Clarifying Community Concepts: A Review of Community Attachment, Community Satisfaction, and Quality of Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still have trouble understanding why the term "Quality of life" is part of the article. Even in the table the authors added it says that the focus of the term is on the individual and not on the community (like the other two terms- "community attachment" and "community Satisfaction". I would suggest the authors to focus only on the firs two terms and avoid writing about quality of life. If they do this, it will be clearer what the purpose of the article is and who it is intended for. In addition, I would suggest presenting concrete examples or a case study that will illustrate the different terms and the differences between them.

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Societies. The reviewers provided us with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by each reviewer.

Response to Reviewer 1

• Reviewer’s comment: I still have trouble understanding why the term "Quality of life" is part of the article. Even in the table the authors added it says that the focus of the term is on the individual and not on the community (like the other two terms- "community attachment" and "community satisfaction"). I would suggest the authors to focus only on the first two terms and avoid writing about quality of life. If they do this, it will be clearer what the purpose of the article is and who it is intended for.
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate this thoughtful comment and recognize the concern about the inclusion of quality of life(QoL) given its more individual-level focus. We have made revisions throughout the manuscript to better justify the inclusion of QoL, particularly in the discussion, by clarifying how it is often used—sometimes imprecisely—in community research contexts alongside community attachment and satisfaction. We emphasize that, although QoL is broader and more individually focused, it is frequently operationalized in ways that overlap with or even substitute for the other two terms in empirical work. For that reason, we believe including it strengthens the paper’s ability to distinguish between these related but distinct concepts.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: In addition, I would suggest presenting concrete examples or a case study that will illustrate the different terms and the differences between them. 
  • Author Response: We also thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion to include concrete examples or a case study to clarify differences between the terms. While we opted not to include an extended case study in order to keep the focus on conceptual clarity, we have added brief illustrative examples to highlight how each term is used in practice. These additions are deliberately parsimonious, reflecting our goal of maintaining the focus on definitional distinctions and theoretical application rather than shifting toward empirical analysis. We hope these revisions improve the clarity and coherence of the manuscript and more clearly communicate the paper’s purpose and intended audience.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

25 – add a couple example references to support your point

34-  The objective of this paper is not to resolve the disparities in conceptualizations but to further the discussion on the definitions of these community terms. Rather, we aim to review the distinctiveness of each of the terms, identify the overlap and conflation between the concepts, and suggest possible paths forward.

51 – May need a clarifier as to why QoL was except.

142 - Pretty et al. [72, pg. 274], page number is included but it doesn’t look like a direct quote

148 - Although some conceptualizations and operationalizations of place attachment and  community attachment are very closely aligned, they are recognized as interrelated yet distinct concepts that measure different aspects of attachment. – I would suggest this edit for clarity: Some conceptualizations and operationalizations of place attachment and community attachment are very closely aligned. Although they are recognized as interrelated, they are distinct concepts that measure different aspects of attachment.

150 – These are helpful definitions, can you make note which one’s are more prominent in the literature? Could there be a sentence or two contextualizing the table?  It is not in alphabetical order, so curious if it is in an order based on prominence for example?

170 – This paragraph could use one or two references to back up the points being made about the literature.  Particularly the sentence that starts on 172

190 - 3.1. Community Satisfaction Versus Community Attachment, I would recommend that the uses of and measurements of Community Satisfaction come before this section, so that the reader has a good understanding of Community Satisfaction before comparting it to Community Attachment.  I would recommend moving it to the end of the Community Satisfaction section.

238 – Perhaps a note on why these were the selected definitions? Are they the most prominent? Like Community Attachment, is there anything to their order, most popular first?

328 – Instead of the word scaling maybe collapsing

399 – Given the complexity of the study: should it be the study, or the complexity of the terms?

 

General: Should there by a table that states the different definitions of QOL, similar to the other sections?

It would be beneficial to add details around the methods used. I know it is not a systematic review, but if you could speak to the number of articles reviewed and some more details around exclusionary factors, it would make your paper more robust.

The paper flows well and is a fascinating and relevant read. As mentioned above, you may want to consider moving the section comparing community satisfaction and community attachment after community satisfaction is defined, or combine this within the Use section of community satisfaction, as you did in the QOL use section, where you did compare QOL to community satisfaction and community attachment.

The table in the discussion section is very helpful – the discussion section in general was excellent.  

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Societies. The reviewers provided us with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by each reviewer.

