (gender, age, education level, marital status, current city of residence, length of residency, and current residence status) data were gathered in the first section. The second section included the scales measuring latent variables (see Table A1 in Appendix A for the specific measurement items used in this study’s questionnaire). These scales were adapted from established scales whose reliability and validity have been previously verified in international research. All scales demonstrated good internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.95. The neighborhood cohesion scale design is based on the work of Fone [51] and includes three sub-dimensions, namely, neighborliness (6 items), sense of community (8 items), and attraction to neighborhood (4 items). This assessment tool has been effectively used in studies in India [17] and China [14,16]. Place attachment is assessed using the 12-item scale [52], which includes 6 items assessing place identity and 6 items assessing place dependence. Place attachment measures have been used in both environmental psychology and tourism studies, such as in Osogbo [34] and China [53]. The life satisfaction scale [54] is a 5-item scale that assesses people’s overall judgments of life satisfaction. The scale has been psychometrically evaluated on a nationally representative sample of China [55]. The evaluation tools all use a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely inconsistent) to 5 (extremely consistent). The third portion of the questionnaire includes a trap question that is placed in the midst of the item in order to gauge how seriously participants took their questionnaire completion and to make the screening process more effective.

3.3. Procedure

The study was conducted in September 2024 using the online questionnaire platform Questionnaire Star, and all data was collected anonymously.

3.4. Data Analysis

This study used Excel to classify the questionnaire data after screening for individuals who answered the trap questions incorrectly and in circumstances where the time limit was either too short or too lengthy. We tested the overall model of each sub-factor as well as the validity and reliability of the research using Partial Least Squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which we conducted using SmartPLS version 4.0 for the processing of data. PLS-SEM is very useful for addressing multicollinearity problems, which makes it suitable for both exploring research and model structure verification [56]. To ensure the robustness of the test of the mediating effect of place attachment, this study adopted a two-track validation strategy: first, the overall structural model was constructed using SmartPLS 4.0, and then the Bootstrap test (5000 samplings) was performed using Model 4 of SPSS Process v4.2. The two methods formed a methodological triangulation validation [57], in which the process result was used as the final basis for judgment because its confidence interval method provided a more rigorous and comprehensive statistical inference method [58]. In addition to testing the study model, we conducted group analysis based on some of the respondents’ demographic characteristics, including gender, duration of residence, and city of residence, to explore potential differences in relationships and the robustness of the total mediating role of place attachment.

4. Results

4.1. Results of the Measurement Model

In the measurement model, this study assessed discriminant validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. We evaluated the measurement model for reliability and validity using composite reliability (CR), external loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and assessments of convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was verified by evaluating external loadings, AVE and CR scores, and the consistent reliability coefficient (rho_A) [59]. According to a research study by Kahraman et al. [2], the suggested thresholds for CR and rho_A should be 0.70 or above, AVE should be 0.50 or above, and external loadings should be 0.60 or above. Two items from neighborliness and one each from sense of community, attraction to neighborhood, and place dependence were excluded from the analysis due to low external loadings. After evaluating the results, we found that the questionnaire used a scale translated from research conducted in the West. Although literal translation was avoided as much as possible to reduce understanding bias, there were still cultural semantic differences in individual items, leading to comprehension bias. After removing the low-load items, the validity of the construct also was maintained. All external loadings, AVE, and CR scores, as indicated in Table 2, fell within the suggested bounds, demonstrating the acceptability of each construct’s convergent validity and reliability.
Furthermore, to confirm the discriminant validity of the latent variables, a prior study [60] indicates that the diagonal elements of a matrix (which represent the square root of AVE) should have values that are higher than the corresponding correlation coefficients of other factors. Table 3 displays the results together with a verification of the model’s discriminant validity.
The differentiation validity test for each variable of the place attachment mediator model was performed using the heterogeneous-trait–single-trait (HTMT) ratio method. The results show that the HTMT values are all less than 0.9 [61], proving that sufficient discriminant validity is displayed between NC, PA and LS. The results are shown in Table 4.

4.2. Result of the Structural Model

4.2.1. Assessing the Model’s Explanatory Ability

It has been stated [62,63,64] that the cross-validation redundancy index (Q2) and coefficient of determination (R2) as the principal metrics for evaluating a structural equation model’s explanatory power. Existing studies [63] have pointed out that a Q2 value greater than 0 indicates that the structural model has predictive relevance to the endogenous variables; R2 serves as a metric to assess how well the model’s independent variables account for the variation in its dependent variables. The explanatory strength is categorized as weak (0.19–0.33), medium (0.33–0.67), or strong (above 0.67) based on the given values [65]. In Table 5, the values of Q2 are all greater than 0, indicating that the model has a strong predictive relevance to the endogenous latent variables. The values of R2 are all in the moderate range or above, indicating that the explanatory power of the model is completely acceptable.

4.2.2. Path Coefficient Assessment

The original dataset was resampled with replacement 5000 times using the bootstrap method in Partial Least Squares (PLS). Each path coefficient’s significance was assessed using the T statistic. The standardized path coefficients and results for the study model are shown in Table 6. Seven assumptions were found to be validated by the test findings (refer to Figure 2 for the structural model). Neighborliness and the sense of community of urban adult residents have no significant impact on life satisfaction, while attraction to neighborhood has a significant positive correlation with life satisfaction (β = 0.229, p < 0.01). This result only supports H1c, not H1a or H1b. Neighborliness has no significant effect on place identity but has a positive effect on place dependence (β = 0.140, p < 0.05), which supports H2b but does not support H2a. A sense of community has a significant positive correlation with both local identity (β = 0.361, p < 0.001) and place dependence (β = 0.272, p < 0.001), supporting H2c and H2d. Attraction to neighborhood also has a significant positive impact on place identity (β = 0.488, p < 0.001) and place dependence (β = 0.443, p < 0.001), which supports H2e and H2f. Place identity has no significant impact on life satisfaction, while place dependence has a significant positive impact on life satisfaction (β = 0.465, p < 0.001). This result does not support hypothesis H3a but supports hypothesis H3b.

4.2.3. Assessing the Mediating Roles of Place Identity and Place Dependence

To test for the presence of mediating effects in the model, the bootstrapping resampling method in SmartPLS is used in this paper. Table 7 presents the test results. The results indicate a significant mediating effect attributed to place dependence. That is, neighborliness, sense of community, and attraction to neighborhood can affect life satisfaction through place dependence.

4.2.4. Testing Overall Mediating Effect of Place Attachment

Before performing the mediation model test, we conducted multicollinear diagnosis by variance inflation factor (VIF) evaluation. The results show that all VIF values are 3.042 (less than the critical value of 5) [66], indicating that there is no significant multicollinearity problem in the data.
This paper uses the process model 4 to conduct a bootstrap test (5000 samplings) on the mediation effect of place attachment. The results are shown in Table 8. The B-C method was used to perform a significance test in the 95% confidence interval. The upper and lower limits of the confidence interval do not include 0, which means the effect is significant (see Table 9). It was discovered that the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval in the test of the relationship between neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction encompass 0, indicating that the direct effect is not significant. The upper and lower limits of the confidence interval in the indirect effect do not include 0, suggesting that life satisfaction is significantly influenced indirectly by neighborhood cohesion via place attachment. This leads to the conclusion that there is a potential mediating effect of place attachment and possibly a fully mediated effect. In other words, neighborhood cohesion has a significant positive impact on place attachment, and place attachment has a significant positive impact on life satisfaction. However, neighborhood cohesion has no direct significant impact on life satisfaction. The path coefficient of place attachment between neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction is shown in Figure 3.
It is worth noting that the PLS-SEM analysis shows that place attachment has a partial mediating effect (β = 0.163, p = 0.039 < 0.05), while the bootstrap test supported a full mediating effect (the 95% confidence interval of the direct effect contained 0 [−0.005, 0.278]). This difference may be because, first, the PLS-SEM path coefficient is based on the centralization of the manifest variable, while the process test uses the original bootstrap data. Second, when the direct effect is close to the significance threshold, the parameter test method (PLS-SEM) is susceptible to slight data disturbances [67]. Based on the principle of statistical conservatism, this study adopts a more stringent bootstrap conclusion, that is, the result of the possibly complete mediation effect.
Despite the strong correlation between NC and PA (β = 0.846), the HTMT values and VIF test supported their conceptual independence. Additionally, to assess the statistical validity in this study’s local attachment mediation model, we used Monte Carlo simulation methods (https://schoemanna.shinyapps.io/mc_power_med/ (accessed on 6 April 2025)) [68], based on the path coefficients and sample sizes of the current mediation model, and conducted an indirect-impact ex post power analysis. A replication number of 1000 was set, and 20,000 Monte Carlo samples with a random seed of 1234 and a confidence level of 95% showed a statistical efficacy of testing for indirect effects (ab) of greater than 0.99. This high efficacy reflects the study’s adequate sample size and has a high effect size estimate (ab = 0.523).

4.3. Subgroup Analysis Results

In order to cope with possible cases of variation in the total mediator model, we analyzed respondents by subgroups based on their demographic characteristics of gender, length of residence, and region of residence. First, with regard to gender, the mediating effect of place attachment was significant in both male (n = 96, β = 0.543, se = 0.118, 95% confidence interval = [0.317, 0.805]) and female (n = 205, β = 0.513, se = 0.083, 95% confidence interval = [0.352, 0.677]) groups. The mediating effect of place attachment was stronger in the male resident group compared to the female residents. Second, in terms of length of residence, subgroup analyses of participants with ≤1 year of residence (n = 95) and >1 year of residence (n = 206) showed that the mediating effect of place attachment was also significant in both groups (β = 0.559, se = 0.122, 95% confidence interval = [0.317, 0.805] for the former; β = 0.505, se = 0.074, 95% confidence interval = [0.364, 0.656]). The mediating role of place attachment was stronger among residents with length of residence ≤1 year. Finally, regarding the region of residence, after analyzing Guangdong residents (n = 193) in comparison with residents from other regions (n = 108), we found that the mediating effect of place attachment was also significant in both groups (Guangdong: β = 0.433, se = 0.070, 95% confidence interval = [0.294, 0.572]; non-Guangdong: β = 0.680, se = 0.144, 95% confidence interval = [0.394, 0.965]). The mediating role of place attachment was stronger among residents of non-Guangdong areas. Overall, the mediating effects of place attachment were found to be significant in all microanalyses of respondents based on their characteristics, indicating that the effects were robust across groups.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of the Results

This study empirically examined the hypothesized model. The study used structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to conduct path analysis and bootstrap mediation effect test. The dual method brought more rigorous and robust results to the study. This research model clarified the relationship between neighborliness, sense of community, attraction to neighborhood, place identity, place dependence, and life satisfaction. The results supported most of the hypotheses, and the mediating effect of place attachment was also detected as a possible full mediation effect.
The results of this study support H1c, H2, H3, H2b, H2c, H2d, H2e, H2f, H3b. Of the three subfactors of neighborhood cohesion, only attraction to the neighborhood was positively related to life satisfaction (H1c). Young people tend to be attracted to spaces and activities that match their interests. A study [69] found that in promoting well-being, personal activities such as interacting with nature have become more important than maintaining community neighborhood relationships, which may also indicate that neighborhood attractiveness can enhance life satisfaction. However, this result is in contrast to studies that emphasize the central role of neighborhood social connections [70,71], which generally find that a sense of community or social interaction has a more robust predictive power on residents’ well-being. This difference may be due to the generational characteristics of the research subjects and reflects the changing patterns of neighborhood relations in contemporary urban life, where the attractiveness of the physical environment and the functional space that meets individual needs have become more influential than close neighborhood social networks.
In addition, the overall mediating effect test results of place attachment show that place attachment acts as a possibly complete mediating effect between neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction (i.e., H2 and H3 are supported, but not H1). This suggests that neighborhood social cohesion was not directly associated with the life satisfaction of urban adult residents but may indirectly contribute to it through the emotional and functional connections between individuals and the environment. In this case, neighborhood social cohesion is positively related to individuals’ emotional connection and functional dependence on a place (i.e., assuming H2b, H2c, H2d, H2e, H2f hold), and this dependence may be associated with higher life satisfaction [72]. In other words, neighborhood social cohesion needs to promote place attachment among young residents, who are more likely to be satisfied with attractive living conditions and experience greater well-being as a result [73].
Furthermore, the mediating effect of place attachment in two dimensions of place attachment was also significant between the three dimensions of neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction. However, the mediating effect of place identity was not significant. This result shows that the mediating effect of place attachment mainly comes from place dependence. This result emphasizes the value that urban adult residents in modern cities place on the functional dependence of community space [74]. The focus on functional dependencies reflects a broader trend in urban settings in which younger residents prioritize how their neighborhoods meet their needs—for example, access to amenities, social networks, and leisure opportunities [75]. Neighborliness, sense of community, and attraction to the neighborhood may contribute to life satisfaction by increasing place dependence. A study [76] found that interaction and engagement between residents can enhance mutual trust and reciprocity between them, thereby increasing dependence on the community. This dependence includes not only emotional ties but also reliance on community resources and services. The fairness of such interactions and reciprocity increases residents’ motivation toward the community, which in turn possibly increases residents’ well-being and life satisfaction (H3b).
Four hypotheses were not significant in the model of the relationship between the sub-factors of neighborhood social cohesion and place attachment and life satisfaction—H1a, H1b, H2a, and H3a.
First, neighborhood relations (H1a) and sense of community (H1b) do not have a positive relationship with life satisfaction, which is inconsistent with existing findings [28,29]. This may be because the lifestyle of modern urban residents tends to be individualized, reducing reliance on neighborliness and sense of community [77]. A study [78] shows that the increasing complexity of urban life, coupled with the increasing emphasis on personal space and mobility, often leads to a weakening sense of community and a reduction in the importance of neighborhood relationships. Furthermore, if younger adult subgroups’ lifestyles are more centered on work or personal interests, they may not always prioritize neighborhoods [79]. Young people tend to be attracted to spaces and activities that match their interests, such as professional networks, recreational activities, and digital communities, which further reduces their reliance on traditional neighborhood interactions [80]. These results may be due to the adaptive reconstruction of Chinese urban adults within the framework of collectivist culture. Although Chinese society has a collectivist cultural background, rapid urbanization is giving rise to intergenerational value differentiation. On the one hand, the high mobility of cities [81] has weakened the stability of geographical neighborhoods, and high-frequency migration has weakened the accumulation basis of community identity [82]. On the other hand, digital tools and interest communities (such as music festivals and pet sports exchanges) provide alternative channels for collective belonging. This is different from the traditional collectivism that emphasizes “mutual assistance in fixed regions” and is closer to “mobile communitarianism,” that is, selective collective participation based on interests and institutions. For example, in the Yichang case, “youth establish a sense of belonging through interest spaces such as community activity rooms and night-light running tracks” [83]. Compared with the traditional neighborhood model of the “town association” in Japan [84], contemporary Chinese youth rely more on “collective participation in institutional design” [85] rather than spontaneous neighborhood interaction.
Second, the neighborhood relationship of urban adults does not have a positive relationship with place identity (H2a). Based on the complexity of individual perceptions and social interactions in urban environments, neighborhood interactions, such as daily greetings, mutual assistance, or participation in community activities, may not always translate into a strong sense of place identity, especially when these interactions are superficial or infrequent [86]. Moreover, place identity is more related to an individual’s deep emotional connection with the environment. In the absence of emotional depth in social interactions, these interactions may not contribute much to an individual’s place identity [87]. It is worth mentioning that for urban adults, the relationship between an individual and the surrounding environment may be more practical or functional rather than emotional [75]. Interactions that are primarily based on practicality (such as interacting with the environment and the people around it for convenience and services) [88] limit the emotional resonance that can promote place identity. This also verifies that neighborhood relationships have a positive impact on place attachment (H2b). Interactions aimed at utility increase place dependence among urban residents [74].
Finally, place identity has no significant positive relationship with life satisfaction (H3a). A possible reason is that, although place identity involves an individual’s emotional and psychological attachment to a place, for some groups (especially urban youth), this emotional connection may not be a key factor in determining their life satisfaction and happiness. On the other hand, the high mobility of these groups makes it difficult for them to develop a deep sense of place identity with their current community in a short period of time [89]. Therefore, even if there is a certain degree of identity, it may not necessarily translate directly into higher life satisfaction. Some studies have pointed out that subjective well-being or life satisfaction will be affected by factors such as the quality of the physical environment, social opportunities, work commuting, and service convenience [90,91]. In addition, digital compensation may also be a moderating variable between place identity and life satisfaction, as cyberspace provides a psychological refuge for young and middle-aged people with social anxiety (especially unmarried adults) [92,93]. Thus, it is recommended that the moderating role of these factors be explored in future studies.