Response to Reviewer 2

• Reviewer’s comment: 25 – add a couple example references to support your point
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate Reviewer 2’s suggestion to include references to support our point that scholars have called for greater clarification on our selected terms, and we incorporated this feedback by referencing a few studies that do this.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 34-  Changes made to sentence: The objective of this paper is not to resolve the disparities in conceptualizations but to further the discussion on the definitions of these community terms. Rather, we aim to review the distinctiveness of each of the terms, identify the overlap and conflation between the concepts, and suggest possible paths forward.
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate this point raised by the reviewer and changed the existing sentences according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 51 – May need a clarifier as to why QoL was except.
  • Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for catching this. This was an unintentional phrasing error likely introduced during revisions. We have corrected the sentence with the revised wording now clearly reflects that our search strategy was not limited to sociology for QoL, in recognition of its broader interdisciplinary usage.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 142 - Pretty et al. [72, pg. 274], page number is included but it doesn’t look like a direct quote
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer catching this mistake. To correct this, we deleted the page number.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 148 - Although some conceptualizations and operationalizations of place attachment and community attachment are very closely aligned, they are recognized as interrelated yet distinct concepts that measure different aspects of attachment. – I would suggest this edit for clarity: Some conceptualizations and operationalizations of place attachment and community attachment are very closely aligned. Although they are recognized as interrelated, they are distinct concepts that measure different aspects of attachment.
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate this point raised by the reviewer and changed the existing sentences according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 150 – These are helpful definitions, can you make note which one’s are more prominent in the literature? Could there be a sentence or two contextualizing the table?  It is not in alphabetical order, so curious if it is in an order based on prominence for example?
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate the point raised by the reviewer. To address these concerns, we added a table caption in order to better contextualize the table. In this caption, we clarify that the selected definitions are organized by date of publication, and we highlight these definitions because of their prominence in the literature as well as their distinctiveness.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 170 – This paragraph could use one or two references to back up the points being made about the literature.  Particularly the sentence that starts on 172.
  • Authors’ response: With the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we added references that support our points about the literature.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 190 - 1. Community Satisfaction Versus Community Attachment, I would recommend that the uses of and measurements of Community Satisfaction come before this section, so that the reader has a good understanding of Community Satisfaction before comparting it to Community Attachment.  I would recommend moving it to the end of the Community Satisfaction section.
  • Authors’ response: Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we moved the section Community Satisfaction Versus Community Attachment to follow the discussion on community satisfaction rather than preceding it. We agree that this improves clarity and understanding.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 238 – Perhaps a note on why these were the selected definitions? Are they the most prominent? Like Community Attachment, is there anything to their order, most popular first?
  • Authors’ response: With the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we included a caption for Table Two, which includes our selection of definitions for community satisfaction. In the caption, similar to the caption added to our table on community attachment definitions, we clarify that these definitions were selected based on prominence and distinctiveness; we also explain that the order of the definitions is by publication date, with the oldest definition coming first.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 328 – Instead of the word scaling maybe collapsing
  • Authors’ response: To clarify our point, we took the reviewer’s suggestion and changed the word “scaling” in this sentence to “combining.”

 

• Reviewer’s comment: 399 – Given the complexity of the study: should it be the study, or the complexity of the terms?
  • Authors’ response: To clarify our point, we changed “the study” to “the terms” in this sentence.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: General: Should there by a table that states the different definitions of QOL, similar to the other sections?
  • Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful consideration of what would be most effective for the paper and the discussion of the terms involved. We did not include a definitions table similar to the other sections as QoL since while there are certainly minor differences or emphasis for the various disciplines that use the term QoL, the significant difference in the conceptualizations of QoL come from the variety in the operationalization of this term. Given our discussion on the conflation and distinctiveness between these three terms, we believe this table as it currently exists helps further the discussion around the ways QoL can overlap with or substitute for the other terms in empirical work.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: It would be beneficial to add details around the methods used. I know it is not a systematic review, but if you could speak to the number of articles reviewed and some more details around exclusionary factors, it would make your paper more robust.
  • Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised the methods section to provide greater detail about our review process. While our approach is conceptual rather than systematic, we estimate that we reviewed approximately 120–150 articles. Studies were included if they substantively engaged with at least one of the core concepts—community attachment, community satisfaction, or quality of life—particularly in terms of definition, measurement, or theoretical development.

We excluded articles that referenced these terms only in passing or did not offer sufficient conceptual clarity. We also avoided sources that focused exclusively on unrelated outcomes or used the terms ambiguously without operational detail. In addition, we clarified that the literature reviewed spans from 1970 to 2025, allowing us to capture both foundational and more contemporary developments in the field. We appreciate your suggestion, which helped us enhance the clarity and robustness of our methodological description.

 

• Reviewer’s comment: The paper flows well and is a fascinating and relevant read. As mentioned above, you may want to consider moving the section comparing community satisfaction and community attachment after community satisfaction is defined, or combine this within the Use section of community satisfaction, as you did in the QOL use section, where you did compare QOL to community satisfaction and community attachment.
• The table in the discussion section is very helpful – the discussion section in general was excellent.

• • Authors’ response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on the manuscript's relevance, flow, and discussion section. In response to the suggestion regarding the placement of the section comparing community satisfaction and community attachment, we agree that this reordering improves the paper’s logical flow and enhances clarity for readers. As recommended, we moved the comparison section to follow the definition and use sections of community satisfaction. This allows readers to first understand each concept independently before encountering the comparison. We modeled this new structure after our treatment of QoL, where comparative discussion also follows the conceptual groundwork. Thank you for this helpful suggestion, which we believe strengthens the manuscript’s organization and coherence.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is clear that the authors of the article did a thorough job in relation to previous comments and added sources and explanations. I will positively note the various definitions they provided for the various terms and the comparative tables. The graph doesn't add up in my opinion and I would recommend downloading it.