5.2. Variations Across Subgroups

Subgroup analyses showed that the overall effect of the mediating role of place attachment was robust across groups, but there were significant differences in the strength of its effect. In this study, the mediating effect of place attachment came mainly from the functional dimension (place dependence). First, the observed gender differences suggest that the mediating effect of place attachment is stronger among male residents. This suggests that functional attachment to residential space (place dependence) plays a more prominent role in enhancing life satisfaction among men. This difference may be related to the fact that females are more sensitive to the emotional connection to their neighborhood [94]. Second, in terms of differences in the length of residence, the mediating role of place attachment was stronger in the cohort of residents with a length of residence ≤1 year. This also fits the high mobility characteristics of young adult urban residents. The high mobility group focuses more on the immediate fulfillment of needs for functional spatial resources (e.g., shared facilities, convenient services) in the community [95], thus amplifying the mediating path of place attachment. Finally, the analysis of differences between regions showed that the mediating effect of place attachment was stronger among residents of non-Guangdong regions. This may be attributed to the unique phenomenon of “urban villages” in Guangdong, which are mixed communities that strengthen the sense of identity and emotional connection of internal groups through dense social networks [96,97]. In contrast, non-Guangdong areas may lack similarly strong emotional ties and rely more on functional community support (e.g., public space facilities), further emphasizing the central role of place dependence. Overall, these differences collectively validate the robustness of the mediating pathway of place attachment (primarily place dependence) and provide empirical evidence for community intervention strategies for different groups.

5.3. Implications for Research

Within the domain of urban micro-renewal, examining the connection between neighborhood social cohesion and adult residents’ life satisfaction through a theoretically grounded model is crucial, as confirmed by empirical data. This study provides an empirical case for the study of place attachment in the relationship between people and the environment, enriching the theoretical model in the field of environmental psychology and construction. It also further increases and supplements the theoretical support for neighborhood social cohesion and its three dimensions (neighborliness, sense of community, and attraction to neighborhood), place attachment and its two dimensions (place identity and place dependence), and life satisfaction. This study focuses on the psychological intentions of urban youth groups concerning the use features and requirements for the living environment, provides insights for the spatial transformation of urban residential communities, and assists in the development of urban micro-renewal.

5.4. Implications for Practice

This study found that neighborhood social cohesion did not have a positive relationship with life satisfaction but revealed the mediating mechanism of place attachment in the relationship between the two. The results show that compared with emotional attachment, adult residents (especially younger adults) possibly pay more attention to whether the place meets their functional needs. In other words, urban youth who have a functional attachment to a place could potentially be more satisfied with their lives and have a certain level of attachment and trust in their living environment. This finding is in contrast to many previous studies [44,98], which generally emphasize that emotional attachment (such as sense of identity) is the core dimension of place attachment and has a stronger dominant influence on residents’ well-being (such as life satisfaction and community participation). The priority of functional attachment revealed in this study may deeply reflect the specific living conditions and needs of contemporary urban residents. In turn, functional attachment is likely to transform into emotional attachment, enhancing individuals’ rootedness and sense of belonging to the community [99], so they have a stronger place attachment and life satisfaction.
These insights help us understand how urban youth interact with the environment and suggest that community interventions could aim to strengthen emotional and functional connections to enhance overall well-being. Specifically, urban communities could consider establishing centers to provide education, entertainment, and health services to meet the diverse needs of young people, enhance neighborhood attractiveness, and increase their connection with the community and place dependence. The physical space of a community serves as a place for daily living, as well as a social hub for residents’ interactions and a source of emotional and functional assistance [100]. A study [101] emphasizes the importance of offline daily communication in obtaining practical emotional support and social resources. With offline daily connections, young residents can effectively compensate for the drawbacks of online social space by obtaining social resources and practical emotional support. But the key is that this compensation may be two-way; that is, offline activities can supplement shallow network connections, while digital communities may in turn make up for the lack of place-based identity. This dynamic still needs to be verified in the future. Although it has been pointed out that young people with higher levels of social anxiety feel more confident and comfortable in online interactions with close friends than in offline interactions [102], online social space also has its shortcomings, such as the shallowness of online social interactions, false self-presentation, and lack of non-verbal cues [103,104]. Effective intervention and supplementation can be initiated through urban community volunteer activities, festival activities, and social activities. When neighborhood relationships meet the emotional and functional needs of young residents, this satisfaction naturally translates into a sense of well-being.
Urban micro-renewal begins with the redesign of communal spaces and hybrid-use areas, aiming to enhance their appeal while fostering social interaction and community engagement. Features such as adding natural green spaces, fitness facilities, and more leisure seats could be part of the design. Studies have shown that natural and attractive environments invoke community consciousness [105] and enhance environmental attractiveness, place attachment, and sense of well-being to residents [106]. Friendships and supporting ties are formed and sustained in urban community public spaces, such as community squares, parks, green spaces, and fitness centers [6]. These spaces contribute to residents’ sense of happiness and community belonging. Meanwhile, a young resident’s feeling of community membership will encourage their social engagement [2]. For example, the functional composite of old buildings in Zhi Shi Park [107] in Ningbo, China, superimposed educational, recreational, and residential functions. The design of mixed-use spaces creates multiple scenarios for residents’ daily interactions and strengthens the sense of community belonging. The organic regeneration of the Yuanfen Xincun urban village in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, included the use of open and shared spaces such as basketball courts, study rooms, gyms, and bars to create a “10-minute learning and fitness circle” for the enjoyment of young residents and ensure that young people are happy to live in the city [108].
Beyond that, to combat the illegal occupation and abuse of existing urban community public spaces by private individuals, communities and local jurisdictions should do the following: improve management and reward and punishment systems, establish a platform for mutual supervision and assistance, strengthen neighborhood relations and residents’ sense of community, encourage/allow local and non-local residents as well as residents of various ages to live in harmony, provide for the daily needs of various residents, and uphold community stability and harmony.

6. Conclusions

We examine the relationship between neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction, with place attachment possibly acting as a mediator, drawing on data from 301 participants and employing PLS-SEM analysis alongside methodological triangulation.
This study reveals that among urban adult residents in China, the positive impact of neighborhood social cohesion (especially community attractiveness) on life satisfaction is not directly generated but is possibly achieved through the mediating path of place attachment. Specifically, place functional attachment (place dependence) appears to play a core mediating role, while the mediating role of place emotional attachment (place identity) is not significant. This shows that neighborhood cohesion (including neighborhood friendliness, sense of community, and attractiveness) mainly improves the satisfaction of adult residents by enhancing their functional dependence on the community to meet their life needs, while community attractiveness has an additional direct promoting effect on satisfaction.
Therefore, our findings indicate that strengthening functional connection may be a potential pathway for improving life satisfaction in this context. Both theory and practice point to the fact that we should focus on creating a practical, service-rich and attractive community environment (such as green space, fitness facilities, shared space, and multi-functional community center) through urban micro-renewal to meet the actual needs and lifestyle preferences of young people, thereby effectively cultivating place-functional attachment and ultimately improving their well-being. Although promoting neighborhood interaction and community sense is still valuable, its impact on youth well-being may need to be based on strengthening community functionality.

7. Limitations and Future Research

As a case study focused on urban adults in China, this study has some limitations that could be improved in future studies. First, the sample has a gender and location bias. Specifically, a high percentage (68.2%) of the sample was female, and a high percentage (64.12%) of all respondents were concentrated in Guangdong Province. The imbalance in gender composition may bias the research results to reflect the social interaction patterns of the female group. However, subgroup analyses indicate that the mediating effect of place attachment was significant across genders and that the mediating effect of the affective dimension (place identity) was not significant by itself, so gender bias had a limited impact on the core findings. In addition, concerning regional concentration, the bias may be intensified by the unique community structure of Guangdong Province (e.g., mixed form of “urban villages-commercial housing”). Specifically, this structure, due to its unique historical development context and socio-spatial mixing characteristics of urban villages, profoundly influences the highly localized and composite geographical concentration of specific groups of people (especially migrant workers) based on strong social networks, local identities, and survival needs [109,110]. The dense social network reinforces the emotional connection and local identity of the internal group. Notably, subgroup analyses revealed that the mediating effect of place attachment (mainly driven by place dependence) was instead significantly stronger among non-Guangdong residents, despite the sample’s concentration in Guangdong. This suggests that the core mechanisms revealed in this study are stable across geographic regions. However, when generalizing this finding to community types with very different interaction patterns of emotional ties and functional dependence (e.g., northern unitary communities or emerging urban areas in the Midwest), context-specific analyses are still needed. Additionally, the cross-sectional design and convenience sample (n = 301) of this study limited the reliability of causal inferences and the generalizability of the findings. Given the above problems, we suggest that in future research, we will take into account the differences in the living and cultural backgrounds of different groups and stratify the sample according to factors such as age, gender, region (type of community), and residence status (local or foreign) and expand the sample size in other studies to explore the related issues in greater depth and verify the research mechanism.
Second, the mediating effect of the emotional dimension of the two dimensions of place attachment, namely place identity, is not significant. In future research, it is possible to consider exploring the moderating effects of factors such as the quality of the physical environment, social opportunities, work commuting, and service convenience. More importantly, digital compensation for online community participation may also be a moderating variable between place identity and life satisfaction. At the same time, based on existing research [99], it is recommended that the diary method be used in future research to explore whether functional dependence can be transformed into emotional attachment and a sense of belonging.
Third, this study used a quantitative questionnaire survey for the main analysis. The sample has limitations in age representativeness. The youth/age of the sample may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should adopt more diverse recruitment strategies, such as combining community door-to-door surveys with online surveys to achieve a more balanced age distribution. And qualitative methods like focus groups, observations, and interviews might aid in better understanding the needs of the study team. We recommend that multiple survey methods be considered in future studies to obtain more comprehensive data. In addition, the dual-method verification used in this study to test the mediation of place attachment may have led to the complexity of the explanation. Future research should use further verification through CB-SEM with a larger sample.
Finally, the PLS-SEM mediation test for place attachment detected potentially weak direct effects, which may reflect unmeasured/uncontrolled confounding variables such as socioeconomic variables (economic status or employment, etc.). It has been suggested that economic status (e.g., income level) or employment affects residents’ well-being [111,112]. We recommend controlling for socioeconomic variables in future studies and discussing their possible effects on life satisfaction. At the same time, sensitivity analyses can be added to verify the robustness of the mediating effect of place attachment after controlling for predictors of well-being such as income level and commuting time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L., X.S. and T.X.; methodology, T.L., X.S. and T.X.; software, X.S.; validation, T.L. and T.X.; formal analysis, T.L. and X.S.; investigation, X.S.; resources, T.L., X.S. and T.X.; data curation, T.L. and X.S.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S.; writing—review and editing, T.L. and T.X.; visualization, X.S.; supervision, T.L.; project administration, T.L. and T.X.; funding acquisition, T.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Smart Medical Innovation Technology Center, GDUT (Project Number: ZYZX24-023) and Guangdong Province Philosophy and Social Science Project (GD25CYS06, GD25YYS43); the Guangdong University of Technology Graduate Education Construction and Reform Innovation Project (2024yjg007); Guangdong Province Science and Technology Innovation Strategic (Cultivating College Students’ Scientific Innovation) Project (pdjh2024a139).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This work has been approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board of the Guangdong University of Technology (No. GDUTXS2024169, approved 4 September 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Part II of the questionnaire.
Table A1. Part II of the questionnaire.
ConstructItem
Neighbourhood cohesion, NC [17,18]
NeighbourlinessNEI1I visit with my neighbours in their homes.
NEI2The friendships l have with people in my neighbourhood mean a lot.
NEI3If l need advice, l could go to someone in my neighbourhood.
NEI4I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours.
Sense of communitySOC1I believe my neighbours would help me in an emergency.
SOC2I feel loyal to people in my neighbourhood.
SOC3I’d be willing to work with others to improve my neighbourhood.
SOC4I think of myself as similar to people who live in this neighbourhood.
SOC5A feeling of fellowship runs deep in this neighbourhood.
SOC6I regularly stop to talk with people in my neighbourhood.
SOC7Living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense of community.
Attraction to neighbourhoodATTR1Overall, l am very attracted to living in this neighbourhood.
ATTR2I feel like l belong to this neighbourhood.
ATTR3I plan to remain a resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years.
Place attachment, PA [34,52]
Place identityPI1I feel the community where I currently is a part of me.
PI2The community where I currently is very special to me.
PI3I identify strongly with the community where I currently.
PI4I am very attached to the community where I currently.
PI5Visiting the community where I currently says a lot about who l am.
PI6The community where I currently means a lot to me.
Place dependencePD1The community where I currently, is the best place for what I like to do.
PD2No other place can compare to the community where I currently.
PD3I get more satisfaction out of visiting the community where I currently than any other.
PD4Doing what I do at the community where I currently is more important to me than doing it in any other place.
PD5I wouldn’t substitute any other area for doing the types of things I do at the community where I currently.
Life satisfaction, LS [13,54]
LS1In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
LS2The conditions of my life are excellent.
LS3I am satisfied with my life.
LS4So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
LS5If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