However, I still cannot understand why they chose the terms they did and why they included quality of life instead of, for example, a sense of community. The purpose of the article is not yet clear to me. And it's also not clear to me who it's intended for. That is, what exactly is its contribution to the field or to practice? I still think it would have been better to replace the term quality of life with another term more relevant to the field of community or simply remove it from the article.

Author Response

We thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Societies. The reviewers provided us with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by each reviewer.

Response to Reviewer 1

• Reviewer’s comment: It is clear that the authors of the article did a thorough job in relation to previous comments and added sources and explanations. I will positively note the various definitions they provided for the various terms and the comparative tables.
  • Authors’ response: We sincerely appreciate this encouraging feedback. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments throughout the review process, which have helped us strengthen the clarity and structure of the paper. Thank you for noting the usefulness of the definitions and comparative tables—we hope they continue to provide conceptual value to the field.
• Reviewer’s comment: The graph doesn't add up in my opinion and I would recommend downloading it.
  • Authors’ response: Thank you for raising this concern. Rather than delete the figure, we revised both the caption and the paragraph introducing it to clarify its intent. We now emphasize that the figure represents individual-level experiences of each term, while also depicting quality of life (QoL) as a conceptual umbrella that includes elements of attachment and satisfaction. We also simplified the figure’s visual presentation to improve clarity. Moreover, we understand that the figure may not be essential for all readers; however, its inclusion was specifically encouraged by other reviewers in previous rounds, who noted that it effectively synthesized key distinctions and relationships across the three concepts. In light of that earlier feedback, and to preserve consistency with the peer review process as a whole, we have opted to retain the figure in this revised version. That said, we remain open to editorial guidance on this point.
• Reviewer’s comment: However, I still cannot understand why they chose the terms they did and why they included quality of life instead of, for example, a sense of community.
  • Authors’ response: We added two revisions to clarify our decision to include quality of life (QoL). First, we inserted a sentence in paragraph 3 of the introduction that explicitly states our rationale for choosing community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL: namely, their frequent usage, conceptual overlap, and inconsistent definitions in community research. Second, we added a footnote (at the end of paragraph 2 of the introduction) explaining our decision to include QoL instead of “sense of community.” In that note, we clarify that although sense of community is common in psychology and overlaps with the other two terms, QoL is more prominent in sociological community research, offers broader conceptual scope, and is more often conflated with the other terms in empirical work. We also cite Pretty et al. (2003) to support this disciplinary distinction.
• Reviewer’s comment: The purpose of the article is not yet clear to me. And it's also not clear to me who it's intended for. That is, what exactly is its contribution to the field or to practice?
  • Authors’ response: Thank you for prompting us to be clearer about the paper’s purpose and intended audience. In response, we added two sentences to both the abstract and the final paragraph of the introduction to explicitly define the paper’s aim and contribution. These revisions clarify that the paper is intended as a conceptual resource for community researchers across disciplines and contributes to both theory and practice by clarifying definitions, highlighting conceptual and measurement overlap, and guiding future operationalization.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this could be an interesting and relevant article for professionals and researchers working in the field of community. However, there are a few points I would recommend taking into consideration.

First, there is no detailed explanation of why they chose to refer specifically to the three terms chosen- community attachment, community satisfaction and quality of life. Why, for example, they did not refer to the term "sense of community"? I find it more relevant than the term QoL and also more related to the other two terms chosen. I have the same question regarding the term "place attachment". It is certainly related to the term "community attachment" (the authors even mention it in one sentence) but there is no expansion on it and no explication why they did not chose it.

It is not clear enough why they chose the term quality of life, when the authors themselves claim that it is a term that refers more to the individual dimension - compared to the other two, which refer to the community dimension (line 364).

When it comes to community attachment, it is worth adding aspects related to the evacuation and displacement of residents - there is quite a bit of research and literature on this, and it is a very relevant topic, especially in recent years following wars and natural disasters in which residents are forced to evacuate their communities.

The same applies to the entry of different populations into communities or neighborhoods. Intensified urbanization processes, migration processes, and the entry of different groups of residents into different neighborhoods may threaten the place known to long-time residents. In these contexts, the terms mentioned in the article have great importance. These phenomena are not mentioned at all and are worth mentioning.

Line 374 states that they relied only on sources found online. It would be useful to explain the rationale for this decision.

Finally, I suggest compiling a comparative table with the various terms. I suggest to take several components, such as those that appear in the article anyway - such as measurement method, etc., and compile a comparative table from these components regarding the three terms. This will make the claims more visual and it will be easy to see the similarities and differences between the different terms.

In my humble opinion, the article ends without a "point." What are the authors trying to say? What is the main message of the article? And why is this article important at all? These are questions I asked myself when I finished reading the article and could not find an answer to them.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based upon the title, I was extremely excited to read/review the paper. However, after reading it, I was thoroughly disappointed. The paper does not further the literature on the concepts of community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life. All of the information presented in the paper has been published elsewhere. There is nothing new here.