References

  1. Ye, L.; Peng, X.; Aniche, L.Q.; Scholten, P.H.T.; Ensenado, E.M. Urban Renewal as Policy Innovation in China: From Growth Stimulation to Sustainable Development. Public Adm. Dev. 2021, 41, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kahraman, O.C.; Cifci, I.; Tiwari, S. Residents’ Entrepreneurship Motives, Attitude, and Behavioral Intention toward the Meal-Sharing Economy. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2023, 32, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhu, J. Micro-Regeneration in Shanghai and the Public-Isation of Space. Habitat Int. 2023, 132, 102741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, Y.; Wu, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z. Changing Neighbourhood Cohesion under the Impact of Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Urban Geogr. 2017, 38, 266–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mao, S.; Lu, T.; Fu, T. Intra-Urban Migration and Perceptions of Neighborhood Cohesion in Urban China: The Case of Guangzhou. Asian Pac. Migr. J. 2023, 32, 521–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Su, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X. How to Alleviate Alienation from the Perspective of Urban Community Public Space—Evidence from Urban Young Residents in China. Habitat Int. 2023, 138, 102836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Opit, S.; Witten, K.; Kearns, R. Housing Pathways, Aspirations and Preferences of Young Adults within Increasing Urban Density. Hous. Stud. 2020, 35, 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shi, Y.; Shen, D. Analysis on the Current Situation, Problems and Paths of Social Participation of Contemporary Chinese Youth. Chin. Youth Stud. 2018, 5, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huang, Y. Research on the Social Participation of China’s “Post-90s” Youths. Youth Stud. 2021, 4, 11–23+94. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhuang, T.; Qian, Q.K.; Visscher, H.J.; Elsinga, M.G.; Wu, W. The Role of Stakeholders and Their Participation Network in Decision-Making of Urban Renewal in China: The Case of Chongqing. Cities 2019, 92, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Clarke, M.; Cadaval, S.; Wallace, C.; Anderson, E.; Egerer, M.; Dinkins, L.; Platero, R. Factors That Enhance or Hinder Social Cohesion in Urban Greenspaces: A Literature Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 84, 127936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, C.; Zhou, S.; Bai, X. Ageing in China: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. In Aging Across Cultures: Growing Old in the Non-Western World; Selin, H., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fernández-Portero, C.; Alarcón, D.; Barrios Padura, Á. Dwelling Conditions and Life Satisfaction of Older People through Residential Satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 49, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yu, R.; Cheung, O.; Leung, J.; Tong, C.; Lau, K.; Cheung, J.; Woo, J. Is Neighbourhood Social Cohesion Associated with Subjective Well-Being for Older Chinese People? The Neighbourhood Social Cohesion Study. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e023332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zahnow, R.; Tsai, A. Crime Victimization, Place Attachment, and the Moderating Role of Neighborhood Social Ties and Neighboring Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, R.; Leung, G.; Chan, J.; Yip, B.H.K.; Wong, S.; Kwok, T.; Woo, J. Neighborhood Social Cohesion Associates with Loneliness Differently among Older People According to Subjective Social Status. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2021, 25, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Humble, S.; Sharma, A.; Rangaraju, B.; Dixon, P.; Pennington, M. Associations between Neighbourhood Social Cohesion and Subjective Well-Being in Two Different Informal Settlement Types in Delhi, India: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2023, 13, e067680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ross, A.; Searle, M. Conceptualization and Validation of the Neighbourhood Cohesion Index Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling. Community Dev. J. 2021, 56, 408–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, B. Analysis of Influencing Factors of Neighborhood Relations among Community Residents—An Empirical Analysis Based on CGSS2018. Adv. Appl. Math. 2022, 11, 8412–8416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shen, J.; Lu, T.; Luo, X. Urban Enclosure, Neighbourhood Commons, and Community Participation Willingness: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Geoforum 2023, 141, 103719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rui, J.; Li, X. Decoding Vibrant Neighborhoods: Disparities between Formal Neighborhoods and Urban Villages in Eye-Level Perceptions and Physical Environment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 101, 105122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Berkman, L.F.; Kawachi, I.; Glymour, M.M. Social Epidemiology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lytle, A. Intergroup Contact Theory: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Soc. Justice Res. 2018, 31, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chan, J.; To, H.-P.; Chan, E. Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 75, 273–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. White, R.; Haddock, G.; Campodonico, C.; Haarmans, M.; Varese, F. The Influence of Romantic Relationships on Mental Wellbeing for People Who Experience Psychosis: A Systematic Review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 86, 102022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Delhey, J.; Dragolov, G. Happier Together. Social Cohesion and Subjective Well-Being in Europe. Int. J. Psychol. 2016, 51, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Robinette, J.W.; Charles, S.T.; Mogle, J.A.; Almeida, D.M. Neighborhood Cohesion and Daily Well-Being: Results from a Diary Study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 96, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gardner, P.J. Natural Neighborhood Networks—Important Social Networks in the Lives of Older Adults Aging in Place. J. Aging Stud. 2011, 25, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, E.S.; Kawachi, I. Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Preventive Healthcare Use. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 53, e35–e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Mouratidis, K. Commute Satisfaction, Neighborhood Satisfaction, and Housing Satisfaction as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being and Indicators of Urban Livability. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 21, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, J.; Dong, G.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, W. Does Satisfactory Neighbourhood Environment Lead to a Satisfying Life? An Investigation of the Association between Neighbourhood Environment and Life Satisfaction in Beijing. Cities 2018, 74, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mouratidis, K. What Makes Cities Livable? Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction and Neighborhood Happiness in Different Contexts. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, X.; Cao, J.; Fan, Y.; Ramaswami, A. How Do Neighborhood Attributes Relate to Life Satisfaction and Neighborhood Satisfaction Differently? Findings 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aleshinloye, K.D.; Fu, X.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Tasci, A.D.A. The Influence of Place Attachment on Social Distance: Examining Mediating Effects of Emotional Solidarity and the Moderating Role of Interaction. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 828–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Proshansky, H.M.; Fabian, A.K.; Kaminoff, R. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 57–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. In Proceedings of the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX, USA, 20–24 October 1989; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yi, X.; Fu, X.; Lin, B.; Sun, J. Authenticity, Identity, Self-Improvement, and Responsibility at Heritage Sites: The Local Residents’ Perspective. Tour. Manag. 2024, 102, 104875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Strandberg, C.; Styvén, M.E. The Multidimensionality of Place Identity: A Systematic Concept Analysis and Framework of Place-Related Identity Elements. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 95, 102257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stokols, D.; Shumaker, S.A. People in places: A Transactional View of Settings. In Cognition, Social Behavior and the Environment; Harvey, J.H., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1981; pp. 441–488. [Google Scholar]
  40. Moore, R.L.; Graefe, A.R. Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail—Trail Users. Leis. Sci. 1994, 16, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Pathways of Place Dependence and Place Identity Influencing Recycling in the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chang, P.-J.; Tsou, C.-W.; Li, Y.-S. Urban-Greenway Factors’ Influence on Older Adults’ Psychological Well-Being: A Case Study of Taichung, Taiwan. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Y.; Van Dijk, T.; Tang, J.; van den Berg, A.E. Green Space Attachment and Health: A Comparative Study in Two Urban Neighborhoods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 14342–14363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maricchiolo, F.; Mosca, O.; Paolini, D.; Fornara, F. The Mediating Role of Place Attachment Dimensions in the Relationship Between Local Social Identity and Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 645648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dandotiya, R.; Aggarwal, A. An Examination of Tourists’ National Identity, Place Attachment and Loyalty at a Dark Tourist Destination. Kybernetes 2023, 52, 6063–6077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nguyen, L.P.; Van Den Berg, P.E.; Kemperman, A.D.; Mohammadi, M. Social Impacts of Living in High-Rise Apartment Buildings: The Effects of Buildings and Neighborhoods. J. Urban Aff. 2024, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lewicka, M. What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Theodori, G.L. Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on Individual Well-Being. Rural Sociol. 2001, 66, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prajapati, B.; Dunne, M.; Armstrong, R. Sample Size Estimation and Statistical Power Analyses. Optom. Today 2010, 16, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  51. Fone, D.L.; Farewell, D.M.; Dunstan, F.D. An Ecometric Analysis of Neighbourhood Cohesion. Popul. Health Metr. 2006, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, Z.; Cheng, H.; Li, Z.; Gou, F.; Zhai, W. Can Green Space Exposure Enhance the Health of Rural Migrants in Wuhan, China? An Exploration of the Multidimensional Roles of Place Attachment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 93, 128228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsen, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J. Personal. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bai, X.; Wu, C.; Zheng, R.; Ren, X. The Psychometric Evaluation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale Using a Nationally Representative Sample of China. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hair, J.; Alamer, A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in Second Language and Education Research: Guidelines Using an Applied Example. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 2022, 1, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Heesen, R.; Bright, L.K.; Zucker, A. Vindicating Methodological Triangulation. Synthese 2019, 196, 3067–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tryon, W.W. Evaluating Statistical Difference, Equivalence, and Indeterminacy Using Inferential Confidence Intervals: An Integrated Alternative Method of Conducting Null Hypothesis Statistical Tests. Psychol. Methods 2001, 6, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dijkstra, T.K. PLS’ Janus Face—Response to Professor Rigdon’s ‘Rethinking Partial Least Squares Modeling: In Praise of Simple Methods’. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jackson, D.N. Multimethod Factor Analysis in the Evaluation of Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Psychol. Bull. 1969, 72, 30–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xia, T.; Shen, X.; Li, L. Is AI Food a Gimmick or the Future Direction of Food Production?—Predicting Consumers’ Willingness to Buy AI Food Based on Cognitive Trust and Affective Trust. Foods 2024, 13, 2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Medina, N.d.; de Carvalho-Ferreira, J.P.; Beghini, J.; da Cunha, D.T. The Psychological Impact of the Widespread Availability of Palatable Foods Predicts Uncontrolled and Emotional Eating in Adults. Foods 2024, 13, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Salmerón, R.; García, C.B.; García, J. Variance Inflation Factor and Condition Number in Multiple Linear Regression. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 2018, 88, 2365–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Westland, J.C. Structural Equation Models: From Paths to Networks; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schoemann, A.M.; Boulton, A.J.; Short, S.D. Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mitchell, A.; Larson, K.L.; Pfeiffer, D.; Rosales Chavez, J.-B. Planning for Urban Sustainability through Residents’ Wellbeing: The Effects of Nature Interactions, Social Capital, and Socio-Demographic Factors. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cai, R.; Chi, C.G.-Q.; Chiappa, G.D. How Sense of Community and Social Environment Influence Residents’ Subjective Well-Being? Moderating Role of Trust. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2025, 26, 457–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J. Perceived Residential Environment of Neighborhood and Subjective Well-Being among the Elderly in China: A Mediating Role of Sense of Community. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lewicka, M. Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Blake, J.A.; Thomas, H.J.; Pelecanos, A.M.; Najman, J.M.; Scott, J.G. Attachment in Young Adults and Life Satisfaction at Age 30: A Birth Cohort Study. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2024, 19, 1549–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Collins, P.Y.; Sinha, M.; Concepcion, T.; Patton, G.; Way, T.; McCay, L.; Mensa-Kwao, A.; Herrman, H.; De Leeuw, E.; Anand, N.; et al. Making Cities Mental Health Friendly for Adolescents and Young Adults. Nature 2024, 627, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nissen, S.; Prendergast, K.; Aoyagi, M.; Burningham, K.; Hasan, M.M.; Hayward, B.; Jackson, T.; Jha, V.; Mattar, H.; Schudel, I.; et al. Young People and Environmental Affordances in Urban Sustainable Development: Insights into Transport and Green and Public Space in Seven Cities. Sustain. Earth 2020, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fonseca, X.; Lukosch, S.; Brazier, F. Social Cohesion Revisited: A New Definition and How to Characterize It. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2019, 32, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cox, D.A.; Streeter, R.; Abrams, S.J.; Lee, B.; Popky, D. Public Places and Commercial Spaces: How Neighborhood Amenities Foster Trust and Connection in American Communities. 2021. Available online: https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/public-places-and-commercial-spaces-how-neighborhood-amenities-foster-trust-and-connection-in-american-communities/ (accessed on 2 April 2025).
  78. Hirvonen, J.; Lilius, J. Do Neighbour Relationships Still Matter? J. Hous. Built Environ. 2019, 34, 1023–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cortright, J. Youth Movement: A Generational Shift in Preference for Urbanism. City Observatory. Available online: https://cityobservatory.org/youth_movement_june2020 (accessed on 28 March 2025).
  80. Holden, M. Community Well-Being in Neighbourhoods: Achieving Community and Open-Minded Space through Engagement in Neighbourhoods. Int. J. Community Well-Being 2018, 1, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, J.; Ye, L.; Song, W.; Tu, Z. A Study on the Pattern of Spatial and Temporal Differentiation in Housing Burden and Migration of Urban Migrants in China. J. Cent. China Norm. Univ. 2023, 57, 576–588+598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, Z.; Cheng, H. Urban Environmental Exposure and Migrant Health in the Age of Mobility—A Socio-Spatial Effects-Based Perspective. Shanghai Urban Plan. 2023, 3, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  83. Making Cities More “Youth Friendly”—Hubei Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Available online: https://zjt.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/dtyw/szsm/202408/t20240816_5305055.shtml (accessed on 24 March 2025).
  84. Lu, X. The Model, Concept and Structure of Community Governance in Japan—An Analysis Centered on the Hybrid Model. Jpn. Stud. 2015, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jacoby, S. Collective Forms and Collective Spaces: A Discussion of Urban Design Thinking and Practice Based on Research in Chinese Cities. China City Plan. Rev. 2019, 4, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  86. He, X.; Liu, P. A Study of Heterogeneous Social Structure and Neighborhood/Neighborhood Relationships in Chinese Urban Communities. Hum. Geogr. 2016, 31, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chang, J.; Lin, Z.; Vojnovic, I.; Qi, J.; Wu, R.; Xie, D. Social Environments Still Matter: The Role of Physical and Social Environments in Place Attachment in a Transitional City, Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 232, 104680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Babintsev, V.P. Youth In Space Of Transforming Urban Culture; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021; pp. 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jørgensen, A.; Knudsen, L.B.; Arp, M.; Skov, H. Zones of Belonging-Experiences from a Danish Study on Belonging, Local Community and Mobility. Geoforum Perspekt. 2016, 15, 29. [Google Scholar]
  90. Krekel, C.; MacKerron, G. How Environmental Quality Affects Our Happiness. World Happiness Rep. 2020, 95, 112. [Google Scholar]
  91. Li, H.; Ma, J.; Tao, S. Exploring the Relationships among Commute, Work and Life Satisfaction: A Multiscale Analysis in Beijing. J. Transp. Geogr. 2024, 118, 103946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, J.; Guo, J. Disembedding and Re-Embedding: The Online Interaction Mechanisms of Divorced Youth in China. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1413129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Quackenbush, D.M.; Krasner, A. Avatar Therapy: Where Technology, Symbols, Culture, and Connection Collide. J. Psychiatr. Pract. 2012, 18, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Yang, X. How Does Social Capital Affect Residents’ Subjective Well-Being?—Empirical Evidence from the China Social Comprehensive Survey. J. Party Sch. Ningbo Munic. Comm. Communist Party China 2021, 43, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mao, S.; Chen, J. Residential Mobility and Post-Move Community Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Guangzhou, China. Land 2021, 10, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tong, D.; Wu, Y.; MacLachlan, I.; Zhu, J. The Role of Social Capital in the Collective-Led Development of Urbanising Villages in China: The Case of Shenzhen. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 3335–3353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rui, J. Exploring the Association between the Settlement Environment and Residents’ Positive Sentiments in Urban Villages and Formal Settlements in Shenzhen. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 98, 104851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Türkoğlu, B.A. Theoretical Investigation of the Relationship Between Place Attachment and Well-Being-ProQuest; Middle East Technical University: Ankara, Turkey, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  99. Brandão, T. Attachment Orientations, Emotion Goals, and Emotion Regulation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2023, 204, 112059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Qi, J.; Mazumdar, S.; Vasconcelos, A.C. Understanding the Relationship between Urban Public Space and Social Cohesion: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Community Well-Being 2024, 7, 155–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mo, P.K.H.; Ma, L.; Li, J.; Xie, L.; Liu, X.; Jiang, H.; Chen, Y.; Lau, J.T.F. Communication in Social Networking Sites on Offline and Online Social Support and Life Satisfaction Among University Students: Tie Strength Matters. J. Adolesc. Health 2024, 74, 971–979. [Google Scholar]
  102. Scott, R.A.; Stuart, J.; Barber, B.L. Young Adults’ Perceptions of Their Online versus Offline Interactions with Close Friends: An Exploration of Individual Differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2024, 14, 100399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Avalle, M.; Di Marco, N.; Etta, G.; Sangiorgio, E.; Alipour, S.; Bonetti, A.; Alvisi, L.; Scala, A.; Baronchelli, A.; Cinelli, M.; et al. Persistent Interaction Patterns across Social Media Platforms and over Time. Nature 2024, 628, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tirocchi, S. Generation Z, Values, and Media: From Influencers to BeReal, between Visibility and Authenticity. Front. Sociol. 2024, 8, 1304093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Bandauko, E.; Baiden, P.; Arku, G.; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H.; Kutor, S.K.; Akyea, T. Sense of Community (SOC) in Gated Urban Neighborhoods: Empirical Insights from Accra, Ghana. J. Urban Aff. 2024, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Xu, J.; Ma, J.; Tao, S. Examining the Nonlinear Relationship between Neighborhood Environment and Residents’ Health. Cities 2024, 152, 105213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shi, Y. From Renewal to Revitalization-Research and Practice on Stock Asset Enhancement Strategies in Urban Core Areas. New Constr. 2020, 4, 144–148. [Google Scholar]
  108. Yuanfen New Village Urban Village Organic Renewal Project Wins National Promotion. Available online: https://www.szlhq.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/11/11132/post_11132272.html#4745 (accessed on 24 March 2025).
  109. Lin, Y.; De Meulder, B.; Wang, S. Understanding the ‘Village in the City’ in Guangzhou: Economic Integration and Development Issue and Their Implications for the Urban Migrant. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 3583–3598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yang, R.; Pan, Y.; Xu, Q. Space Diversification Process and Evolution Mechanism of Typical Village in the Suburbs of Guangzhou: A Case Study of Beicun. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 1155–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ouyang, Z.; Liu, F.; Zhai, G.; Bilan, S. Assessment of Resident Happiness under Uncertainty of Economic Policies: Empirical Evidences from China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. López-Ruiz, V.-R.; Huete-Alcocer, N.; Alfaro-Navarro, J.; Nevado-Pea, D. The Relationship between Happiness and Quality of Life: A Model for Spanish Society. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06756 g001
Figure 1. Research model. Note: H means hypothesis.
Figure 1. Research model. Note: H means hypothesis.
Sustainability 17 06756 g001
Sustainability 17 06756 g002
Figure 2. Structural model. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Dashed line means not significant.
Figure 2. Structural model. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Dashed line means not significant.
Sustainability 17 06756 g002
Sustainability 17 06756 g003
Figure 3. Mediation model. Note: *** p < 0.001; Dash line means not significant.
Figure 3. Mediation model. Note: *** p < 0.001; Dash line means not significant.
Sustainability 17 06756 g003
Table 1. Demographic characteristics (n = 301).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics (n = 301).
ItemsNumberPercentage (%)
GenderMale9631.89
Female20568.10
Age18–25 years old24681.73
26–35 years old4213.95
36–45 years old41.32
46–60 years old92.99
Education LevelHigh school and vocational senior high school or below185.98
College diploma or undergraduates20568.11
Postgraduate research or above7825.91
Marital StatusUnmarried27591.36
Married268.64
Duration of residence3 months or below309.97
3–6 months289.30
6–12 months3712.29
12 months or above20668.44
Status of ResidenceLocal residents12441.20
Remote residents17758.80
City of ResidenceGuangdong19364.12
Beijing103.32
Fujian92.99
Hunan82.66
Tianjin82.66
Hubei72.33
Jiangsu72.33
Henan61.99
Hebei61.99
Zhejiang61.99
Chongqing51.66
Heilongjiang41.33
Shandong41.33
Jiangxi41.33
Shanxi41.33
Shanghai41.33
Sichuan41.33
Guangxi31.00
Guizhou20.66
Hong Kong10.33
Xinjiang10.33
Yunnan10.33
Anhui10.33
Jilin10.33
Liaoning10.33
Neimenggu10.33
Table 2. Measurement model’s reliability and convergent validity.
Table 2. Measurement model’s reliability and convergent validity.
ConstructsItemsLoadingsrho_ACRAVE
Neighborhood cohesion (NC)NeighborlinessNEI10.7920.8690.9030.700
NEI20.858
NEI30.845
NEI40.850
Sense of communitySOC10.7680.9130.9260.644
SOC20.840
SOC30.731
SOC40.785
SOC50.857
SOC60.785
SOC70.841
Attraction to neighborhoodATTR10.8890.8460.9020.754
ATTR20.905
ATTR30.808
Place attachment (PA)Place identityPI10.8480.9290.9440.736
PI20.865
PI30.900
PI40.872
PI50.830
PI60.831
Place dependencePD10.7900.9080.9310.730
PD20.875
PD30.891
PD40.876
PD50.836
Life satisfactionLife satisfactionLS10.8610.8990.9230.704
LS20.811
LS30.860
LS40.835
LS50.828
Table 3. Discriminant validity for the measurement model.
Table 3. Discriminant validity for the measurement model.
ConstructsPDPILSSOCNEIATTR
PD0.854
PI0.8340.858
LS0.7220.6720.839
SOC0.7340.7820.6190.802
NEI0.6350.6380.5040.8020.837
ATTR0.7460.8010.6640.7910.6250.868
Note: Bold-faced scores indicate the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) per construct.
Table 4. Discriminant validity for the place attachment mediation model.
Table 4. Discriminant validity for the place attachment mediation model.
ConstructsNCPALS
NC
PA0.867
LS0.6950.783
Table 5. Evaluation of model fit and predictive correlation.
Table 5. Evaluation of model fit and predictive correlation.
ConstructsR2Q2
PI0.7010.506
PD0.6190.444
LS0.5600.384
Table 6. Hypothesis test results.
Table 6. Hypothesis test results.
HypothesisStandard βT Statistics95% Bias-Corrected Confidence IntervalSupported
H1a: NEI→LS−0.0350.462[−0.184, 0.108]NO
H1b: SOC→LS0.0710.792[−0.107, 0.249]NO
H1c: ATTR→LS0.2292.892 **[0.070, 0.376]YES
H2a: NEI→PI0.0430.758[−0.069, 0.153]NO
H2b: NEI→PD0.1402.153 *[0.017, 0.275]YES
H2c: SOC→PI0.3615.173 ***[0.219, 0.493]YES
H2d: SOC→PD0.2723.433 ***[0.112, 0.422]YES
H2e: ATTR→PI0.4888.679 ***[0.376, 0.598]YES
H2f: ATTR→PD0.4437.106 ***[0.316, 0.563]YES
H3a: PI→LS0.0680.814[−0.095, 0.230]NO
H3b: PD→LS0.4655.293 ***[0.294, 0.639]YES
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Mediating effect test of place identity and place dependence.
Table 7. Mediating effect test of place identity and place dependence.
Relation of PathThe Point EstimateT-Value95% Bias-Corrected Confidence Interval
NEI→PI→LS0.0030.401[−0.004, 0.029]
SOC→PI→LS0.0240.792[−0.032, 0.089]
ATTR→PI→LS0.0330.807[−0.047, 0.116]
NEI→PD→LS0.0651.887 *[0.009, 0.147]
SOC→PD→LS0.1263.130 **[0.058, 0.220]
ATTR→PD→LS0.2063.952 ***[0.120, 0.321]
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 8. The possible mediating effect of place attachment between neighborhood cohesion and life satisfaction.
Table 8. The possible mediating effect of place attachment between neighborhood cohesion and life satisfaction.
Place AttachmentLife Satisfaction
bsetbset
constant0.4410.1104.014 ***0.7780.1365.733 ***
Neighborhood cohesion0.8460.03424,712 ***0.1360.0721.892
Place attachment 0.6180.0708.868 ***
R20.671 0.528
F610,691 166,874
Note: *** p < 0.001; se: standard error.
Table 9. Bootstrap 95% CI of the mediating effect path.
Table 9. Bootstrap 95% CI of the mediating effect path.
EffectBoot SEBoot LLCIBoot ULCIMediation Effect
Total effect0.6590.0460.5670.750
Direct effect0.1360.072−0.0050.27820.637%
Indirect effect0.5220.0650.3940.65179.211%
Note: Boot SE (bootstrap standard error). Boot LLCI (bootstrap lower confidence interval). Boot ULCI (bootstrap upper confidence interval).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, T.; Shen, X.; Xia, T. Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156756

AMA Style

Liu T, Shen X, Xia T. Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156756

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Tingting, Xiaoqi Shen, and Tiansheng Xia. 2025. "Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156756

APA Style

Liu, T., Shen, X., & Xia, T. (2025). Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion. Sustainability, 17(15), 6756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156756

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop